
The Avatar Effect - fiaz
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574651764117659286.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
======
lmkg
For reference: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nail_house>

Quick summary: Back when they took their communism more seriously, the PRC
abolished property rights, so it was common to get property for development by
simply eminent-domaining the residents off the land, usually with a "fair"
compensation. Property rights are sort of entering the scene now, and it's
still controversial whether someone is allowed to benefit from a rise in their
property value. This, obviously, makes for a certain amount of tension between
developers building a strip mall over an old neighborhood, and the one family
in a one-room shack in the middle of an ongoing construction site who refuses
to sell.

------
kqr2
There was a discussion here recently on the Chinese perspective of Avatar:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1039121>

------
chrischen
It also happened in "Up."

Houses in a small "village" I used to live in in china are being demolished...
probably for factories. They aren't even compensating us because we can't
"prove" ownership, since they didn't have "deeds" back when my parents lived
there.

I'm not really complaining, since I don't live there, and don't want to live
there (the houses were basically brick with cement), but it does have some
sentimental value.

------
po
If you think this doesn't happen in America, please read up on the Atlantic
Yards project in Brooklyn:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Yards#Controversy>
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Develop_Don%27t_Destroy_Brookly...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Develop_Don%27t_Destroy_Brooklyn)

The whole premise of Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn's argument is that the
Government is taking from one private owner and giving to another. The
argument is that eminent domain should only be used for the Government, not to
benefit a for-profit company.

It's a little too late now, since Ratner has already bulldozed the
neighborhood, effectively ruining it before the argument can be settled in
courts.

------
dandelany
It will be interesting to see if the "People's" government will try to limit
viewings of the film; if not countrywide, then at least in certain areas.
Wouldn't surprise me at all.

------
itistoday
_We suspect that neither Mr. Cameron nor 20th Century Fox (a sister company to
this newspaper) had any idea of the effect their movie would have on the other
side of the world._

While Cameron probably did not predict that exact scenario, I find it hard to
believe that he did not see the parallels between the film he created and
what's happening _right now_ all over the world as first-world countries
continue to exploit the third-world at the expense of those living in it.

In this situation it's only slightly different as the conflict is within the
country itself. It's not surprising the film resonates strongly with those
humans who find themselves in the same shoes as the Na'vi.

See: "The real Avatar story: indigenous people fight to save their forest
homes from corporate exploitation"

<http://news.mongabay.com/2009/1222-hance_avatar.html>

~~~
zandorg
I saw an advert on Lovefilm, basically _McDonald's_ waffling on about
promoting Avatar. McDonald's are the essence of evil capitalism, wrecking the
environment and people's health, yet Cameron let them promote his film.

~~~
jcl
And why not? If you made a propaganda piece to point out the flaws in a
certain sector of society, wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if you could get
that sector to promote and pay for it?

~~~
stavrianos
and if you were part of that sector, wouldn't it be deliciously ironic to
promote, pay for, and _profit from_ the piece?

~~~
trevelyan
No. There's no part of being a successful businessman which means you can't
care about the environment.

