Avatar

Books, Movies, Theatre, Lectures Movies, Shows, and Theatre
41

There is no freedom on Pandora, there is no need for it when the ideal is to conform to your social role in the tribe. There is no reason either, there is no progress when you already live in utopia.

I agree only for so far as I took it literally and accepted the science fiction premise. But allegorically it is all wrong. In the big picture, the movie inverts the usual (natural!) order of things by making the primitives virtuous and the technology loving humans evil. Humans that incompetent at managing large projects would have never gotten off the planet. And to compare with another film about going native, the na’vi people like the samurai in The Last Samurai are never depicted doing a bad thing. This degree of virtue is “unrealistic”, but Avatar is completely made up so that is a worthless charge to make. But the halo of virtue about the tribal culture sticks in the subconscious anyway, which is what I don’t like.

Utopia is for non-humans.

I see your point, Grames.

Almost all epic or epic-like films strain to make clear which side is evil and which is virtuous. And yes, as in any other film presenting stronger people looting or attacking weaker people, the stronger are pictured as evil and the weaker as virtuous.

In films like “Independence Day” extraterrestrials are all villains and humans are all heroes. But few think that, becasue the ETs are so superior, we should let them destroy our cities and loot our properties. The emphasis is in the violence excercised against us, not in the comparison of virtues and vices between the species, and how those virtues or vices have determined the difference in technological development.

While going back to a primitive condition is both absurd and immoral, as it opposes the nature of man, judging the moral status of a primitive tribe by what it is, according to the opportunities to evolve or learn it has had, should not lead us automatically to consider it less moral.

There should be at least something virtuous enough about our original tribal condition, that allowed us to become civilized. As others have stated in the thread about how A becomes B, it is in the nature of A to become B, under the proper conditions. So it was in the nature of the caveman to become a Mozart, an Einstein, an Ayn Rand. We should look our past tribal state not just with horror and despise, but also with admiration and respect. The seeds of both fascism and objectivism were already there.

There is one thing that I don’t agree with, Grames. It is about thinking that stupid or evil people would not have got off the planet in the first place.

Evil people, or stupid people DO sometimes get a lot of power, technology and capabilities. They can do it by copying, stealing, persuading, or leveraging on random events The Soviets did get the bomb, did put a man and a woman in the space, did built MIR as a spacial station. THey did crash Prague’s and Budapest’s liberation movements.

When we encounter a strong technologically advanced army, we have no basis to automatically believe that, since they have reached that level of development, they must be guided by free, rational individuals.

42

In films like “Independence Day” extraterrestrials are all villains and humans are all heroes. But few think that, becasue the ETs are so superior, we should let them destroy our cities and loot our properties. The emphasis is in the violence excercised against us, not in the comparison of virtues and vices between the species, and how those virtues or vices have determined the difference in technological development.

This is all wrong. The humans on Pandora were attacked first, and defended themselves. It’s why they have all those marines, and why they need all those guns: the natives are hostile, and the fauna wants to rip you to shreds. More importantly, their mining activities, up until the destruction of the Home Tree or whatever it was called, did not displace the Na’vi. They just destroyed some plants (and I don’t care if they are part of a global network of life, so what? I’ve got me 20 million dollars a kilo minerals to mine, a few plants can get killed. Any decent “network” has backups anyway).

Now, I will grant you that the destruction of the Home Tree or whatever by the people might have been a step too far (I am unsure of the provocation that came before), but given that the Na’vi don’t have property rights, it seems, and no formal government (a tribal leader certainly doesn’t count). So, they don’t own that tree. And they were given fair warning, and offered all the stuff in the world that humans could possibly provide. If I am willing to pay you a million dollars to leave that hut you’re in in the middle of the forest in some unclaimed territory, and tell you exactly when I am going to come in with a bulldozer, if you don’t leave then it is not my fault that harm may come to you when I come through. You were given fair warning.

And the attack on the Tree of Souls was perfectly justified. The Na’vi were, according to them, at war with the humans. The humans weren’t going to touch them any more (they’d gotten what they wanted), but the Na’vi were going to launch a full attack anyway. In a war for survival, I can do anything I need to in order to win. If the Tree of Souls had been destroyed, the humans would have been safe. So that attack was fine.

The only questionable part of the movie, on the part of the humans, was the attack on the Home Tree, and I think it is at least understandable and partially justified.

43

Now, I will grant you that the destruction of the Home Tree or whatever by the people might have been a step too far (I am unsure of the provocation that came before), but given that the Na’vi don’t have property rights, it seems, and no formal government (a tribal leader certainly doesn’t count). So, they don’t own that tree.

This argument works on nomads that claim all of the lands over which they travel, but not a city-state like the Hometree. Possession definitely counts in the common law, and even if no individual na’vi can be said to own the tree it is certainly true that no human had any claim at all.

And they were given fair warning, and offered all the stuff in the world that humans could possibly provide. If I am willing to pay you a million dollars to leave that hut you’re in in the middle of the forest in some unclaimed territory, and tell you exactly when I am going to come in with a bulldozer, if you don’t leave then it is not my fault that harm may come to you when I come through. You were given fair warning.

Trade needs to be voluntary. There would be no legal doctrine of eminent domain in a rational world, even a libertarian could understand that. Are you being intentionally argumentative for some reason, is this a rhetorical gambit?

One thing the movie gets right is that the aliens should be regarded a persons in the moral and legal sense. No being that speaks intelligently should be regarded as a “blue monkey”.

And the attack on the Tree of Souls was perfectly justified. The Na’vi were, according to them, at war with the humans. The humans weren’t going to touch them any more (they’d gotten what they wanted), but the Na’vi were going to launch a full attack anyway. In a war for survival, I can do anything I need to in order to win. If the Tree of Souls had been destroyed, the humans would have been safe. So that attack was fine.

The na’vi are perhaps wiser than some humans in that they are not pragmatists. The continued existence of the humans on Pandora under their fascist regime was unacceptable on principle. The humans predictably would continue to touch whatever the hell they wanted.

44

Tried to go see it a couple nights ago, but our great nation’s capitol apparently shuts down when we have more than a few inches of snow. What a bunch of sissies.

45

Tried to go see it a couple nights ago, but our great nation’s capitol apparently shuts down when we have more than a few inches of snow. What a bunch of sissies.

It reminds me of this scene:

Jack Ryan in DC to a guy from Maine: “Look out the window. It should remind you of home.”

Guy from Maine: “Huh. Back home they’d call it a flurry.”

Jack: “Here they call it the Ice Age.”

I’ll probably skip Avatar. Stunning visuals are all well and good, but they’re hollow if they don’t support a well-told story that is worth telling. I loved Star Wars when it first came out, but I was about ten at the time. Later I relaized the story was a harmless adventure story told, and shown, remarkably well. The prequels on the other hand are neither, even if they beat the original at visuals.

Reminds me of a Babylon 5 scene in “The Deconstruction of Fallings Stars”

Delenn: John Sheridan was a good and decent man (turns to leave)

Deconstruction Crew Gal: You came all the way here to say just that?

Delenn: (turns back) You came just as far to say less.

BTW: Capitol is a building where the legislature meets. Capital is the city where the nation’s or state’s central government is placed.

46

given that the Na’vi don’t have property rights, it seems, and no formal government (a tribal leader certainly doesn’t count). So, they don’t own that tree.

As Grames has accurately stated, this is wrong, nanite.

One thing is the existence of property rights, and another thing how these property rights are made known to others.

Our current ways to document property could be seen as very primitive by some extraterrestrial standards.

For example, ET can argue that a land you claim property for must be measured by the scale of nanometers in three dimensions (i.e. including height and depth). In other words, you have to ascertain which section of the planet’s cortex and nucleus and atmosphere you own. And since our current documents are far from being so accurate, they are regarded as invalid for ET standards. So they can come and feel free to rob your property.

Same with government. Obama’s government could be found so primitive for ET standards (e.g. elected by a voting system that is highly vulnerable, by people who did not prove they knew the candidates or understood how government works) that they could just say it is not “formal” and therefore, invalid.

47

I think it was hinted in the movie the the Ey’wa tree was a rational entity whose brain and nervous system consited of and located in the local plant life. Except for the scientists the humas were pretty much ignorant to this possibilty. What if this was true, that Ey’wa tree is a rational being. What if bulldozing part of the forrest was in essense destroying part of an Ey’wa’s tree nervous system/brain. How would the Ey’wa’s tree rights be handled, would it have rights?

48

Oh, I forgot something. The human-traitor main character says at one point “their world has no green, they killed their mother” i.e. nature/forests/animals/etc. This is apparently a bad thing. Even though humans now can travel between star systems and have super-advanced technology. So this movie’s message was: “Nature is awesome and sacred, man is evil, civilizations slaughter all the natives, corporations are evil, money is evil, let’s all go live in the forest, f*** technology.” And that is absolutely terrible.

Amazing how much technology gets used to spread the message that technology is bad :wink:

49

As for “how is this substance so valuable it can finance all this” etc. criticism: It is stated in the movie that the material, unobtainium (obviously a tongue-in-cheek name for it, even in the world of the movie), is worth 20 million dollars a kilogram. A couple thousand tons and it is equal to the entire gross domestic product of the Earth in 2009. So, it can definitely finance all these operations.

Doesn’t that make it even worse? How would that work? If you have a product that the entirety of your potential customers cannot even come close to being able to afford?

I saw the film in IMAX 3D and I thought it was a great moving going experience overall. I liked the film a lot because of all the little things that worked… But the overall plot was simply stupid. As soon as they set up the story, you know exactly how it will end. With no logic in the premise, the pre-determined show (of how business and military are innate evils) had no chance to stray from the obvious outcome.

(minor, slight, possible spoiler?)

…btw, the unobtanium isn’t even rare on that planet… there are whole mountains of it floating in the sky! There is absolutely no way they’d bomb the crap outta this one area, when they could have been mining the stuff for years in other areas

. But no matter how many gyrations you might go through trying to imagine something more valuable than any valuer could ever trade for, you’re still going to be left with a flawed premise.

I really enjoyed the film and will get the Blu-ray when it comes out. I just wish he’d have created a better overall conflict. The antagonistic force in the film was represented by just two people. A war-monger military commander, and a “greedy” corporate shill (a completely irrational one). A more believable way to show the same ends would have made for a truly great film. (i.e. When the bad guys are just bad guys with no philosophy, they just seem like movie characters instead of actual threats)

50

This argument works on nomads that claim all of the lands over which they travel, but not a city-state like the Hometree. Possession definitely counts in the common law, and even if no individual na’vi can be said to own the tree it is certainly true that no human had any claim at all. …Trade needs to be voluntary. There would be no legal doctrine of eminent domain in a rational world, even a libertarian could understand that. Are you being intentionally argumentative for some reason, is this a rhetorical gambit?

No, actually, it isn’t a rhetorical gambit. The statement you quoted was based on my analysis of their property rights to the Home Tree. In my analysis, they said it was somehow “their’s” and thus we could not take it. Well, if they don’t actually have property rights, then they don’t own it, and it is analagous to a guy living off in the middle of nowhere in a hut on property which is not his. In that situation, he has no property rights to the land, and so I can push him off if I wish (provided I gain legal right to it). I certainly can if I’ve offered him millions of dollars and anything else he can name in order to incentivize him to leave, and I’ve told him when I’m going to come in to destroy the hut. At that point, his fate is no longer my responsibility, I gave him every warning, and he had no right to the property in the first place.

So, no, that wasn’t intentionally argumentative, I was stating my actual position. As to your argument that they have rights to the tree, I’m not so sure. If no one can be said to own something, then no one owns it, period. So no one has any rights to it. So I can do anything I like with it. Either some entity owns the Tree, or I can do anything I like, it cannot be something in between. Now, since it is clear that no Na’vi individually owns the Tree, and there is no system of ownership over the tree that we’ve seen as a collective structure (shares and the like), then either the chieftain can be said to own the tree, or no one owns the tree at all. I question the authority of any chieftain, whatsoever. They likely do not obey objective laws, and they have arbitrary hereditary power exchange. Laws are not codified and written down in any form to be shown to people, etc. That is not a legitimate government, and any claims it makes only have as much weight as the so-called “government” has guns to back its claims up, because without rights and reason on their side, the only thing left is force.

And so, since no individual Na’vi owns the Tree, since the tribe collectively cannot own it (since it is not a legitimate government by any stretch of the imagination), and since the humans had a legitimate government and that government gave them mining rights to the whole of Pandora, I think there is a strong argument that the relocation of the Na’vi from the Tree was legitimate. Now, the method was probably more rough than necessary, but considering the fact that the Na’vi would likely have killed the humans if they had done anything less forceful, it is possibly justified, though I am not certain of that by any stretch.

One thing the movie gets right is that the aliens should be regarded a persons in the moral and legal sense. No being that speaks intelligently should be regarded as a “blue monkey”.

Agreed, though they can be regarded as “flea-bitten savages” as the leader of the human operation said, because they have no government, no industry, no legitimate law, etc.

The na’vi are perhaps wiser than some humans in that they are not pragmatists. The continued existence of the humans on Pandora under their fascist regime was unacceptable on principle. The humans predictably would continue to touch whatever the hell they wanted.

The humans were not under a fascist regime. It was a corporation. And the humans had no intention of instituting a fascist regime over the Na’vi, or any sort of regime over them. They simply wanted them to leave the Tree, to keep away from them, and not attack them. Sure, the Na’vi weren’t pragmatists, but even so, they were wrong. Adopting human civilization would be better for them then living in forests and trees. They could get all the benefits of their network of trees if they studied it and figured out how to reproduce it in a more condensed manner through technology.

This movie is an allegory for the case of the Native Americans. European civilization was assuredly better than their “civilization”, and life would have been better they had adopted European ways of life and left their superstitious stuff in the past. Same with the Na’vi. The fact that they refused caused them many problems and a lot of strife.

51

Initiation of force from one rational being against other rational being is wrong. It is inmmoral. It doesn’t matter if the agressor belongs to our family, our nation, our group of friends, of our species. It doesn’t matter if the victim is a collectivist, a Muslim, a hippie under the effects of LSD, a person with an IQ of 60, a bushman in the Kalahari, or an alies species.

In fact, some humans in the film realized that, and rebelled against the fascist commander, and even perished in defending liberty and justice.

I agree.

This was not anti-man movie or anti-technology.

I repeat: this is not an anti-man film. On the contrary, it exalts freedom, reason and self-esteem as the essence of mankind, as well as the essence of all ultimately rational beings, wherever they live in the universe.

Again, I agree.

52

As to your argument that they have rights to the tree, I’m not so sure.

Aliens were rational (the connection with their environment was NOT like the borg hive mind idea from Star Trek - they made their own decisions) and thus individual rights apply. Possession is grounds for property rights.

Initiation of force is wrong and thus actions taken by the aliens and some humans were moral.

I think that you have a very limited understanding of individual rights.

53

Criticizing bad business practices does not make one anti-business. Criticizing bad scientists or bad science does not make one anti-science. Criticizing wrong human actions does not make one anti-man.

54

I saw Avatar yesterday and I must say the story was really, really, bad. It was just cliché, unengaging and sometimes so corny that I almost couldn’t take it, but then… ohmyfriggingod the visuals are good! The trailer and screencaps just doesnt make it any justice whatsoever, atleast not when you see the stereoscopic version. This movie is all about the visuals, the script just got pulled out of someones ass as an excuse to make pretty graphics. And it was worth it, because the graphics truly are groudbreaking.

55

No, actually, it isn’t a rhetorical gambit. The statement you quoted was based on my analysis of their property rights to the Home Tree. In my analysis, they said it was somehow “their’s” and thus we could not take it. Well, if they don’t actually have property rights, then they don’t own it, and it is analagous to a guy living off in the middle of nowhere in a hut on property which is not his. In that situation, he has no property rights to the land, and so I can push him off if I wish (provided I gain legal right to it). I certainly can if I’ve offered him millions of dollars and anything else he can name in order to incentivize him to leave, and I’ve told him when I’m going to come in to destroy the hut. At that point, his fate is no longer my responsibility, I gave him every warning, and he had no right to the property in the first place.

So, no, that wasn’t intentionally argumentative, I was stating my actual position. As to your argument that they have rights to the tree, I’m not so sure. If no one can be said to own something, then no one owns it, period. So no one has any rights to it. So I can do anything I like with it. Either some entity owns the Tree, or I can do anything I like, it cannot be something in between. Now, since it is clear that no Na’vi individually owns the Tree, and there is no system of ownership over the tree that we’ve seen as a collective structure (shares and the like), then either the chieftain can be said to own the tree, or no one owns the tree at all. I question the authority of any chieftain, whatsoever. They likely do not obey objective laws, and they have arbitrary hereditary power exchange. Laws are not codified and written down in any form to be shown to people, etc. That is not a legitimate government, and any claims it makes only have as much weight as the so-called “government” has guns to back its claims up, because without rights and reason on their side, the only thing left is force.

And so, since no individual Na’vi owns the Tree, since the tribe collectively cannot own it (since it is not a legitimate government by any stretch of the imagination), and since the humans had a legitimate government and that government gave them mining rights to the whole of Pandora, I think there is a strong argument that the relocation of the Na’vi from the Tree was legitimate. Now, the method was probably more rough than necessary, but considering the fact that the Na’vi would likely have killed the humans if they had done anything less forceful, it is possibly justified, though I am not certain of that by any stretch.

You really are convinced that property rights are legal constructions, following from certain legal procedures and have nothing to do with facts like possession, homesteading, and production.

Part of the derivation of human rights and property rights was that man’s mind is his means of survival, and that the mind is an attribute of an individual. Does that apply to these hypothetical beings that plug into animals, each other, and the Soultree? That is an example of a collective mind. No human standards are automatically applicable to an alien species, they need a philosopher to sort that out. All of your assumptions about rights, law, and government are invalid. The whole pattern of your expression here is dogmatic, as if you never followed the derivations in the first place so now of course you cannot notice critical differences in the antecedents of those derivations.

The humans were not under a fascist regime. It was a corporation.

Corporations can use arms legitimately, but in the same way individuals do: self defense. The destruction of the Hometree was not self defense, it was theft as part of the business plan. Government and business partnerships like that are fascist.

This movie is an allegory for the case of the Native Americans. European civilization was assuredly better than their “civilization”, and life would have been better they had adopted European ways of life and left their superstitious stuff in the past. Same with the Na’vi. The fact that they refused caused them many problems and a lot of strife.

It is not the same, the native americans were human beings and these blue guys are not. The allegory is there but it ultimately fails because of the science fictional element. It is not the similarities that are important here but the differences.

The reason collectivist utopias fail is they contradict human nature. Remaking human nature is often part of the explicit goal of socialist reform programs (New Soviet Man, Nazi eugenics, etc.). Here, instead of mass murder we have non-humans made to order to fit a dramatic scenario, much less objectionable. Because they are non-human, the moral of the story can’t be taken from them as humans cannot live as they do.

56

The reason collectivist utopias fail is they contradict human nature. Remaking human nature is often part of the explicit goal of socialist reform programs (New Soviet Man, Nazi eugenics, etc.). Here, instead of mass murder we have non-humans made to order to fit a dramatic scenario, much less objectionable. Because they are non-human, the moral of the story can’t be taken from them as humans cannot live as they do.

Thats more or less all you can get from this movie if you truly seriously take the aliens as aliens, instead of Native American Expys. Humans need to live by technology and reason, and its not so obvious that the Na’Vi need to as well. This is why the main character clearly said that there is nothing we can trade with them, and nothing we have that they want. Trade is fundamentally based on having a common ground, where, despite the similarities of intelligence.

And since Trade becomes impossible, the next recourse is force, on both sides.

So the question of whether or not we should take the unobtaintium by force comes down to more or less an aesthetic one. Would we prefer to have the metal or the Na’Vi’s Culture or the ecosystem itself. The “Heroes” decided that the culture itself was more valuable, whereas Weyland-Yutani or whatever the “evil” corporation was decided they prefered the metal. At this point there is no “Agree to Disagree” and the subject comes down to force.

Admittedly, had the Na’Vi opened up to more than just one person about the true working of their culture, et cera, this becomes a more reasonable debate across the whole spectrum of those making decisions, instead simply one “hero” forced to act. One can suppose in the future they still have message boards :slight_smile: .

Of course it makes for a dramatic story, but the Na’Vi are risking annihilation by simply being insular. They are the ones that kicked the Humans out of their anthropological research, which would have revealed all of the “sacred” things in the forest given enough time. The Corp hack runnning the operation has no idea, more the moment of crisis the Na’Vi never said why they where resisting other than simple survival or superstition.

So maybe the Aesop of this story is that, if something is valuable to you, make sure you are able to express its value adequately or be prepared to lose it to those that don’t understand and have guns. And that is certainly a lesson that can be applied to Objectivism.

57

This is why the main character clearly said that there is nothing we can trade with them, and nothing we have that they want.

If you happen to discover gold under my house and come to me with some trade offer but I happen to refuse - force is the next recourse in your mind?

And the question of whether or not you have the right to do so comes down more or less to aesthetics?

Is that what you said?

Admittedly, had the Na’Vi opened up to more than just one person about the true working of their culture, et cera, this becomes a more reasonable debate across the whole spectrum of those making decisions, instead simply one “hero” forced to act.

Humans were studying them for some time, both biologically and culturally. I did not get the impression that this was an issue of lack of understanding. To the genocide-ready military leader this was irrelevant.

Recognition of rights has nothing to do with valuing another’s way of life. I don’t personally value Muslim values, way of life, and culture.

58

Thats more or less all you can get from this movie if you truly seriously take the aliens as aliens, instead of Native American Expys. Humans need to live by technology and reason, and its not so obvious that the Na’Vi need to as well. This is why the main character clearly said that there is nothing we can trade with them, and nothing we have that they want. Trade is fundamentally based on having a common ground, where, despite the similarities of intelligence.

And since Trade becomes impossible, the next recourse is force, on both sides.

So the question of whether or not we should take the unobtaintium by force comes down to more or less an aesthetic one. Would we prefer to have the metal or the Na’Vi’s Culture or the ecosystem itself. The “Heroes” decided that the culture itself was more valuable, whereas Weyland-Yutani or whatever the “evil” corporation was decided they prefered the metal. At this point there is no “Agree to Disagree” and the subject comes down to force.

Wait, what? If I understood this right, you seriously just said that when one cannot trade, it is permissible to use force to get what you want. I don’t know if it was your intention to say that, but you did.

Does that mean that, if I have no common grounds with someone who wishes to trade something for my computer, and that person has nothing which I would rather have, it is permissible for him to take it from me by force? That’s ridiculous.

Edit: I apologize, I just noticed that Sophia already pointed this out.

59

You really are convinced that property rights are legal constructions, following from certain legal procedures and have nothing to do with facts like possession, homesteading, and production.

Part of the derivation of human rights and property rights was that man’s mind is his means of survival, and that the mind is an attribute of an individual. Does that apply to these hypothetical beings that plug into animals, each other, and the Soultree? That is an example of a collective mind. No human standards are automatically applicable to an alien species, they need a philosopher to sort that out. All of your assumptions about rights, law, and government are invalid. The whole pattern of your expression here is dogmatic, as if you never followed the derivations in the first place so now of course you cannot notice critical differences in the antecedents of those derivations.

Without legal constructions of property rights, property right debates are going to be vague and almost impossible to settle satisfactorily. More importantly, as you pointed out, the Na’vi aren’t humans. They are fundamentally different than us. So property right ideas may not even be applicable to them. If all my assumptions our ideas about rights are totally worthless in this situation, then what are we arguing about? If we don’t have compatible rights-systems, interaction on any intellectual, rights-based level is going to be impossible. And then the only interaction possible is on the level of force. What ethical principles apply on trans-species interactions? I argue that if they are like humans (have to live by reason), then we treat them as humans.

But do the Na’vi have to live by reason? They seem to act more based on instinct and collective communication. So the idea that they must be able to act according to their individual rational decisions is in question. Since that is in doubt, so is the prohibition of the use of force. And property rights, since it is unclear that they need property in order to survive. So your argument about possession, homesteading, etc. is invalid as well, since they aren’t humans and may not need any conception of property to survive (and without that, they don’t need the Tree).

Corporations can use arms legitimately, but in the same way individuals do: self defense. The destruction of the Hometree was not self defense, it was theft as part of the business plan. Government and business partnerships like that are fascist.

Well, as I argue, if they didn’t have property rights to the tree, or if “rights” in any human sense are invalid with them, then it isn’t theft and thus is not fascist.

60

I saw Avatar yesterday and I must say the story was really, really, bad. It was just cliché, unengaging and sometimes so corny that I almost couldn’t take it, but then… ohmyfriggingod the visuals are good! The trailer and screencaps just doesnt make it any justice whatsoever, atleast not when you see the stereoscopic version. This movie is all about the visuals, the script just got pulled out of someones ass as an excuse to make pretty graphics. And it was worth it, because the graphics truly are groudbreaking.

Yes it was very “Dances With Wolves” but holy @#$% @#$ I’ve never seen better visual effects in my life…Jurassic Park can eat it. :thumbsup: