To my understanding, the basic premise of the flick puts Earthlings on a distant moon inhabited by natives. A discrepancy occurs when the humans, in search of rare precious mineral, clash with the locals who, understandably, do not want them there. So then, a sympathetic 'hero',enlightened and reluctantly trusted by the natives, rebels against his former establishment and leads them to victory. I guess this is where the biases begin. Some people feel like this is yet another portrayal of 'the white guy rescuing/leading the helpless natives. Obviously, others retort that it's just a movie and people are reading too much into it.
Many age-old adages come to mind with all that has been said. One is that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. Another is that you can't please everyone. I lean toward thinking that a racial divide was not intentional when this movie was conceived. I think it was merely written from the experiences and familiarity, albeit fantasy, of the artist.
So here's my take: Is it realistic to hope that a white movie maker could do a flick not told through the eyes of a white hero? Maybe. But even then, that person would probably face scrutiny for not being accurate with a portrayal of a non-white lead character. I cite the ordeal that went down with Disney's "The Princess and the Frog". Some people felt racially slighted by the original name and occupation of lead character in that film. So much so that Disney made some serious changes.
One possible solution is for more 'different' people to take the same avenues and pay the same dues as the big film makers to express their creativity from their own experiences. Opportunities are more readily available these days for so many. Don't sit back and expect or hope that someone else 'gets it right'. Assume your own accountability and responsibility to better assure that you are properly represented and respected.
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}