Improbable backstory - Terra (2009) Discussion

[–] sarthasam 15 years ago

Agreed! Its a peice of *beep* and the director should be ashamed of himself! Monsters vs. Aliens is better, why? Cause its pure fun.

Again the director sucks. And go ahead say Im full of *beep* I stand by my beilf that he sucks!

reply

[–] phantom_pixie 11 years ago

Agreed! Its a peice of *beep* and the director should be ashamed of himself! Monsters vs. Aliens is better, why? Cause its pure fun.

Again the director sucks. And go ahead say Im full of *beep* I stand by my beilf that he sucks!

So you are saying thet you didn't like the movie because it was to serious for you. Good post.

X ~We are the people our parents warned us about

reply

[–] kevinm1278 15 years ago

Did you miss the part about the humans being desperate? They only had a few months of oxygen to sustain them and the alternative was taking too long. In that situation, the commander made the best choice he could. He had no way of knowing if the Terrans would be willing to work with the humans to find a solution. They had no time. The humans that didn't want to fight didn't even bother to come up with the solution in the end---The Terrans did. I'm not saying that what the commander did was right, but it was necessary for the survival of the entire human race. So in this case the story was very probable if a situation such as this ever occurred in reality.

And it's good that you didn't hate it. In the end, it's still just a movie... :)

reply

[–] dxnguyen89 15 years ago

I did get that. If I remember correctly they even said that they had to dig near the Terran homes to achieve the most efficiency. But its just that the barrier they finally put up should have been something that have crossed their minds to make. I mean humans are the advanced species so it shouldnt be hard. Thats how we picture future colonizations of Mars for instance...with a transparent dome over the colony.

But my problem isn't really with the movie but with the mindset of people like the writer to make humans to be this "evil" species. I just feels like an extremist's view to depict humans this way. We are generally docile in my opinion.

reply

[–] jsluvsds-2 15 years ago

I totally agree with dxnguyen89, that's why I came to this board, to see if anyone else felt it was so IN YOUR FACE that human beings are just scum! Glad to see that I'm not the only surviving human who thinks we're pretty okay!

reply

[–] Caribbean_Smurf 15 years ago

But its just that the barrier they finally put up should have been something that have crossed their minds to make. I mean humans are the advanced species so it shouldnt be hard. Thats how we picture future colonizations of Mars for instance...with a transparent dome over the colony.

They didn't. The aliens had the technology, and they helped them to survive. Since the thought of working with the aliens didn't even cross the general's mind, it wasn't an option. Anyway why cut out a little part of the planet as a habitat, when we can take the entire world? Did you miss the part where Earth, Mars and Venus were destroyed in a massive war? The all sought control over one another. Humanity can never have enough room to live. We have turned this whole planet into our personal living space, cutting down forests, damming in the rivers and fishing the seas empty, and wiping out scores of animals and enemy races in the process.

But my problem isn't really with the movie but with the mindset of people like the writer to make humans to be this "evil" species. I just feels like an extremist's view to depict humans this way. We are generally docile in my opinion.

Humans generally docile? HAHAHAHAHA! That's a good one! Why don't you go ahead and open up a history book. What about the total annihilation of the Native Americans, does that ring a bell? Slavery? The Crusades? The conquests of Napoleon, both Caesars, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler?

I'm sorry, but your opinion is wrong. As we speak, we are in the process of completely destroying this planet. While bashing each other's heads in. You just close your eyes, and lie back in your sunny neighbourhood backyard, while other people die of hunger in that same city. While people blow each other up in Iraq and Afghanistan. While enourmous amounts of people are being oppressed in wonderful countries like China. While thousands of people die in natural disasters over and over again, and why? Because we choose to live EVERYWHERE. We are literally choking the life out of this planet, like a weed.

So wake up, and stop living in this dream that humans are such wonderful, emotional, reasonable beings. We're not reasonable. We aren't a perfect creation, made by some all-loving God. There is no God. There is only chaos. And when we finally destroy ourselves, there will be no judgement, no salvations, NOTHING. Just a black, burning, destroyed planet where there once lived a blood-thirsty, evil, greedy, hateful, self-destructive race of semi-intelligent monkeys who were too blind and stupid to preserve their own habitat.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dxnguyen89 15 years ago

Humans generally docile? HAHAHAHAHA! That's a good one! Why don't you go ahead and open up a history book. What about the total annihilation of the Native Americans, does that ring a bell? Slavery? The Crusades? The conquests of Napoleon, both Caesars, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler?

And I would like you to tell me how much of history those wars took up? Nowhere near enough to justify the "evilness" of mankind. Soldiers kill because they were ordered to by the higher-ups which it just happens to be the bad dictators. With the number of rulers, we're bound to get a few who just wants the power for selfish gains.
Besides, do these bombings occur soooo frequently that you can characterize mankind as overly aggressive or evil?

Apparently you seem like the type of person who hasn't thought about these things long enough. Ask yourself why we expand...because of overpopulation which we cannot control...unless you think you can convince over 6 billion people to stop having so many kids. It's either we compact in extremely dense districts which will virtually destroy the area or we can expand. Or the evil or human way would be to just kill them off right?

When did I ever say ANYTHING about humans being these perfect fairy tale creatures. I am atheist and I do not see humans as God's perfect creation.
Look up the definition of "docile" before you make idiotic assumptions on what I'm trying to say. Since apparently you didn't get it...humans are docile meaning we learn from our mistakes. Otherwise why wouldnt North Korea just fire their missiles already? Do you see slavery still? Is the Middle East being eradicated? Because we definitely have the firepower to do so.

dxnguyen89 did you not see the scene with the President telling the general that there must be other alternatives?

The council are a few out of the many. We don't know how the majority views the situation but considering that they followed their general means they probably support him. Saying "all" humans are evil is never what people meant. It's a generalization --> represents the majority. Think about when humans blew earth, mars, and venus up. They were the majority...the general and his subordinates are the majority. Obviously there will be others who do not share the same traits as the majority and in this case its the main character and the council. They portray humans to be "evil" otherwise the event should have never happened because the soldiers would agree with the president. Its the spread of this kind of thinking that I hate. It seems like another way the lower class can bash the upper class. I dont completely disagree with what these type of people try to say but I just hate the guilt that they throw at other people's face. It reminds me of the hippies who I thought were quite hypocritical.

reply

[–] DayDream_Angel 14 years ago

"And I would like you to tell me how much of history those wars took up?"

Most wars are over power and greed...
World War II (1939–1945),
Mongol Conquests (13th century)
Qing dynasty conquest of Ming dynasty (1616–1662)[74]
Taiping Rebellion (China, 1851–1864)
Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945)[77]
Warring States Era (China, 475 BC–221 BC)
Conquests of Timur the Lame (1360-1405)[78][79]
Conquests of Menelik II of Ethiopia (1882- 1898)[81][82]
Second Congo War (1998–2007)[83][84][85]
Napoleonic Wars (1804–1815)
Thirty Years' War (1618–1648)[86]
Korean War (1950–1953) (see Cold War)[87]
Vietnam War (entire war 1945–1975)
Vietnamese Civil War (1954–1960)
American phase (1960–1973)
Final phase (1973–1975)
Secret War (1962–1975)
Huguenot Wars [88]
Shaka's conquests (1816-1828)[89]
Mahmud of Ghazni's invasions of India (1000-1027)[90]
Afghan Civil War (1979-)
Soviet intervention (1979–1989)
Chinese Civil War (1928–1949) note that this figure excludes World War II casualties
300,000–3,100,000 before 1937
World War II
Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988)[93]
Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)[94]
Second Sudanese Civil War (1983–2005)
Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970)
Mozambique Civil War (1976–1993)
Seven Years' War (1756-1763)
Rwandan Civil War (1990-1994)
Congo Civil War (1991–1997)
First Jewish-Roman War (see List of Roman wars)
Bar Kokhba’s revolt (132–135CE)
Somali Civil War (1988- )
Spanish Civil War (1936–1939)
Angolan Civil War (1975–2002)
Ugandan Civil War (1979–1986)
War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714)
Continuation War (1941-1944)
Great Northern War (1700-1721)[98]
Wars of the Three Kingdoms (1639-1651) English campaign ~40,000, Scottish
Irish 200,000-620,000[99]
Russian-Circassian War (1763-1864) (see Caucasian War)
First Burundi Civil War (1972)
Darfur conflict (2003-)
Crimean War (1854–1856)
Philippine-American War (1898-1913)
Ethiopian Civil War (1974–1991)
Balkan Wars, includes both wars (1912-1913)
Liberian Civil War (1989 - )
War on Terror (9/11/2001-Present
Albigensian Crusade (1208-1259)
Warlord era in China (1917–1928)
Second Punic War (BC218-BC204)
Sierra Leone Civil War (1991–2000)
Algerian Civil War (1991- )[102][103]
Guatemalan Civil War (1960–1996)
La Violencia (1948-1958)
Greek War of Independence (1821-1829)
Lebanese Civil War (1975–1990)
North Yemen Civil War (1962–1970)
Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905)
Winter War (1939)
Eritrean-Ethiopian War (1998–2000)
Great Turkish War (1683-1699)
Third Servile War (BC73-BC71)
Revolt in the Vendée (1793-1796)
Invasion and Occupation of Iraq (2003-Present)
Arab-Israeli conflict (1929- )
Chaco War (1932–1935)
War of the two brothers (1531–1532)
Western New Guinea (1984 - ) (see Genocide in West Papua)
Indonesian invasion of East Timor (1975-1978)
Persian Gulf War (1991)
Algerian War of Independence (1954–1962)
Thousand Days War (1899–1901)
Peasants' War (1524-1525)[104]
Bosnian War (1992-1995)[105]
Third Punic War (BC149-BC146)
Conquests of Alexander the Great (BC336-BC323)
El Salvador Civil War (1980–1992)
Second Boer War (1898–1902)
Boudica's uprising (AD60-AD61)
Internal conflict in Peru (1980- )
Sri Lanka/Tamil conflict (1983-2009)
Nicaraguan Rebellion (1972-91)
War of the Pacific (1879-1885)
First Chechen War (1994–1996)
Tajikistan Civil War (1992–1997)
Wars of the Roses (1455-1485)
Greek Civil War (1945-1949)
Kashmiri insurgency (1989- )
Finnish Civil War (1918)
War of the Pacific (1879–1884)
Siege of Malta (1565)
Turkey/PKK conflict (1984- )
Sino-Vietnamese War (1979)
1982 Lebanon War (1982)
Second Chechen War (1999 - present)[106]
American Revolutionary War (1775-1783)
Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (December 1971)
Nagorno-Karabakh War (1988-1994)
U.S. Invasion of Afghanistan (2001–2002)
Mexican–American War (1846-1848)
Six-Day War (1967)
Croatian War of Independence (1991–1995)
Malayan Emergency (1948-1960)
Spanish-American War (1898)
Amadu's Jihad (1810-1818)
Halabja poison gas attack (1988)
Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 (August-September 1965)
American War of 1812 (1812-1815)
Kosovo War (1996–1999)
Turkish invasion of Cyprus (1974)
Sino-Indian War (1962)
Waziristan War (2004-2006)
Irish Civil War (1922-23)
Civil war in Côte d'Ivoire (2002-2007)
New Zealand Land Wars (1845-1872)
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 (October 1947-December 1948)
Football War (1969)
Irish War of Independence (1919-21)
violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (2000 -)
War of Lapland (1945)
Romanian Revolution (December 1989)
Lebanon War
Israel Attack against Gaza (December 2008 - January 2009)
Zapatista uprising in Chiapas (1994)
Falklands War (1982)
Slovenian Independence War (1991)

"Apparently you seem like the type of person who hasn't thought about these things long enough. Ask yourself why we expand...because of overpopulation which we cannot control...unless you think you can convince over 6 billion people to stop having so many kids. It's either we compact in extremely dense districts which will virtually destroy the area or we can expand. Or the evil or human way would be to just kill them off right?"

Are you seriously naive enough to think invasions (sorry expansions) are the result of the government trying to help its expanding population? How many coutries that took over another's resources and still had poor/hungry people living in spaces the size of a closet? Hate to break it to you but the dictators and the elites would rather build a retreat on the newly acquired land than give it to the poor, land equals money.

A member of IMDb since 1999

reply

[–] dxnguyen89 14 years ago

OK...now calculate how many years all those wars took up not including those that overlap. Now how much if human history did that take up. Must be over 50% right?....
PS: the first civilization was 7000 years ago
first settlement is way older than that
first human was over 4 million years ago

So going off that, did war dominate the history of mankind? That's my point. Its not the number of wars because if you're doing that you got to consider the number of countries and civilizations around that didnt have a war.

How many of this "retreat" do you see in this world. They are all inhabited. What did you think the resources are for...the enjoyment of the dictators( which there seem to be a lot of considering the way you word it). The resources are for the people. Just to let you know land is a resource. Doesnt matter if you have a dictator...he doesnt need an entire continent full of corn for instance just for himself. Pointless

Besides...living conditions were never the point of my argument its the space. Poor countries dont invade and start wars. Those that can afford to maintain a war can start it and if they have the money and resources then their people must be living in adequate spacing.

Shut up with the "naive" crap. Hate people like you who use that word to make themselves appear really intelligent

reply

[–] DayDream_Angel 14 years ago

How about unrecorded conflicts?
The first humans 4 million years ago ? Guess what? there were probably tribal wars going on ALL THE TIME, but culture has't evolved enough - the pro-Italian languages weren't invented till like 4000 yeas ago, Greek 7000 or something, so anything before that was probably not recorded or recorded in languages that are lost to us now...so you can't know that war did not dominate. And when does every country in the world have to be in a war to demonstrate there is evilness?
Land are resources? No *beep* Yes they are quite valuable at that, and when man have resources others want war starts, and a lot of dictators are after it - many gov then lease the land to foreign countries to grow crops for huge profits and not give them to the local people. I do believe if a dictator have the ability to make an entire continent of corn for himself, he would especially if he could profit from it! Do you not understand Greed? (Remember England went around the world colonizing coutries for her majesty?) but you can only push people so far before major rebellions/choas start - but be sure a dictator will take as much as his powers allows him to from the commom folks and pretend he is doing it for the people through propaganda.
Poor countries don't start wars? Tell that to the African wars - If a country is poor, in economic decline, and is dependent upon natural resource exports, then it faces a substantial risk that sooner or later it will experience a civil war. Typically, such a country runs a risk of around one-in-seven every five years - which explains why in Africa the long term trend for wars has been upwards!
Shut up about the "naive" crap? I'll do that when you stop being so damn naive and stupid.

A member of IMDb since 1999

reply

[–] dxnguyen89 14 years ago

So what you're basically saying is that since records werent kept...its most likely that they were in war, regardless of the fact that "tribes" are small communities therefore dont occupy that much space. They dont live in close proximity enough to constantly be in war with another tribe. Yeah they do go around and scout but if a colony is living far from your area and not affecting you in any way...why would you fight them.

Do you not understand how many dictators there has been in history compared to other types of rulers? Yes, England went around colonizing the world but did they slaughter them? The whole point of the argument was to point out that humans normally arent normally viscous beings.

So if the dictator took over a land to produce goods...where do the goods go to?...the people right? If the population is small, demand for goods is low therefore no profit for the dictator. Then why would he need to take over land? The resources goes to the people one way or another (exporting still results in the goods going to the people). His intentions are not my point.

It doesnt matter if a country is in war. You think all soldiers know exactly what they are fighting for? Even in the ancient times, they fight because they are told to...no questions asked. So how can you reflect the motives and greed of dictators, kings, and emperors upon trillions of soldiers? Hypothetically, if president Bush started the Iraq war solely for the purpose of resources...does it mean the soldiers are after the same thing?

stupid as hell arent you...never pay attention to what im saying. always going off to a different subject and not linking it back to the main argument.
Humans would not blow each other up completely like in the movie.
Why do you think no nukes have been launched yet except for World War II. Nukes are used as intimidation these days. We learn from World War II which is why no nukes were launched in the Cold War.

reply

[–] DayDream_Angel 14 years ago

So what you're basically saying is that since records werent kept...its most likely that they were in war, regardless of the fact that "tribes" are small communities therefore dont occupy that much space. They dont live in close proximity enough to constantly be in war with another tribe. Yeah they do go around and scout but if a colony is living far from your area and not affecting you in any way...why would you fight them.

- cause I am not only talking about tribes living far apart? there are other things to fight about besides land if one tribe is desperate and have to relocate.

Do you not understand how many dictators there has been in history compared to other types of rulers? Yes, England went around colonizing the world but did they slaughter them? The whole point of the argument was to point out that humans normally arent normally viscous beings.

-I am pretty sure they did slaughter alot of people. You think people willingly hand over their land/power?

So if the dictator took over a land to produce goods...where do the goods go to?...the people right? If the population is small, demand for goods is low therefore no profit for the dictator. Then why would he need to take over land? The resources goes to the people one way or another (exporting still results in the goods going to the people). His intentions are not my point.

- The goods go to the people if they pay for them, otherwise export to other countries for profit. Do you not understand export/trade?

It doesnt matter if a country is in war. You think all soldiers know exactly what they are fighting for? Even in the ancient times, they fight because they are told to...no questions asked. So how can you reflect the motives and greed of dictators, kings, and emperors upon trillions of soldiers? Hypothetically, if president Bush started the Iraq war solely for the purpose of resources...does it mean the soldiers are after the same thing?

- Soldiers are mindly sheep, and easily manipulated and it shows that anyone is capable of evil even if they would not be under normal circumstances. Soldiers just justify the evil they are doing by telling themselves that they are following command (doe it make it any less evil? I would think knowing you are doing evil and know it's wrong but does it anyways is more evil) and there are those that abuses their positions.

stupid as hell arent you...never pay attention to what im saying. always going off to a different subject and not linking it back to the main argument.
Humans would not blow each other up completely like in the movie.
Why do you think no nukes have been launched yet except for World War II. Nukes are used as intimidation these days. We learn from World War II which is why no nukes were launched in the Cold War.

- You should really go back to school cause your post once again shows what an ignorant moron you are. The reason you think my post being off the mark is because you can't grasp what I was talking about - not my problem. You can call me stupid all you want but we know the truth, don't we? Oh wait, maybe I'm overestimating your cognitive faculties:)

P.s I am not going to be replying to your next post, don't have the time for rubbish. Cheerios:)

A member of IMDb since 1999

reply

[–] dxnguyen89 14 years ago

wow...a bunch of thoughtless comments coming from you.
Apparently you did not read my point about exporting...links back to how much of an idiot you are.

Soldiers are somewhat of a "mindless sheep" but only somewhat. Are you saying ALL the American soldiers today, for instance, are evil? Otherwise you should be the enemy they should be going after. Only thing separating you from a terrorist is that they cause physical destruction. You spreading your views that mankind is evil. dumb. You are not the docile person I was referring to.

Of course there soldiers who kill because they want to. There are evil people in the world. There's no point even arguing that.

Your *** needs to reeducated (or educated...whichever applies to you). You have not once mention anything about humans being docile. Not once. All you do is bring up new topics to argue about.

reply

[–] iemand-anders1 14 years ago

I've been reading this very exiting debate, i must say I disagree with many things the OP dxnguyen89 said

-human kind has been fighting each other since the day of its existance.no matter on which continent ,race,society or civilisation, no matter how far you go back in time...on any scale!;human violence and fighting each other does not only occur on the level of war!

why we expand...because of overpopulation which we cannot control.

which is of course absolutely not the case! most wars, violence are about: power, domination, expanding power, territory,riches,resources,preservation, protection,even simply misunderstandings are motives.

We learn from World War II which is why no nukes were launched in the Cold War..

well my friend i can recommend you go to the library and study the cuba crisis. then you'll realise how much humankind have learned affter the second WW as the 2 superpowers were simply inches away to complete obliviation.
the reason this did not happen is rather because of luck then of smart reasoning

England went around colonizing the world but did they slaughter them

a bit naive to think the brittish empire accomplished its full greatness without brutality or massacre, in fact they even invented concentration camps long before the nazi's did.
they also conquered nations, slaugthered populations only to create a buffer territory or it was a 'strategicly interesting' area where their fleet often passed.

-looking back into history, every single time a higher advanced civilisation encounters an much less developed one, almost always the lesser one existence stopped in time.

Columbus discovering America is a textbook example of this.
the main reason for his expedition was to return with riches.they encounter natives who thought they were gods, willing to give and supply them with everything. even convert to their religion.yet Columbus choose to use force in sted of peace ,preferred the sword above diplomacy to reach exactly the same

coming back to the movie( which is the reason this debate originated)i do believe if humans are so desperate to find some living space, if they encounter a specie which they think is much much much weaker. maybe at early stage diplomacy will be used. but it will probably only a matter of time they pick up the sword once more,...

why coexist?... when you can dominate? rule nr 1 when it comes to expansion

i don't say mankind is evil. but if you look at nature and all its aspects, lots of violence is happening all the time. human race is unfortunately no exeption to that.scary if you realise mankind have developed self-consciousness

reply

[–] dxnguyen89 14 years ago

I guess i should have clarified. Yea i agree that violence plays a major part but it basically falls back into expanding for resources to accommodate population. If there is no population growth and resource consumed per-capita doesnt change, i bet most of the wars that went on would have never occurred. It has a domino effect, if there is no need to obtain more resources, these dictators would probably never have been placed in power and hence the wars. However, there are still many conflicts that result from pure aggression, greed, or misunderstandings which i do not deny but i believe that resources and population are the underlying reasons for most wars (cant really be proven right or wrong no matter how educated someone is).

the cuban missile crisis only occurred 20 years after WWII. There will definitely be someone who wanted that power. Castro and the Soviet Union cant really represent mankind in terms of intentions. They just happen to be the ones who wanted power.Cant really expect everyone to learn.

I kinda agree with what you said about the movie. I wouldnt have a problem with it if it took that course but it didnt. Instead their first actions were to attack. Theyre obviously looked like the primitive species which they found out during the scout. It would make sense if they fought later once they began feeling more intimidated and threatened.

The reason for coexisting is because the humans didnt know anything about the planet they were on. It would be better to befriend them but if they show resistance then MAYBE use force.

reply

[–] phantom_pixie 11 years ago

Dear Caribbian smurf, If there was ever a fitting time for a "Like" button it would be for your post.

Thank you for being the one human not with you head in the sand, or up your ass as some posters here.

X ~We are the people our parents warned us about

reply

[–] user-3171 15 years ago

Hay This movie rocks....

i felt that they tried peacefully before in some other planet and those aliens attacked them (that way the general talked about loosing people in Terra). any way council not decided to fight. general did.

this is the only movie that when i watching,i forget that I'm watching a animation movie. really great movie.

This is a serious movie not a funny cartoon...

reply

[–] AlexTheGreyWolf 15 years ago

dxnguyen89 did you not see the scene with the President telling the general that there must be other alternatives?

And Stewart decides to help the aliens, which shows that the writer does not believe that all humans are evil.

reply

[–] ponton-rj 15 years ago

AlexTheGreyWolf is right. Look at the story, it's really about one megalomaniacl general trying the agressive attack. All the other leaders were against it, and the general staged a coup, and imprisoned the president. The moral isn't that humans are evil. In fact its quite redeeming on humaity overall. With the construction of the statue of Jim at the end, it tells you that the heroes are usually not who you would usually expect. Is it preachy? Yes. Does it preach a good sermon? yes. I thought it was a fantastic film.

reply

[–] valar_morghulis 14 years ago

Its not humans are "evil" and the Terrans are "good." That is too black and white. This movie is more of a gray and more complex then that. While the general was clearly a bad guy it wasn't that he was evil, it was that he was desperate to save the human species. To him his actions were entirely justified. He was also motivated by self-glory, like when he said future generations would judge him because he preserved the species. And even if he is evil, the movie is talking about a dualistic nature of humanity. Jim can be seen as your "good" hero who has redeeming qualities but also has his own flaws. The entire species at the end clearly accepted co-existence and peace instead of genocide.

The terrans may seem like a good species, but they obviously had a violent past. There was a quick shot of painting of some Terran in a military uniform. To me he looked like a fascist leader. Apperently their past was so bad the elders thought it necessary to forget it.

And as far as the history debate. Human nature is also extremely dualistic in history i.e. Adolf Hitler verses say Martin Luther King. Someone mentioned Augustus Caesar, who yes was immoral by modern standards, but his actions led to the flourishing of Roman civilization and allowed countless millions to live in peace and prosperity for two centuries.

Humans are capable of doing both extreme evils, such as genocide even against their fellow man, but at the same time there is a good nature to humans. I think this is the overall message of the movie. It is these qualities that even define us as human..

reply

[–] dont_b_so_BBC 14 years ago

Its not humans are "evil" and the Terrans are "good." That is too black and white. This movie is more of a gray and more complex then that. While the general was clearly a bad guy it wasn't that he was evil, it was that he was desperate to save the human species. To him his actions were entirely justified. He was also motivated by self-glory, like when he said future generations would judge him because he preserved the species. And even if he is evil, the movie is talking about a dualistic nature of humanity. Jim can be seen as your "good" hero who has redeeming qualities but also has his own flaws. The entire species at the end clearly accepted co-existence and peace instead of genocide.

And the General was certainly not alone in thinking of the Terrans as some kind of primitive life-forms, especially since they deliberately hid/ swore-off their technology-- in fact, Stanton was the only human who made contact and he was shocked to discover their mechanical skills. Not to mention that there's no lack of "sheep" people amongst the Terrans ("come take me!") and the Humans (e.g. Stanton's brother).

In fact, I think it's not even "evil" but "Pandorum" (2009)-- long-term space travel (several generations!) and growing up in military/ space (from age 8!) can start screwing with your mind/ personality.

Why do people who don't care keep telling other people not to care?

reply

[–] dagaul101 12 years ago

Ofcourse in humanity's mindset we re not evil but simply trying to survive, as we run out of resources and space for our growing population visiting a distant planet (Mars?) for a new home may not be that far away, ofcourse the Spaniards no doubt didn't think they were evil for wiping out the Aztecs, neither did countless other civilizations felt in exterminating others in the name of religion, bounty, or landSource:Movie Reviews - Battle For Terrahttp://moviereviews.noskram.com/2009/10/movie-reviews-for-battle-for-t erra

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] stonewaspknight 12 years ago

to say that is improbable of humanity is like saying it is improbable that humans would come to a new land and wipe out all of the native people in a westward expansion.

OH WAIT. That did happen........ Like how the native Americans were all but virtually wiped out..... among the thousands of other times this has happened throughout human history all over the world.

This movie is probably the most accurate look at humanity and how humanity can be so immoral at times.

The most sad thing is seeing some people post that Jim was a traitor.... and stuff like that. NO! Jim was not a traitor. Anyone willing to go through with that general's sadistic and sick plan is a traitor to morality.

JIM WAS A HERO!

reply

[–] ankharra 12 years ago

Um, that's exactly what happened to the Central American Indians. They were enslaved and mostly wiped out. So it does happen.

===

Love isn't brains, children, it's blood...blood screaming inside you to work its will.

reply

[–] phantom_pixie 11 years ago

"thinking species"? What are you on?
We kill eachother daily for random things as oil and money, what makes you think we as a thinking species would be docile about our own extiction?

I loved the movie for portaying what humans really are capable of, bad just as much as good. It's an awesome film and I'm not surpriced that Lionsgate was the only company willing to touch it.

X ~We are the people our parents warned us about

reply

[–] omega2064 11 years ago

Because history has shown that humans may be a thinking species. But we are also ruthless towards anything we deem "lesser" creatures. Colonization of foreign lands, the Americas, Africa, Australia being shining examples of of how low we can be. Then during WWII we got a glimpse again of how an advanced culture can treat anyone they deem lesser. Most people think of Germany. But Japan committed one atrocity after another against China and other countries.

Also keep in mind that the humans in the movie are descendants of the ones that destroyed civilization on not one, but three worlds and for generations was maintaining a military force. This says nothing positive about them right out the gate.

And as others pointed out, they were down to the last reserves and getting desperate. Desperation can make people do things that they wouldnt otherwise.

I agree with one of the other posters though that the aliens were a bit too... cute. But the impression was that they were once not so cute or friendly.

Interesting movie.

reply