Jump to content

Talk:Avatar (2009 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 85.178.107.97 (talk) at 16:02, 20 January 2010 (→Talk Has Turned Into Fanzine). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Possible sources must be included

Given the obvious similarities, it is inconceivable that the Wikipedia article does not mention the above-cited SciFi novels that might have been sources of inspiration for the 'Avatar' plot, e.g. Call me Joe, The Word for World is Forest, ore Disquiet. More subtle sources include movies like Dances with Wolves, The Last Samurai or even Solaris. Finally, we should notice the similarities between Avatar's Pandora and Blue Moon from National Geographic's special Extraterrestrial (most notably, an Earth-sized moon orbiting a gas giant, lower gravity and a toxic atmosphere that is denser than on Earth, giant trees, etc.). 200.168.20.215 (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quote what Bonvineboy2008 said right above "We only can provide information that is backed up by sources. If you have one, put the url here and someone will add it, or feel free to do it yourself." —Mike Allen 12:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least two possible "sources" as defined above: the aforementioned novels themselves (whose plot significantly overlap with Avatar's) and, in some cases, the authors of the alleged plagiarized novels themselves. The only "source" who refuses to acknowledge the inspiration behind his script is James Cameron himself.
Anyway, this website [1] for example describes several possible references in classic Sci-Fi that may have been merged in the Avatar screenplay. 200.168.20.215 (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Until there is reliable sourcing establishing that the movie -is- based on those sources, you're talking about theories, not facts, and consequently material that is inappropriate for inclusion, as MikeAllen said above. Doniago (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The novels themselves are primary sources so are only eligible for plot details etc, not the interpretation of those plot elements. To say that certain works of fiction have influenced or drawn influences from others is an interpretation of that text and requires a reliable third party source. If the New York Times observes that Avatar has copied plot elements from other stories, that can be mentioned in the article. If some bloke on Wikipedia thinks the film has similarities with other works then that can't be included in the article. As for the "Dark Roasted Blended" site I don't know to what extent that is a reliable source. If it employs professional writers it would probably qualify, if it is just an amateur site run by one man his dog then it is no different to a blog which are not reliable sources. I suggest you enquire at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Betty Logan (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, those works of fiction in the above-mentioned website, that have repeated sci-fi themes of humans colonizing other worlds etc., somewhat vindicates the filmmaker since they seem to indicate recurring ideas and themes in the sci-fi genre, and thus it isn't worth noting every source that they are in. It may be like noting for a western that includes a scene of the fictional style of gunfight known as the quick draw, every previous work of fiction that includes a quick draw gunfight. For Wikipedia, we should report notable connections and this has been done in the sections Critical reception and Themes and inspirations. Since connections have already been mentioned in the article, it's not clear to me what the purpose of this discussion is. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 1982 episode of Doctor Who - Kinda (Doctor Who) has a LOT of similarities to Avatar. That episode even links to The Word for World is Forest as being very similar. What I find interesting is plot details that Avatar and Kinda share which the book doesn't appear to contain - the human controlled mechs for one. Zenex13 (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did that observation appear in any reliable sources? If not, the best you can get is congratulations for your original research, as some compensation for it not being acceptable for the article, according to WP:NOR. Cheers, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://io9.com/5390226/did-james-cameron-rip-off-poul-andersons-novella The similarities between Call Me Joe and Avatar are clear: a crippled man mentally linked to an avatar goes native. Nitpyck (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities to other works

This idle speculation isn't conductive to editing the article in line with our requirements for reliable secondary sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Relationship to Last Airbender?

When I say the first preview I immediately assumed that this film would have something to do with The Last Airbender because of the font alone. Is this similarity in font/typography a coincidence just because there are only so many ways to present the word "Avatar" in a visually pleasing manner? Does anyone know anything about that aspect in-particular, and in addition, are there other similarities to the Nickelodeon-series worth mentioning? (Other than saving the world, because name a fantasy-story that doesn't atleast touch on the theme.) Koyae (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I myself have wondered the same thing about this movie. Over the past couple of days, I have found a distinct relation from this movie to the show "Avatar: The Last Airbender". The most obvious connection is the title. In fact, I read that M. Night Shyamalan's (spelling?) movie adaption of "Avatar: The Last Airbender" entered lawsuits against Cameron's Avatar, and eventually was forced to have its name changed to just "The Last Airbender". Furthermore, I found an astonishing resemblance between the themes and plots of Cameron's Avatar and one particular episode of "Avatar: The Last Airbender" entitled "The Swamp". In this episode, the main characters venture into a mysterious swamp that has a rain-forest-like nature to it. This swamp is full of taller-than-life trees and many vines and vegetation--similar to Cameron's Pandora. Also, at the middle of the swamp, there is a huge massive tree, larger than all others, towering over the rest of the forest. This tree serves as the center for the forest, spreading its roots for miles around. This is just like the Hometree in Cameron's Avatar. But, the absolute most astonishing resemblance is that fact that in this episode of the show, this forest is 'alive' in a manner of speaking. A character in the episode, an inhabitant of the forest, explains that everything in the swamp is somehow 'connected' to each other, and that the large tree at the center is the heart of the forest, connecting everything together. This tree is also strikingly similar to the Tree of Souls in Cameron's Avatar, that is, because it is a hub of all of the communication in the forest. This 'connection' between all living things in this forest is exactly the same as the so-called 'global organism' in Cameron's Avatar. This inhabitant of the swamp also explains to the main characters that the swamp makes death and time only an illusion, and that it can show them their dead ancestors. This is like how the Na'vi believe that dying is really just going back to Eywa, or the network of all organisms on Pandora. The talking-to-ancestors thing is also present in Cameron's Avatar as it is in this TV episode. The inhabitant of the swamp (called Huu)also defends the forest-swamp from foreign invaders who may destroy the land, just like the Na'vi do in Cameron's Avatar. Although the plots are different in these two stories, there are HUGE similarities between the episode "The Swamp" in the show "Avatar: The Last Airbender" and James Cameron's "Avatar". Are these ideas stolen? I'd rather doubt it because Cameron wrote his script for the movie in 1994, and this TV episode didn't air until about 2006 (plus or minus 1 year). It is impossible for the writers of these two works to have met (unless they did), so I must assume that they were independently created.  :) Infoadder2010 (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's this about Pocahontas?

In the article it currently reads:

I Googled around to try to find an interview where he mentions Pocahontas, and I don't see it. Found an amusing Youtube video comparing Avatar and Disney's Pocahontas, but that's it. [2] People compare it with other movies, which makes no sense whatsoever, since it isn't out yet. Many stories have someone going native, falling in love with a girl, and turning against his own side. Dream Focus 04:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has been removed, clearly just speculation. Gamaur (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing "pocahontas" about this one. It's just a high tech remake of the old 50's tv series named "Cochise". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleriver1 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? It's Pocahontas in space, with giant robots and explosions.
Maybe, but without reliable sources it's just speculation and inappropriate for inclusion in the article. Doniago (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, no source equals speculation. One could say the mating scene closely resembles scenes from the animated film Fern Tree Gully, during the song A Dream Worth Keeping. You'll find it shockingly similar. But this is just speculation. James Cameron will need to say this himself for it qualify as a source. --Messenger777 (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Strugatsky Brothers' original 1960-s novel

Pandora, the lush jungle planet with incredible life-forms and non-technological native population, is featuring prominently in several of the Strugatsky brothers works, with one of them, the late 1960-s "Snail on the Slope", specifically featuring a downed human helicopter pilot whose severed head was fastened on a native's body, who becomes integrated into their society - totally prototypical of the film's story. WillNess (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Strugatsky says about this film: "Но не судиться же с ними!?" ("I wouldn't sue them, would I now?" (i. e. americans)). Look here: http://www.rusf.ru/abs/int0135.htm#17 --Luch4 (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And of course he has no claim as the USSR wan't a party to international copyright protection treaty, so everything from the Soviet era is free for taking. But of course a mention would be nice, and only proper. They could at least put a little "inspired by" in there. WillNess (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in one of my edit summaries, one of the reasons this stuff about the Strugatsky brothers keeps getting removed is likely due to the fact that James Cameron does not say he drew on this work or even knows of it. Sourcing that this story exists is not the problem; it is clear that it exists, from the Wikilinks or Googling it. Associating it with Cameron as if he stated he drew on this work is the problem. Flyer22 (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about whether the fact of borrowing ideas. In the end, it may be just a coincidence - title "Pandora" is suited to a planet covered with jungle very well, and could have invented a completely irrespective of Strugatsky. The point is that such a coincidence is, and some sources note it. In addition, there is not only the same name, there are a number of items that make the situation even more interesting.
(Суть не в том, был ли факт заимствования идей. В конце концов, это может быть просто совпадением - название "Пандора" весьма неплохо подходит к планете, покрытой джунглями, и могло быть придумано совершенно безотносительно к Стругацким. Суть в том, что такое совпадение есть, и некоторые источники это отмечают. К тому же совпадают там не только названия, есть ещё ряд пунктов, что делает ситуацию еще интереснее.) --Luch4 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This paragraph is still included in the themes section, and has now been sourced to here, a russian-language blog. I don't believe this constitutes a reliable source; in fact, the only material that I would judge as appropriate to include is the offhand comment made by Strugatsky acknowledging the film's similarities to his works, mentioned above by Luch4. And even that would be a stretch. Is there any precedent here on Wiki for a separate section discussing similar works? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We had a Similarities to other works section in this article, but it was merged into the Reception section. Yes, sections about similarities are in some film articles (or at least were in other cases). If reliable sources directly note the similarities between Avatar and some of the Strugatsky brothers' works, it is better presented in the Critical reception section (where other works are noted to be similar to Avatar). Or at least state something in the Themes and inspirations section from one of these people noting the Strugatsky brothers' similarities, so that it is clear that Cameron has not stated that he drew on these works.
Leaving it as it is now, some editors might still proceed to remove it every time it is added back. Flyer22 (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In RuNet (Russian-speaking parts of the Internet), the question of the number of matches with creativity of Strugatsky brothers takes it for granted, and not just bloggers (incidentally, a little clarification: in the Russian language the word "blogpost" denoted by a newspaper column the part of journalists, not blog in the true sense of the word). Here, for example, a few Russian-language papers: [3], [4] And, I repeat, we are talking about coincidences, but not the charges for borrowing. Perhaps this very fact (observation of Russian visitors and Strugatsky's reaction) will be useful for the "Trivia" section or something like that.
В Рунете вопрос о ряде совпадений с творчеством Стругацких принимается как данность, и не только блоггерами (кстати, маленькое уточнение: в русском языке словом "блогпост" принято обозначать авторскую колонку стороннего журналиста, а не блог в прямом смысле слова). Вот, для примера, еще несколько русскоязычных статей. Причем, повторю, речь идет именно о совпадениях, а не об обвинениях в заимствовании. Возможно, сам этот факт (наблюдение русских зрителей и реакция Стругацкого) пригодится для раздела Trivia или что-нибудь в этом роде. --Luch4 (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even with "talking about coincidences, but not the charges for borrowing," it looks as though it is "charges of borrowing" by having this in the Themes and inspirations section. Cameron does not cite this work. Thus, I am not seeing how it belongs there any more than the works in the Critical reception section that are noted as being similar do. It should be removed from the Themes and inspirations section and instead put into the Critical reception section, but significantly cut down and with a quote by one of the creators or some other notable person comparing the stories, or put into a Similarities to other works section. Flyer22 (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The content is unreliably sourced and does not belong. There do not seem to be any reliable (authoritative) sources about this matter. The comparison should be excluded from the article. Erik (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Erik. Without an actual reliable source confirming this, it should be excluded. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree too. No source from the actual people involved in making the film it can't be added to the article. Peppagetlk 20:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not for them to admit, it's for us to see. If a shoplifter has 20 items in his purse exactly like the ones a shop carries, he has noting to admit. It's in plain sight for all to see. I think new section is to be added to the article, under "Allegations of plagiarism". As such, it would need no confirmation from the film makers, only from the allegation makers. And for this we do have a direct confirmation from the author himself, at the link given above - http://www.rusf.ru/abs/int0135.htm#17 . WillNess (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be for them to admit, but it's not for us to see either; when a reliable scholarly or critical source identifies this as plagiarism, it can be put in. It's still less than a week after the film's release; if there are serious plagiarism issues, they will come to light in time, rest assured. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Official statement by Boris Strugatsky:

Recently, the Internet was reported that I, Boris Strugatsky, accusing the film's "Avatar" in a conscious plagiarism - namely, the use of materials compositions Strugatsky brothers on the planet Pandora, and a variety of adventures there.
I hereby have quite clearly state the following:
1. Never and nowhere has the film's "Avatar" I did not accuse of plagiarism and accused did not intend to continue.
2. Film "Avatar" I have not seen anything about him I do not know, except that the action is happening "monsters on the planet Pandora".
3. All - supposedly my, - sentiments about this film, given in I declined as well, are someone's reckless fabrication (whose purpose I do not understand).
Long live the Internet, a storehouse of reliable information!

В последнее время в И-нете появились сообщения о том, что я, Б.Стругацкий, обвиняю создателей фильма «Аватар» в сознательном плагиате, а именно – в использовании материалов сочинений братьев Стругацких, касающихся планеты Пандоры и разнообразных приключений на ней.

Настоящим имею совершенно недвусмысленно заявить следующее:
1. Никогда и нигде создателей фильма «Аватар» я в плагиате не обвинял и обвинять впредь отнюдь не намерен.
2. Фильма «Аватар» я не видел и ничего о нем не знаю, кроме того, что действие там происходит «на планете чудовищ Пандора».
3. Все, – якобы мои, – сентенции по поводу этого фильма, приводимые в И-нете, являются чьей-то беспардонной выдумкой (цель которой мне не понятна).

Да здравствует Интернет, кладезь достоверных сведений!

Source: http://www.rusf.ru/abs/int0136.htm#04

--Luch4 (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aquablue (Comics French) : Similarity graphs and same story

In France, Avatar is criticized for plagiarising the Comics French Aquablue (1989-2006) with the same story, similarity graphs, the ecological theme, etc.[5]Avatar VS AquablueAvatar copie Aquablue ?.

Synopsis of Aquablue - Volume 1, Nao :

The only survivor of a shipwreck space, the young orphan Nao lands on a planet unknown Aquablue, the world-ocean, where peaceful fishermen are responsible for his education. But this ideal life is shattered by the arrival of earthlings from creating an industrial complex to disastrous climatic consequences. Nao is the heart of the unequal struggle that engages the bearer of a mysterious inheritance, it also has a special link with the most powerful inhabitant Aquablue ...[6]

(Also, The space ship that sank with Nao's parents called the White Star. The disaster is not without allusion to the Titanic. Besides, the company that owned the Titanic was called the White Star ...)[7]

Similarity graphs :

  1. The Natives blue skin...[8]
  2. The wicked exorobots armed combat, want to exterminate the natives to exploit the planet.[9]
  3. Natives have a telepathic link and / or with the spiritual world and the animals

Thank you to announcements in Critical reception section of the film

--Losthighway42 (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reliable sources making such claims? Forum postings and blog postings are not reliable sources, nor is another Wikipedia. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Warcraft mythos parallels

People in the Internet have noticed evident paralels between Avatar and the World of Warcraft

http://gameaxis.com/friday-fives-%E2%80%93-james-cameron-plays-world-of-warcraft/ http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=21971447665&postId=219694805404&sid=1#0 http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=22049519266&sid=1 http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=22050164968&sid=1

Some important connections:

  • Na'vi = Night Elf/Draenei

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/2118/nightelf2.jpg vs http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x89/edwardbayntun/news/avatar-poster-1.jpg - http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/wowwiki/images/4/49/Nightelves-160x.jpg vs http://gameaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/HunterAvatar.jpg

  • Vortex zone = Nagrand

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.massively.com/media/2008/01/os0120s.jpg vs http://gameaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Nagrandavatar.jpg

  • Home Tree = World Tree

http://gameaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/teldrassilavatar.jpg vs http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/wowwiki/images/thumb/6/65/Teldrassilmovie.jpg/800px-Teldrassilmovie.jpg or the inner side http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/wowwiki/images/thumb/0/0c/NordrassilWellOfEnternity.jpg/800px-NordrassilWellOfEnternity.jpg

Many of these characteristics aren't original of Warcraft, but have passed to Avatar throug the Warcraft model. --Bentaguayre (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In your first link some of the responses to the article in that link essentially said that WoW came out too late to affect the plot of Avatar. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Also night Pandora is very similar to Zangarmarsh.


Yes but i can't agree with that opinion [original heading: "World of Warcraft inspiration?" Jotun26 (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26], we don't know what was the original Avatar when was written in 1994 and how many changes have been done since that moment, it's far easier an inspiration of Cameron on Warcraft than the opposite, because until recent times anybody but a small group of people knew what was Avatar. I'm looking for official sources but is nearly impossible, only vague references saying that Cameron has agreed that he likes Warcraft. Anyway, it's very difficult a true recognition so recently. Probably the important thing is that many people agree about the connections of the two works. --Bentaguayre (talk) 11:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotun26 (talk • contribs) [reply]


A Man Called Horse

Did anyone, anywhere, point to the similarities between Silverstein's film and Cameron's? --RCS (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look around google turns up nothing beyond comments on blog posts and articles. Similarities have been drawn between Avatar and a great number of films and works. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotun26 (talk • contribs) [reply]

City (novel) by Clifford Simak

I don't suppose anyone was struck with the similarity of the premise to the Jupiter tale in Cliff Simak's novel. Thought not. Nuttyskin (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much common knowledge by now that Avatar's plot combines details from many different stories. It's not a revolutionary storyline. If you check out the Themes and Inspirations section, Cameron himself admits that the movie brings together "all the science fiction he knows", etc. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship to biblical Book of Joshua?

As noted below, inverted associations with Old Testament material likely point to Avatar as a fantastical retelling in reverse of the biblical Israelite conquest of the Promised Land. In this counter-biblical fable about a metaphorical space-faring "Israel" coming to seize rights to the putative promised land of Pandora, god is instead on the other side. The movie is POV'd from the eyes the aliens ("I See You") and their allied human traitors. Cameron presents the human force, metaphorical stand-ins for the Israelite army investing the Promised Land after travelling from afar in search of prosperity, as a rapacious foreign menace with overwhelming technological and organizational advantages. Advantages which are thematically indistinguishable, as Arthur Clarke would put it, from magical - or divine - power.

To put it another way, as the "deity" is shown to be on the pagan aliens (figurative Canaanite) side, none is of course shown to be on the human (figurative Israelite) side. Although the case can be made for the attributes of human technology and organization as an allegorical proxy for a fraudulent human deity which failed in the face of the mighty "righteousness" of the alien pagans and their deity Eywa-Gaia. The fall of the Hometree? Figurative fall of the walls of Jericho, except that the Canaanite inhabitants fought back courageously and won instead. The daisy-cutter mother of all bombs which failed to drop? Figurative Ark symbolizing the physical powers of Israel's God, except that it was a Failed God in this reverse case of the OT.

Biblical Colonel Joshua's zealous spies get remade into traitors against their own nation, by what would have originally been a fearful God-fearing prostitute named Rahab but who is now figuratively reversed as Na'vi Princess Neytiri, a stalwart defender of the Canaanite naturalist religion and successful corruptor of (figurative) Israelite spies. The Na'vi seem to parallel the biblical giant races of Canaan (figurative sons of Anak, giants of old, heroes of renown). Neytiri also figures in reverse as spearer-of-enemy-prince-in-battle Na'vi sex princess, in place of the biblical speared-with-enemy-prince-in-bed Midianite sex princess. Paralleling the biblical incident, the princess receives orders from the alien king and his crafty advisers to seduce one of the invading enemy into worshipping their ways and deities.

In summary, Avatar can be likened to a triumphant if wishful Canaanite retelling of an OT story where they had their way. Something which the "ghosts" and sponsor, if it were, of all those vanquished pagan tribes would surely appreciate if they were around today.Trackerwiki (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. Please see WP:OR. --Dweller (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed this stuff from the article, as the only source given does not hold up as a reliable source. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll just trim it down to cite what is for now a newly rising observationTrackerwiki (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not coming from a reliable source. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No major sources AFAIK, so ok will let this one go. But trust me, this is already breaking out among serious students of the Abrahamic religions. You heard this here firstTrackerwiki (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted.WP:POINT DrNegative (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis section?

For the eventual analysis section this should be included: a Psychological analysis of Avatar by philosopher Stefan Molyneux as "an epic journey of emotional growth... about the development of empathy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.21.155 (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff. I'm hoping we can collect enough analysis into the film's themes that we could open a Critical analysis section, such as this one from the Pulp Fiction article. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For some of the ideas in the video, like the overbearing father interpretations, the person narrating the video seemed like he was taking a Rorschach Test and scenes in the film Avatar were the inkblots. And some of it sounded familiar, like the connection between the World Trade Center attacks and the attack on Hometree, which can be obtained from articles.
BTW, did you notice that Jake is short for Jacob, and Jacob in the bible had a twin too, and we can find more parallels there, the number depending on imagination? Also, there's jake leg. Of course it's OR but it's a sample of how easy it is to come up with all sorts of stuff that may or may not be relevant. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha I suppose I should actually watch the clip before declaring it useful material. My comments regarding the creation of a new section still stand, though, Avatar brings together a lot of classic sci-fi themes that deserve good analysis. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Sci-fi themes in general that are used in Avatar are worth mentioning since that is a given for a movie of any genre to use the themes of its genre. Getting back to Jake, in the development of the script he was once named Josh,[10] like Jake/Jacob another name of biblical origin Joshua, which also has parallels to the character in Avatar. Hmmm. Maybe Cameron was choosing the name because of biblical parallels. If I see an RS with this I may put it in somewhere, or maybe not. Depends if it fits in. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI the parallels with events and characters in the Book of Joshua are striking, although Cameron reversed most of the original story, which is his real original contribution. My brother is into evangelical studies and he immediately picked up on the Na'vi as the Canaanite sons of Anak, "giants of old, heroes of renown". He thinks the story is Cameron's take on how the Old Testament might play out allegorically in science fantasy terms but reversed in message. That is, if one can believe a fable where the not-fully-human enemies of some metaphorical futuristic "exodus Israel" would have the righteousness and power of the deity on their side, Cameron then shows how this futuristic "Israel" would be defeated. The humans (figurative Israelites) assume the superior means and values as if divinely advantaged. But from the movie's POV they are presented mainly as a rapacious foreign menace invading what is figuratively and cinematically a fantastical promised land. Since the movie favors the alien (figurative Canaanite) POV, Cameron apparently saw little need to further embellish the judeo-christian counter-meme with some "divine" hand or presence in the human (figurative Israelite) base camp, other than perhaps the proxy power attributes of high technology and organization.
The Na'vi princess Neytiri stands for the figurative biblical character Rahab in reverse, turning Jake Sully (figurative Israelite spy in Jericho) against his own nation, in the process uplifting thematically from a fearful, treasonous Canaanite prostitute into a loyal, stalwart princess of the Canaanite religion. Which BTW, is paralleled by the Na'vi Hometree, a shoo-in for the Tree of Life associated with the Canaanite goddess Asherah, of the ancient sex-fertility and child-sacrifice religion which Hebrew prophets gave warning against. Na'vi Princess Neytiri is also a reverse dead-ringer for the biblical Midianite sex-princess, the one who got skewered in fragante delicto along with her Israelite lover by the biblical zealous warrior Phinehas - reversed-roled by zealous warrior Jake Sully with spear in hand. As in the original, the spy had to go for a swim before meeting and living with the pagan alien female in the enemy citadel.
Like Mel Gibson, Cameron wants to stick it to the Israelites (and their wannabees) in the past as well as the "future".Trackerwiki (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: clear consensus for no move. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]


Avatar (2009 film) → Avatar (film) — There are only 2 films with this name on WP and with over 4.5 million pageviews, this is the clear primary use. The proposed name is currently a redirect to a dab page with only 2 films listed; the redirect got over 65,000 hits last month and over 4,000 in 2 days this month. Station1 (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support. I think it's safe to say that 90% of people looking for a film named "Avatar" will most definitely be looking for James Cameron's film, and not some unknown movie released several years ago that most people haven't even heard of. Just put a hatnote on this article stating This article is about the 2009 film. For the film released in 2004, see Avatar (2004 film). 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I just took a look at the guidelines on naming conventions for movies, and we have three of the greatest examples that also relate to James Cameron: Titanic (1943 film), Titanic (1953 film), and Titanic (1997 film). Clearly the 1997 film is far more well-known and successful than the two previous versions, yet the 1997 movie has not been moved to "Titanic (film)" with a hatnote explaining the other two films. Perhaps it is best that we wait at least 6 months to a year from now and see if the current Avatar film is still searched enough to warrant moving to "Avatar (film)".24.189.90.68 (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against. The film is on current release so obviously this article will be getting most of the hits. I think it's better to wait and see what the hit rate is like once the film finishes its run so the disambiguation isn't affected by recentism. Betty Logan (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To expand on my argument, very few people actually type "Avatar (film)"; see page views for Dec 2009. Same for typing "Avatar film"; see page views for Dec 2009. This means that less than 0.5% of people who come to the film article actually type either term. Most people obviously come to the film article through the primary topic, Avatar, judging from its inordinately high number of page views. This means that removing the release year from this title has no benefit; it is unnecessary subjection of the film articles to a hierarchy when neither are the primary topic. Another portion probably accesses it directly from search results within Wikipedia, from which we draw the same conclusion of no benefit to removing the release year. Erik (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it did nothing helpful I wouldn't have proposed it. As I explained below, over 65,000 readers hit Avatar (film) last month expecting to view this article and instead were surprised to end up at a dab page. Those people were not already finding their way here without issue. The move would benefit tens of thousands over the next few months. And WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:NCF are not mutually exclusive. When one film article gets millions of views and another gets a few thousand, common sense indicates one can get "(film)" and the other further disambiguated with the year. Station1 (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem concerned about people being "surprised" by where they end up. If they ended up at the 2004 film article, that would be an unnecessary surprise. We can see from the page views for Avatar that people type it in as a way to get to the film article. Maybe they expect the Hindu term, maybe they don't, but we have road signs in place to guide them, either from Avatar or Avatar (film). If anything, typing "Avatar (film)" shows them that it isn't the only film titled Avatar or some variation of it. Is it at least not useful for them to see these topics peripherally? Most people who get to the film article obviously do not get there perfectly, going through Avatar. Why does it matter so much that less than 0.5% of them get there perfectly? Erik (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see now from your expansion (1st indent above) that we agree completely on the facts, just interpret them differently. Your 0.5% is my 65,000. A small percentage but a large number (the redirect ranked 6216 in traffic on en.wikipedia). I don't know that it matters "so much" but why not help those 65,000 per mo get here more easily? Especially if a move hurts literally no one. Net benefit. Station1 (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, we'll agree to disagree about the benefit. However, WP:NCF does not apply a hierarchy within film articles that are already disambiguated from a primary topic. Just because one film is far more popular than the others does not mean it gets some silly benefit of kicking the release year out of its disambiguated title. People who type "Avatar" or "Avatar (film)" deal with one "hop" to the article that they are looking for. This is hardly an inconvenience. Erik (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - (film) is okay when there is only one film of that name. However there have been several films called Avatar. naming convention policy is to use the year to differentiate them. Canterbury Tail talk 02:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - According to guideline mentioned above: Wikipedia:NCF#Between_films_of_the_same_name. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per the naming convention for films. If we have two films of the same name, then both get years attached to them. Plain and simple. We don't say "you get to be just 'film', while you have to be 'year film'". That makes no sense. The fact that someone has to put "Avatar (" into the search field will automatically bring up "Avatar (2009 film)" anyway...so it doesn't make it any easier for the average reader to locate the page if it was just "(film)". Page views have nothing to do with the name of the article. If 100 people view a page 10,000 times in a month then the page views would be rather biased anyway. It's like trying to argue that we should use IMDb's Top 100 listing on film articles as a means to show how popular a movie is. This is why every decision should be an objective one, not a subjective one. Objectively, we have two films with the same name - thus, they are distinguished by the year of release.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose while the other film with an article may or may not be notable, it does have an article and it does exist. Therefore, this article's name is fully appropriate per WP:NCF and the general naming conventions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — There are two films by this title on Wikipedia already, more are listed on imdb.com, and no doubt in future there will be still more. I think it is inappropriate to move an article to an ambiguous page name merely to "capture" more page views for whatever article is hot at present. Looking at the page views on related articles, I think part of the problem is Avatar: the article at that page name is not what I would expect to find there. It has hatnote links to Avatar (2009 film) and the dab page, and there is a history of edit warring over those hatnotes. Looking at the incoming links, I see more than a few that don't intend the Hindu avatar. I would move the dab page to the base name, then repair the incoming links, ASAP. --Una Smith (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NCF ('When disambiguating films of the same name, add the year of its first public release'). Just have the redirect Avatar (film) direct towards Avatar (2009 film). That way if anyone if the future wishes to challenge the primacy of the film, which is doubtful, they can put forward a redirect for discussion.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but why isn't there a "are you looking for the other one" note at the top of each film giving a redirect? I know the 2004 film is obscure but we can presume everyone is looking for the 2009 film. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't presume everyone is looking for the 2009 film. Bdelisle (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Just because it is "new" and "popular" doesn't mean it should get "promoted." There is other media, movies, and meanings for the word "Avatar." Per guidelines anyway, when there are two titles with the same name, they get a year and media suffix. As is the case here adding (2009 film) is appropriate. Bdelisle (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • Note: This article was at Avatar (film) until June 2009, so this would be a move back to the original title. The main reason to move is that the redirect Avatar (film) is getting so many hits, over 65,000 last month. Based on pageviews of Avatar (2004 film) from Jan-May last year, when it was getting a couple thousand hits per month, approximately 97% of the readers landing on Avatar (film) are looking for the 2009 film. For the other 3%, a hatnote should be added. Station1 (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose a hatnote disambiguation pointing to the 2004 film would be appropriate, along with a move back to Avatar (film). I'm reluctant to favor one or the other, but it seems reasonable. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Naming convention document states to use the year to differentiate films of the same name. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(films)#Between_films_of_the_same_name. Canterbury Tail talk 02:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re WP:NCF. Much of the opposition cites WP:NCF#Between films of the same name, but WP:NCF recognizes the concept of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the section immediately above that. WP:NCF#Disambiguation read as a whole suggests a hierarchy of preferred qualifiers: a. none; b. “(film)”; c. “(year film)”; d. “(year, country or genre, film)”. It certainly doesn't say – nor even imply, in my opinion, although it's ambiguous – that every film with the same title must include the year, even if one is the primary topic among films. Even if one disagrees with that interpretation, WP:NCF states at the top of the page that it is a guideline (i.e., suggestion) best treated with common sense and the occasional exception. A major purpose of naming conventions is to help readers easily find the article about the topic they're looking for. If a guideline gets in the way of doing that, as in this case where it is causing numerous readers to land on the wrong page, then ignore all rules. Station1 (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "From other topics" section of WP:NCF does not apply to the films titled Avatar at all. For films, primary topics work like this: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is the primary topic, and there are secondary topics related to it and disambiguated appropriately. Valkyrie (film) is not the primary topic because Valkyrie took that place. The "(film)" disambiguation only applies to if there is only one film is titled the same way as the primary topic. That is why the next section, "Between films of the same name", exists -- for finer disambiguation. The primary topic is Avatar; this is indisputable. We do not apply the primary-topic logic to already-disambiguated articles. Like I said, there is no criteria of popularity or importance when the film articles already have to be disambiguated with the proper differentiation in parentheses. Erik (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re recentism: Just because a topic is new doesn't mean it cannot be a primary topic, only that we should avoid automatically assuming that it is. No doubt this article will get many fewer pageviews over time, but to suggest that Avatar (2004 film) will ever come close to being searched for as much as this article just doesn't seem reasonable. For the next several years this article will be “much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) [“Avatar (film)”] may also refer”. Station1 (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I want to read whatever everyone else is reading, I use Google to search Wikipedia; Google shows search results sorted approximately by rate of link-through. When I don't care what everyone else is reading, I use the Wikipedia search tool. Wikipedia is not Google and we should not be moving articles around in order to approximate the behavior of Google. --Una Smith (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Profit vs attendance #s records

I think some more mention should be given to the fact that although records are being broken profit-wise, this does not neccessarily reflect on attendance, due to high ticket prices... see this article [ http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2636&p=.htm] by BOMojo's president Brandon Gray/ Attendance should really be more reflective of a film's popularity, no?--Sparetimefiller (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a fair observation to incorporate into the article. Betty Logan (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is already noted in the Performance analysis section. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Performance analysis

I have removed the following reference. Ebert did not predict a flop.

[1] Ebert, Roger (December 11, 2009). "Avatar". RogerEbert.com. Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved December 17, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas Carter (talk • contribs) 10:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ebert did not predict a flop. But he did say Avatar had been the subject of "relentlessly dubious advance buzz, just as his Titanic was. Once again, he has silenced the doubters by simply delivering an extraordinary film."
That is why I included that part. Ebert briefly commented on how people thought both films would be a significant disappointment. I have not restored that Ebert source to that part of the Performance analysis section. But be careful next time when you remove a source, to make sure that source is not duplicated anywhere else. For example, that source was duplicated in the Critical reception section for Ebert's review of the film. Yes, we have a references rescue bot, but they do not always come right away; sometimes they take days. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

Proposed addition to Release:Critical reception

I've taken care of the above suggestions by Betty Logan, Trusilver and DrNegative. Nobody seems to have got any further comments since January 1. Can these two paragraphs now be included in the Release: Critical reception section? Or do they fit in better under a separate Release subheading 'Reception by religious groups' (or something like that)?

Prior to the release, a US-based Hindu statesman Rajan Zed expressed concern with the use of the term 'Avatar', which he called "one of the central themes of Hinduism", as the film's title and asked J.Cameron for a disclaimer. [11], [12] His concern was supported by Nevada Clergy Association, [13] Rabbi Jonathan B.Freirich, a Jewish leader in Nevada and California [14] and Satnarayan Maharaj, a Hindu leader in Trinidad and Tobago. [15] However, some other Hindu followers in US considered the film as elucidating on the actual meaning of 'Avatar' rather than sacrilegious. [16] Hindustan Times wrote that “Avatar is a downright misnomer” for the film, but concluded that its message is consistent with the Bhagavad Gita, a sacred book of Hinduism. [17]
Ross Douthat of New York Times called the film “the Gospel According to James” of “Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism” incompatible with Christianity. [18] Other Christian critics wrote that "[t]he danger to moviegoers is that Avatar presents the Na'vi culture on Pandora as morally superior to life on earth. If you love the philosophy and culture of the Na'vi too much, you will be led into evil rather than away from it", [19] emphasized the film's thematic elements deemed objectionable by Christians, [20] and suggested that Christian viewers interpret the film as a reminder of Jesus Christ as "the True Avatar". [21]

Cinosaur (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Please keep in mind the lead sentence from WP:UNDUE, "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."
It appears that you've done a good job hunting down articles on religious issues related to Avatar. However, compared to the discussion by reliable sources on other aspects of the film, I think the amount of discussion on religious issues is very small. The amount of space that you are proposing to use in the article is too much in my opinion. I would suggest condensing it down to one sentence and adding it to the 3rd paragraph of the section Critical reception that contains sociopolitical comments, just before the sentence that discusses the Newitz article, which segues to the next paragraph that starts with Dances With Wolves. I was going to recommend a sentence from your work to use, but on second thought, I feel you could do a better job in selecting one or composing one. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bob K31416, thanks for feedback. Could it be two sentences -- one for Hindus and one for Christians? After all, theirs, albeit religious, are entirely different areas of concern. Cinosaur (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bob, I think this falls pretty firmly under WP:UNDUE. Just because someone is notable in one area, does not make him notable in other areas. IF Roger Ebert has something to say about this movie, it's notable because of his status as a film critic. If say... James Hetfield had something to say about this movie, the correct response is (and should be) "Who cares?" Almost every movie with any kind of religious connotation is blasted by some religious group, somewhere, we need not give them all equal representation. The critical reception section is already starting to run a little long as it is. Trusilver 18:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you show here what you would like to put in re Hindus and Christians? Please keep in mind the need to limit the length appropriately. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trusilver, I appreciate your point about "blasts by religious groups". If necessary, we can forsake responses by Christian critics altogether as only tangential to the movie's plot -- even though I personally find them as relevant as, say, concerns about racism and abuse of indigenous people already included in the Critical reception. But, since on J.Cameron's own admission, he deliberately borrowed the title and idea from Hinduism, reaction by Hindus to both the title and the contents of the movie seems to be of far greater relevance for the article than that of other religious groups. Or am I wrong? Cinosaur (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Every movie that represents any kind of "alternative theology" is always blasted by the usual suspects in the Christian mainstream. I wouldn't even consider their opinion relevant in any circumstance except where there is a well documented discussion on the conflict (The Golden Compass (film) for instance). The Hinduism reference is something else altogether. I really hate to see this section of the article get any more bloated than it already is, but I wouldn't be terribly opposed to an inclusion of this provided it's by someone who actually knows what they are talking about. It's better than the alternative, which is to create Influences of Hinduism on James Cameron's Avatar. (please say no... that's a horrible idea.) Trusilver 20:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bob K31416: How about this one. Sorry for two sentences instead of one, but they are needed for balancing the story:
Before and after the release, some Hindu leaders expressed concern, shared by other clergy, [22] with the use of 'Avatar', "one of the central themes of Hinduism", as the film's title and asked J.Cameron for a disclaimer. [23], [24], [25] However, while opining that “’Avatar’ is a downright misnomer” for the film, Hindustan Times wrote that its message is consistent with Bhagavad Gita, a sacred text of Hinduism. [26]
Also, I thought that, if you think them acceptable, they would be better placed as a mini-paragraph just before the last one about abuse of indigenous people. In this way the Critical reception section will retain its consistency and will nicely taper out with decreasingly prominent issues.
As for Christian views -- I must admit to be at a loss on how to condense them into one sentence -- unless, of course, you do not mind mammoth and convoluted sentences. I would personally prefer to keep just the first sentence:
Ross Douthat, a conservative columnist of New York Times, called the film “the Gospel According to James” of “Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism” incompatible with Christianity [27] — a view shared by some other Christian critics. [28], [29]
...as the most articulate and the most quoted Christian review of the movie to date. Or may I rather leave this one up to your and other editors' expertise? As Trusilver wrote -- and I (reluctantly) agree -- this inclusion may not be even necessary here. Cinosaur (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trusilver, point well taken. See if you like the above on Hindu views. Cinosaur (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with those two sentences as you have written them. The sources look good, too. Trusilver 03:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cinosaur, Thanks for your efforts. While looking at the sources for your two sentences about concerns of some Hindus regarding the film Avatar, I came across the following excerpt from the article by Sat Maharaj.

"Avatar is a 2009 epic 3-D science fiction film which premiered in London on December 10 and is now on local screens. The term Avatar is a Hindu concept that is being used loosely in the West and especially Hollywood. Indeed, many computer users and gamers use the term Avatar regularly. In computing, Avatar is the graphical representation of a user. There was an Avatar (2004 film) starring Genevieve O’Reilly. Avatar is a main character in the Ralph Bakshi film Wizards. Avatar, a 1983 film directed by Mohan Kumar, and Avatar, the original title of The Last Airbender, is an upcoming 2010 film based on the Avatar.  
There are many television characters, games, Web sites, records, and even racehorses with the Hindu name Avatar. In 1998, India even named a rocket Avatar!"

Would you care to comment on this, especially the sentence about India naming a rocket "Avatar". The concern of some Hindus seems inappropriate in light of this and so much use of the word avatar already. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bob K31416, this is exactly the point which you have spelled out for me. Wiki is giving facts, not judging them. Concerns by some Hindu activists with the Avatar-title went all over the net. However, on a close inspection these concerns are, mildly speaking, inconsistent. That's why I picked that link to Sat Maharaj's column from hundreds of otherwise pretty identical sources, as it was the one giving Wiki readers more information on the usage of Avatar on a Hindu's own admission, and letting them judge for themselves.
However, given the prominence the issue seems to have gained on the net, especially among the large Indian diaspora in the West, I thought the Wiki article on Avatar the movie has to acknowledge it and to balance it with a coolheaded and rational review from Hindustan Times (India's second largest and very influential English-language newspaper), which addressed the Avatar-title concern but sealed the issue by showing how the movie is well in tune with Hindu's own theology.
I believe that by reading these two sentences and their references an impartial reader will get as full and objective a picture of the issue as you can get, well, from two short sentences. And sorry, Bob K31416, I cannot shrink them any further. :) Thanks for your patience. Cinosaur (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and what were your thoughts regarding the use of the name Avatar by India for its rocket? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bob K31416, what do you want me to think about it? I am not a Hindu leader, in case you are wondering. :) I think that it is appropriate as an acronym for "Aerobic Vehicle for Hypersonic Aerospace Transportation" and frankly I don't see any problem with using the name Avatar for any other thing unless in a deliberately offensive way. Avatar, BTW, is not a name -- it's a role, so it is hard to misuse it anyway. What is more important, however, is that in India (or elsewhere) there are ultraconservative adherents of any religion who are readily searching the world around them for sacrileges, and maybe some of them did take issue with the Indian government on Avatar the rocket. Fortunately, such people do not usually run governments, or if they do, then not for too long. Probably, that's why India also has a surface-to-surface ballistic missile called Prithvi, which is the name of the Hindu deity of Earth. But, again, my personal preferences have no bearing on discussing facts on the issue, and the key facts are stated in the above two sentences. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>Re "Concerns by some Hindu activists with the Avatar-title went all over the net. - I looked at the items on that 1st page and it looks like they ultimately refer to the same source, Rajan Zed, although that was because Rajan Zed was one of your keywords for the search. The concern was that Avatar might be offensive to Hindus. 1) Was there any article that said that Hindus considered the film offensive after seeing it? 2) Was there any article that said the title was offensive? (It seems that there was concern that the title might be offensive but there didn't seem to be any instances where it was offensive, or maybe I missed it?) --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob -- Yes, I did have Rajan Zed as a keyword, even though I shouldn't have. Again, not to inflate the size of this issue, but to get a more realistic picture of its scope on the net, you may want to check out "hindu avatar cameron concern" and "hindu avatar disclaimer". These hits might well originate from the same person or his immediate group, but this does not invalidate the scope. Again -- I do not share their concern, to say the least, but it is an objective fact directly linked to the movie and therefore may have to be reflected in the article.
Answering your questions - (1) I found no negative reviews by Hindus after the release (but quite a few by Christians), and (2) I found no article saying it was actually offensive to Hindus. The Hindustan Times review called the title "a downright misnomer" because it "reverses the very concept avatar...is based on", but not offensive. On the contrary, I found an article in Houston Chronicle where practicing Hindus and Hindu clergy say that "Avatar shines light on the Hindu word". Unfortunately, the primary link is dead now, which is why I had to take it out of the sentence, but you can still read it here and here. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there is no notable critical reception of the film by Hindus. The concern mentioned in the article by Rajan Zed before the film came out, that the use of the word "avatar" might be offensive to Hindus did not happen and Rajan Zed said himself in the article that he didn't expect it to happen! It appears to be a nothing subject. Furthermore, putting it in the article would be misleading and give the impression that Hindus were offended. BTW, that was my impression when I read your first proposed contribution to the article.
Regarding the criticism of the pantheism in Avatar. I would suggest adding the following to the article, which also shows how the film fits into a Hollywood trend that the article's author suggests.
Ross Douthat of The New York Times criticized the pantheism in the film that "has been Hollywood’s religion of choice for a generation now." [30]
Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bob K31416: Regarding your suggested addition on pantheism, it appears biased the way it is written now by implying that there is pantheism in the movie, which is debatable. It will be better to write something like this, including the phrase on Hollywood that you like:
Ross Douthat of The New York Times called the movie “Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism” which "has been Hollywood’s religion of choice for a generation now." [31]
What do you think? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content is fine but the word "apologia" has too obscure a meaning for most people. I had to look it up in a dictionary myself. Perhaps change to phrase without quotation marks:
essentially called the movie Cameron's defense of pantheism which "has been...
--Bob K31416 (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'defense' is not what Ross means here by 'apologia'. He means "a work written as an explanation or justification of one's motives, convictions, or acts" (Webster's Dictionary). If you want to simplify it, then it is better to say:
Ross Douthat of The New York Times opined that the film is Cameron’s case for pantheism, which "has been Hollywood’s religion of choice for a generation now." [32]
What do you think? Cinosaur (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cinosaur (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previously suggested version is much better if one does understand what apologia means and especially of the context it has been historically used:

Ross Douthat of The New York Times called the movie “Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism” which "has been Hollywood’s religion of choice for a generation now." [33]

"apologia for" is harsher criticism than "case for" because of the addition of subtle mocking irony. Changing it comes across like a euphemism of sorts. It's better to use the exact words. Lambanog (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lambanog, I do not mind reverting the quote back to 'apologia'. I like 'apologia' better than the current 'case for', but took Bob's word for its having "too obscure a meaning for most people". Please discuss it with him. Cinosaur (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Note for Bob K31416 -- I agreed with Lambanog, reverted it back to 'apologia' and wiki-linked the term for those who find it too obscure. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we move ahead with a statement on Hindu reception?

Bob K31416: As for Hindus -- sorry for repeating myself, but let us restate the facts:
  1. Cameron admitted to having borrowed the movie title's idea and inspiration from Hinduism. [34]
  2. Before the release some Hindu leader(s) and other clergy voiced concerns that the title Avatar may offend Hindus.
  3. They publicly asked Cameron for a disclaimer.
  4. For what it's worth, their concern and request got widely circulated and publicized on the net, often without mentioning the original sources by their names [35]
  5. However, after the movie release, there were no public complaints about or criticism of the movie as being offensive to Hindus -- nor in Indian media neither anywhere else.
  6. On the contrary, major Indian newspapers reviewed the movie positively. Among them Hindustan Times indirectly addressed the above concern by saying that Avatar was a misnomer if only in a non-offensive conceptual way, but the movie's message was consistent with Hinduism, effectively sealing the issue.
These are all verifiable facts in public domain, reported by reliable secondary sources. They are as directly related to Avatar the movie and especially to its title as one can get. Although not a very prominent issue (and as such, it should be scaled down), these facts are of relevance for a large Indian/Hindu audience of Wiki. What else should they be to be included in the article, at least in the following form:
Despite concerns by some Hindu activists prior to the film's release that the use of 'Avatar' as its title may offend the followers of Hinduism, [36], reviews in major Indian newspapers did not report any offensive overtone in the film. Times of India wrote that "For Indophiles and Indian philosophy enthusiasts, Avatar is a whole treatise on Indianism, from the very word `Avatar' itself". [37] The Hindu opined that "Cameron uses the loaded Sanskrit word of the movie's title to talk of a possible...next step in our evolution." [38]. Hindustan Times stated that 'Avatar' was "a downright misnomer" for the film, but concluded that its message was consistent with the Bhagavad Gita, Hinduism's sacred text. [39]
What do you and other editors think of this paragraph? Since we have been discussing this topic with various editors on and off since Jan 1, if we do not reach a conclusion within 24 hours or so, should I consider it fit for inclusion? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in question seem reliable to me but I question their notability to the article. Do you have any sources of Cameron himself acknowledging these claims as an influence for his choosing of the film's title? (With exception to what is already within the article as you pointed out in point #1) DrNegative (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DrNegative re notability, and that is similar to what was in my concluding remarks in our long discussion in the above section. As you mentioned, you are just repeating your points. I have already responded to them. Seems like you're ignoring my response and just repeating your points. Please do not make your proposed edit without consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bob -- no, I am not ignoring your points, but am trying to steer the discussion towards a consensus. To aid this end, could you, as a more experienced editor, please spell out how exactly the above facts do not pass the notability threshold here, and what they should be, in your view, to pass.
DrNegative -- I do not have any other source on the title's origin, but (1) the one quoted‚ a Time interview with JC where he answered this question unequivocally, is credible enough, and (2) obviously, his prior acknowledgement of the fact was not even necessary for Hindus to voice concern over a possible abuse of the term 'Avatar' in the movie. I am just speaking about the fact of their net-wide concern over the title, regardless of whether they knew of JC's prior admission to links to Hinduism or not. Why is it not notable?
Thank you both for your patience in walking me through the process. I learn a lot from you guys. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DrNegative gave you a wikilink to WP:UNDUE for what that editor meant by "notable". By notable, I meant the term as defined in a dictionary.[40] I previously gave you the same link but also an excerpt from WP:UNDUE in the last section here. You wrote, "I am just speaking about the fact of their net-wide concern". I don't agree with that characterization which gives the impression that it is a major subject on the internet. That seems to be the basic problem, that the edit you are proposing is giving a non-issue more attention than it deserves, i.e. it is not notable. I gave my reasons why I didn't think it was notable in the response I made previously that you still haven't responded to. With all this repetition and ignoring of my responses, I don't consider this discussion with you worthwhile. In considering whether or not you have consensus, please consider my remarks as one editor who opposes your edit. So with that in mind, this is my final message to you on that issue. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob K31416, I am sorry that you feel upset, but I have not ignored any of your points in the proposed edit. Rather, I tried my best to incorporate them:
  • You questioned notability of the Hindu leaders -- I agreed and removed wiki-links to their names from the text.
  • You opined that the prominence of this issue should not be overstated in accord with WP:UNDUE -- I agreed and removed all web-links to outside sources except for the one to American Chronicle, which seemed most mainstream, credible and neutral.
  • You said it would give a wrong impression that the Hindus were offended (an impression that one would have to really read hard into the sentence I proposed) -- I agreed, rewrote the description of their concern as clear as I could and shrank it down to not even a sentence but to a dependent clause.
  • You said there "It appears that there is no notable critical reception of the film by Hindu" -- I included three such reviews from three top Indian newspapers specifically addressing its Sanskrit title vs.Hinduism, including one from The Hindu, which is considered moderately conservative and Hindu-oriented. I can easily include a few more, should you or other editors only desire -- but the ones included are already the most notable ones.
It seems that the only point of yours that I cannot incorporate is that this issue does not deserve a mention at all. I am sorry for that. You have not given a valid reason why, but I would still be happy to get one.
However, since another editor Trusilver supported the inclusion of such a statement in the article, I am going ahead with the edit shortly. Trusilver, I have rewritten and slightly expanded the proposed edit to include more notable Hindu/Indian sources in order to fairly address Bob K31416's and DrNegative's concerns about notability. Please let me know if you are still ok with it. Cinosaur (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel much the same was as Bob. The paragraph is well sourced, but I'm on the fence about notability. I am looking around at other movie articles right now, looking for similar situations that have set a precedent and I will get back on it. Right now, I'm indifferent... I neither support nor oppose this inclusion. Trusilver 04:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I'll try to explain the best that I can. What I mean when I say "notability" is when you evaluate Wikipedia's policy on "undue weight", you must consider not only the reliability of the sources but also whether or not the views from your sources adhere to a small "minority" or the mainstream majority. This constitutes whether or not it is worthy of inclusion within an article. You must realize your proposed inclusion of this entire paragraph will constitute a lot of weight on whatever section that you place it within the article. You also wrote above, On the contrary, major Indian newspapers reviewed the movie positively. Among them Hindustan Times indirectly addressed the above concern by saying that Avatar was a misnomer if only in a non-offensive conceptual way, but the movie's message was consistent with Hinduism, effectively sealing the issue." That statement seems to come across as saying this was a small minority topic and that majority consensus did not agree. I am neutral to this inclusion, I neither support, nor do I oppose it, but I can assure you, that there will be many editors that will challenge its notability if you choose to do so. DrNegative (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in, Trusilver. Is there any rule of thumb to solve this impasse? As Bob pointed out elsewhere, google hits can serve as a standard notability gauge, and that's exactly what I did:
What do we conclude then? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DrNegative, the original two slim lines (which Trusilver supported at that time and which I was happy with too) have grown into a paragraph only because I tried to accommodate both yours and Bob's concerns. I will be glad to go back to them, if you support them. Cinosaur (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Avatar as a Hindu term -- last stand?

Trusilver, DrNegative and Bob K31416 -- in order to resolve this impasse, to heed your remarks on notability, and to preserve the overall controversy-free style of the article, I am proposing the following inclusion:
Commenting on Cameron’s choice of a Hindu religious term for the film’s title, Times of India wrote that "For Indophiles and Indian philosophy enthusiasts, Avatar is a whole treatise on Indianism, from the very word `Avatar' itself". [41] The Hindu reasoned that "Cameron uses the loaded Sanskrit word of the movie's title to talk of a possible...next step in our evolution." [42]. A Hindustan Times’review said that while 'Avatar' is "a downright misnomer" for the film, its message is consistent with the Bhagavad Gita. [43]
I think this fairly addresses the "Hindu concern" issue without even mentioning it, while adding a valuable piece of information to the article's section on Critical reception from an entirely different cultural angle. Opinions? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEADHORSE --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bob K31416 (et al) -- I respect your opinions, but we obviously disagree in some significant ways as to what constitutes a WP:DEADHORSE discussion. At least, as I tried to explain above, I have incorporated every single one of your objections, and therefore in the latest statement walked away from Hindu concerns altogether. Despite your present stance I still hope we can continue discussing this issue further in a constructive way. If you and others agree, we can give it a fresh start which will be final from my side. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Because we already have a statement of Cameron's own rational of the film's title within the article, and the viewpoint you are trying to establish seems to be in a small/limited minority, I must now oppose its inclusion. From WP:UNDUE, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely limited (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." This is just my opinion though and my opinion only. There is no amount of re-wording through careful prose that you could do, that would convince me that it is notable enough to fit in the article because it is a limited minority view that never achieved full or at the very least partial mainstream acknowledgment to make it worthy of inclusion. My role in this discussion is now closed. DrNegative (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair Cameron's own statement has little bearing in a section called "critical reception". To draw a comparison, Paul Verhoeven denied that Basic Instinct was "anti-gay", but that doesn't mean the controversy shouldn't be noted. This may seem inconsequential to people outside of India - as indeed it does to myself - but if the issue is given significant coverage in the mainstream press in a country with a population over three times that of the United States, then the notability of the controversy is effectively established. I personally feel this aspect of the reception could be allocated a paragraph provided it isn't so large that it skews the critical reception section. Betty Logan (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "critical reception" section currently has 5 paragraphs Betty, this would make it 6 total. The inclusion of this paragraph, would give it a lot of weight. Demographics or populations of world countries are not guidelines to notability. As an established editor, I would assume you would know that. As far as "critcal reception" goes as a category in general, according to MOS:FILM, "Reviews from the film's country of origin are recommended (i.e., Chinese reviews for a Chinese film, French reviews for a French film)", if you want to get technical about what belongs in the critical response section. DrNegative (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To put it another way, if the New York Times and LA Times had commented on an attached controversy then I don't think we would be having this discussion, and Times of India and The Hindu are India's equivalent. The critical reception section currently doesn't document the film's reception beyond the United States, so a paragraph devoted to its reception in India documented by its mainstream press would be a legitimate inclusion as far as I can see. I don't see any argument that The Hindu or the Times of India are not reliable sources, and notability is typically established via 2/3 references via the mainstream press. Betty Logan (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So basically what I understand you are attempting to say; is that even though this issue never obtained notability in mainstream media coverage within the film's country of origin (United States), and that the paragraph proposed for inclusion critiques a minority viewpoint from some of the followers of a religious group, and even though it doesnt critique the nature of the film itself, but yet its title (which was explained by the film's creator elsewhere within the article) - your saying that it belongs in the film's article as a critical response regardless? From your comments I assume you are "support" to this consensus. DrNegative (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is that the article should be consistent with WP:WORLDVIEW. As far as I am aware there are no guidelines for saying that the critical reception should be limited to the film's country of origin. Cinasaur has provided reliable and verifiable sources for what he wants to add. Hinduism is hardly a "minority" religion, it is not unusual to comment on Muslim or Christian controversy that films cause. Indeed, the Jewish controversy courted by "Passion of the Christ" is documented in that article and there are far fewer jews than there are Hindus. Betty Logan (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was a minority religion. Carefully read that again - "A minority viewpoint from followers of a religious group." You are completely missing the point here as if you have some sort of personal bias. Your comparing the number of Jews with Hindus as a justification for the a statement of notability. In reality, alot of Jews probably voiced their opinion on the matter of that film, but how many of the Hindu community are voicing there opinion about "this" issue on the worldwide level as did the Jews for that film? DrNegative (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>Betty, Re "if the New York Times and LA Times had commented on an attached controversy then I don't think we would be having this discussion " - There is no controversy as was pointed out in the long, long discussion about this subject above. Editors have objected to the addition of this subject as not noteworthy and have left this long, long discussion. In the given sources for the recent version, this subject seems to be given not much space. There's just a few lines to relate their reviews of Avatar to their readers. There is no controversy. Sorry, but I see this as WP:DEADHORSE with no hope of getting consensus for its inclusion. I don't expect to be participating any more here, except possibly in a very limited capacity. -Bob K31416 (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it seems your right. I need to stop coming back to beat the poor thing. ;) DrNegative (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Betty Logan may be a sockpuppet.User_talk:Betty_Logan#WP:AN.2FI There also was a sockpuppet GoonerDP User_talk:GoonerDP#Blocked_again_for_sock_puppetry that tried to add non-noteworthy India-related material recently to the article. It may be that Cinosaur, GoonerDP, and Betty Logan are the same editor. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bob K31416, yours is an unfounded guess here about sockpuppetry. Is this the last recourse in discussions? I will get back regarding notablity of the topic a bit later. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bob is in violation of WP:AGF. There is a sockpuppet investigation going on so he should take his concerns to the sockpuppet page if he believes Cinosaur and I are the same person where it can be formally investigated. Using is a tactic to slur participants in a discussion is not appropriate. Betty Logan (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DrNegative - the three sources I quoted: The Times of India, The Hindu and Hindustan Times -- have respective circulation of 3.14, 1.45, and 1.14 million copies (5.73 collectively) with respective readership of 13.3, 5.2 and 6.6 million (25.1 collectively). All three explicitly commented on Cameron's choice of a Hindu term for a title. As you see, this is not at all what WP:UNDUE calls "a viewpoint...held by an extremely limited (or vastly limited) minority". Besides, according to news.google notability gauge criteria, of all news with "Avatar Cameron review" words in them (1,352 at the time stamp) 43 (3%) such news link its title in some or other direct way to the Hindu etymological origin or the concept of incarnation. IMO, 3% is notable enough to warrant a sentence or two in the article of ~7400 words. No? Cinosaur (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google does not represent an ultimate count of notability as its powerful search engine can pull any copied repost, of any news article for that matter, from a personal blog post, personal journal, etc -- and include that in its final count. DrNegative (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DrNegative -- I have long agreed with yours and Bob's points about Hindu concerns as not notable and removed them from the suggested insert. That was my mistake, and the discussion here helped me realize it. As I said earlier, it is a learning experience for me, so please bear with it. However, I would still like to request you and other editors to consider supporting a comment from a leading Indian newspaper on the movie's title itself. Cameron admitted to borrowing it from Hinduism, many Western film reviews explicitly explore this connection, and the article still does not have a single source quoted on this topic. I think it will be an interesting and useful addition to the article if this significant cultural aspect of the movie is covered briefly.

That said, what would you say if right after the quote in Themes and Inspirations:

In a 2007 interview with Time magazine, Cameron addressed the meaning of the film's title: answering the question "What is an avatar, anyway?" Cameron stated, "It's an incarnation of one of the Hindu gods taking a flesh form." He said that "[i]n this film what that means is that the human technology in the future is capable of injecting a human's intelligence into a remotely located body, a biological body". Cameron stated, "It's not an avatar in the sense of just existing as ones and zeroes in cyberspace. It's actually a physical body."[6]

we add:

After the film release Hindustan Times remarked that "[t]he movie reverses the very concept [that] the term ‘avatar’...is based on" but noted that its thrust was consistent with the Bhagavad Gita, a sacred text of Hinduism. [44]

Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as violating WP:DUE to include a paragraph on Indian reception to the film. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Review

The Critical reception section could really stand a good rewrite. At the moment, it ping pongs from positive to negative to 'more positive' in a most scatterbrained fashion (although that's understandable, given the nature of such a section's evolution). Perhaps it would be better to wait a few weeks for the dust to settle, but it's never too soon for interested editors to begin collaberating on a sandbox revision for ultimate presentation. In the whole of wikipedia, critical reception sections are unique in that the ratio of majority to dissenting opinion is available as a fairly concrete and verifiable number. As such, adherence to wikipedia's policy for undue weight shouldn't be an issue in the organization and presentation of a revision here.
I've swapped Armond White's negative assessment with that of a more reputable critic (J. Holberman - Village Voice) whose comparable assessment expressed more clearly the issues taken with the film's ideology and political subtext.
--K10wnsta (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing the problem with the Critical reception section. It "ping pongs from positive to negative to 'more positive' in a most scatterbrained fashion" because we relay the good reviews first, then the negative reviews, and then the reviews about the plot and whatever else; the reviews about the plot and whatever else are not all going to be positive or all negative, of course, so obviously that half will be a blend. Critical reception sections do not need to consist only of positive reviews first, then negative reviews, and that's it.
As for Armond White, that was discussed at Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 1#Armond White's review, and the compromise was to leave him in but scaled down.
Also, when you add references, make sure to properly format them; it is extra work for others to have to do that when you do not. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be accurate, the Critical reception section does not go from positive to negative to more positive. It goes from positive to negative to criticism of the plot, to the mostly positive comments made by other directors. I have tweaked the Critical reception a bit, though. Flyer22 (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Re "it ping pongs from positive to negative to 'more positive' in a most scatterbrained fashion" - It has the following paragraph organization as I see it: 1) Quantitative summary of reviews 2) Standard reviews of entertainment aspects 3) Sociopolitical aspects in film 4) Comparisons of plot/story to other films 5) Sample reaction of film writers and directors. Perhaps this organization should be made more evident in a lead paragraph for this section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, I do not see why this should be in the negative paragraph. Yes, it is speaking of the sociopolitical aspect of the film, but so are parts of the paragraph about similar plot details. The paragraph you added that piece back in is considered the negative paragraph, which is why it seems out of place there. If anything, it should be last in that paragraph since it is positive. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a purely sociopolitical paragraph, and the part I restored is a purely sociopolitical comment, not an entertainment aspect of the film. It is placed where it is most relevant in the paragraph, which is after two comments that discuss subjects that are more similar to it, compared to the other comments in the paragraph. Most of the sociopolitical comments have been negative, just as most of the entertainment comments have been positive. So the entertainment paragraph is mostly positive because of that and the sociopolitical paragraph is mostly negative because of that. The similar plots paragraph is not a sociopolitical paragraph or entertainment paragraph. It's unifying aspect is the similarities to other films. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good explanation. But as for the "entertainment paragraph" being mostly positive, it is cleaner either way to present the positive reviews of a favorable film first and then the negative reviews second...as we have done. I do not think in terms of "entertainment paragraph." I generally think "positive paragraph" and "negative paragraph." Although...as I stated to K10wnsta, "Critical reception sections do not need to consist only of positive reviews first, then negative reviews, and that's it." Zombieland is one example, and so is this article. But either way, if the Critical reception section starts off with a positive paragraph, and is then followed by a negative paragraph, I do not feel that negative "entertainment comments" should go in the positive paragraph. I feel the same way about positive comments going in the negative paragraph, which is why I did not quite understand your revert on that matter, but, yes, now I understand your reasoning. Flyer22 (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International reviews as just "Anti-"?

The opening sentence of the last paragraph under Critical reception appears (unintentionally?) WP:Biased. It reads: "Internationally, critics applauded its themes of anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism" -- as if all international reviews are written in former colonies or by imperialism victims cheering to the movie's jab at their former tormentors. From what I could see, there is plenty of notable reviews in European, Asian and Australasian media which do not dwell on "anti-" messages of the film at all, highlighting its positive ecological, ethical and even spiritual themes instead. I wonder therefore if this descriptor covers international response to the movie -- or even the reviews quotes later in the paragraph -- accurately and sufficiently.

Can we either rewrite the lead sentence or at least add a couple of positive modifiers to it to make it more balanced? Like: "Internationally, critics applauded its ethical and ecological message as well as its themes of anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism". Or do we need the lead sentence at all? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The paragraph in question has been moved for discussion here. Cinosaur (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archive this page

I don't believe MiszaBot is doing her job very well. She needs to be fired. I think this page needs to be archived somehow, it's so loooooooooooooong (currently at 287kB, technically). I feel for anyone on dial-up. —Mike Allen 07:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. It would be nice if someone would do a manual archive on the current idle discussions. DrNegative (talk) 07:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a way to speed up MiszaBot for specific talk pages. Flyer22 (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed it down to make it a little more manageable. Trusilver 08:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
God bless you. —Mike Allen 22:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sped up MiszaBot so it will archive discussions with no comments after 4 days instead of 7. I was also looking at Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive index and wondering why Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 4 exists when archives 2 and 3 do not. Apparently it applied to another article, perhaps the 2004 film? I didn't look too closely at what was on the page. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 07:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 days may be too long. The talk page is rapidly becoming crowded again. --haha169 (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The wrong archive number was caused by an incorrect counter = 4 in [45]. It should have been counter = 1. I have moved the oldest archive from Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 4 to Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 0. It is an archive for this article which was created 4 March 2006 [46] but had another name some of the time. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "Part 2" ready for 2010?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/hollywood.hits.2010/index.html

So according to that, the sequel is either already in the bag or finishing production. Should this be mentioned in the article? We mention that there is enough material for a sequel, but CNN's Oliver Sterns seems to go beyond that. Scryer_360 (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was stated by Cameron in an interview towards the end of last year that he had thought to make a sequel should AVATAR do well, but he also stated he hadn't even written a script for it yet; granted memory serves me correctly, of course. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 02:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the article and they seemed to have made an error and changed it. Apparently the journalist was confusing it with "Avatar: The Last Airbender" according to the comments. DrNegative (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is this tidbit from Entertainment Weekly, commenting on a sequel.[47] -FeralDruid (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My prior comment moot, as there's already mention in the article's opening paragraphs about a sequel. -FeralDruid (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sci-Fan, not Sci-Fi

Avatar is Science Fantasy, not true Science Fiction. Hence the Eywa stuff. I feel this should be made clear. 167.128.58.153 (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eywa seems like science fiction more than fantasy, since Eywa is a life form that encompasses the whole moon, as I recall. I think Dr. Grace Augustine, a scientist in the movie, referred to this as a global neural network. Also, it seems similar to the Gaia hypothesis. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A little info on this can be found in the part that begins 2:50 into this video. --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some more info. "The trees and all plant life of Pandora have formed electrochemical connections between the roots and effectively act as neurons, creating a planet-wide "brain" that has achieved sentience."[48] --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it wasn't supposed to be a life form, but something that stores memories and stuff. It was kind of confusing. But the Navi said it was a deity, and given that it sent all those animals to attack the soldiers (which they would never have done in so organized a fashion otherwise), I'm inclined to believe them. Nothing else could do this, especially at so early a stage in the evolution of most of the creatures on the planet. Such a high life form wouldn't have evolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.55.103.59 (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trust in the Force... >.> Seriously, how would anyone know that? I mean... do you know of any other planets we've been too or even seen that are anything like Pandora? This is all original research. We should stick to what the sources say. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 03:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May the Source be with you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what I'm saying is that they never said it was a life form! They pretty much imply that Eywa really is a deity and the scientists were wrong, at any rate, so it's Sci-Fan! 207.55.103.59 (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re "But what I'm saying..." - Well, you can say it, but so far you haven't given any evidence that can be checked. May the Source be with you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what Bob just said. At this point, the whole idea of it being Sci-fan is your opinion, and your opinion does not warrant it being included in the article. I suggest you read over WP:RS and then see if you can't find a source. Trusilver 16:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And actually, if the whole planet was connected by a neural network, it wouldn't matter if it was sentient or not. "Eywa" may just be the network getting pissed at being blown up and sending animals to help defend it. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 00:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Bob, now you're being obnoxious and patronizing to an unsigned user. You have yet to give any sources of your own. In fact, I'm the one giving sources, and you guys the ones speculating! You guys are talking about what Eywa MIGHT be, and I'm talking about what they imply it is in the film! 207.55.103.59 (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've given some evidence with sources. It's near the top of this section. Looking forward to seeing any links that you can provide that have any evidence. And BTW WP:NPA. Cheers, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, as was I. Remember how Grace talks about the whole planet being connected...? There you go. Now, I say close this discussion until someone can find a reliable third-party source for it being science-fantasy. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 15:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Environmentalism in Avatar

A lot of commentary regarding the film is focused on its environmental message, its "pocahontas/ferngully connection" if you will. I just read this news item, that talks about how Avatar is only the third film that Bolivian President Evo Morales has ever seen in his life. (link in Spanish). Mr Morales has been named "World Hero of Mother Earth" by the UN general assembly, and is notable for his positions on ownership of his nation's natural resources. In fact, Bolivia's situation regarding its reserves of lithium has interesting parallels with the mineral exploitation depicted in the film. I suppose I'm wondering out loud if there should be a larger, or perhaps more focused treatment of Avatar's environmental and political postures, including criticism coming from outside the film world (might need a separate article). The film is turning out to be quite the phenomenon, even if all it's doing is bringing old arguments back into light. This could be an interesting direction to take. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting a separate article, or expanding this article? Trusilver 19:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, perhaps there wouldn't be a problem with WP:UNDUE if it was a separate article, although I'm not sure whether or not that would be considered a POV fork, and thus unacceptable. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are writing a new article in order to write contested material that was rejected from another article, that would be a POV fork issue, but a second article that elaborates on a facet of this article wouldn't be. I don't see any problem with it, as this article is already starting to run a little bit on the long side. Trusilver 21:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest the creation of a separate article dealing with themes and criticism thereof. Somewhere we can elaborate upon the impact of these themes outside the scope of cinema. I do feel that things like the religious viewpoint expressed by sources from India, while inappropriate in the film's main article (where critical reception is limited to established film critics, and so on), could be part of a subarticle dealing with themes and cultural impact. Something like Themes in Blade Runner, though there's obviously less material to work with. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might call it "Sociopolitical themes in the 2009 film Avatar", if I understand correctly what you want in it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea. Just out of curiosity, did you come up with that on your own or are there other comparable articles created from other movies? I haven't ever looked into that before, it might be something to check out before creating an article. I'll take a look when I have some time today. Trusilver 16:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Nomination

Why on Earth is there a rush for nomination ?

The article will fail for the very simple reason that it lacks stability. Stability is one the five tests that it must pass and it cannot.

Who nominated it ?

Who rushed it ?

Nominating for certain failure is the height of foolishness.

No Good Article Reviewer can possibly allow this article to pass.

6 months must be allowed to pass so that it can achieve stability and then it will pass. But not now it won't.

Whoever nominated it must withdraw the nomination before the article is deemed a failure. Tovojolo (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the "GA nomination?" category within the talk headers. Consensus was reached. DrNegative (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And please would you define your definition of "stable"? According to WP:GA?, "it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." Additionally, "Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold."
I don't see how the article violates any of that criteria presently. DrNegative (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tovojolo, the article is stable. Articles with a much, much higher average edits per day have passed GA without a problem. I'm not going to bother listing all the reasons this is so, I've already stated them before and you probably would know that had you bothered to read the talk page. Trusilver 02:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking/Race

I've seen criticism of Grace's smoking in the film. For example, see this from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/business/04smoke.html Should this be mentioned? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another criticism is that the film perpetuates racial stereotypes, including the white man as savior of the savage tribe. See e.g., http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/6968020/Avatar-hit-by-claims-of-racism.html but this has been reported on widely. This is touched on in the critical reaction section, but just barely. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar versus Titanic

Name Titanic Avatar
Release date: December 19, 1997 December 10, 2009
4 weeks: January 19, 1998 January 10, 2010
Domestic sales at 4 weeks 242.7 million 429 million
Foreign sales at 4 weeks N/A 902.1 million
Totals at 4 weeks * 1.31 billion**

*"Since opening Dec. 19, "Titanic" has not dropped from first place at the U.S. box office. Receipts, foreign and domestic, are now just over $700 million." Film `Titanic' Was Unsinkable After All The Washington Post Feb 11, 1998
** The media is reporting $1.34 billion.


My numbers can be double checked at boxofficemojo.com.

Anyone know where I can find the foreign box office sales for Titanic for its fourth week?

158.70.145.156 (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, because it won't catch Titanic - its drop-offs are too large! Betty Logan (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IP, what are you proposing? I have already covered the Avatar vs. Titanic information in the Performance analysis section. Are you saying that you want some other information about this included? If so, I would be against it. This article is already pretty long, and we do not need any more analysis information included about Avatar's box office performance.
Betty, you feel that Avatar will not catch Titanic domestically, worldwide, or both? Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it will catch Titanic either domestically or globally, at least not on a first run. If it continues at the current drop-off levels it will probably make about another $100-$150 million at the US box office and about twice that amount internationally. The real question is will it overtake The Dark Knight which it has a realistic chance of doing, meaning Cameron gets the double double? IMAX re-releases could see it sneak past Titanic eventually though, but not in ticket sales. Betty Logan (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic, 7 weeks (December 19, 1997 to February 11, 1998*)= $700 million

Avatar, 4 weeks (December 10, 2009 to January 10, 2010) = 1.31 billion

Making double the money (1310 vs. 700) in almost half the time (4 vs 7) shows that Avatar has a very good chance of catching Titanic. I could be wrong, I was wrong about my prediction that Phantom Menace (#11 worldwide, half of what Titanic made) would upset Titanic. I didn't factor in that the movie would suck.

All time worldwide, Avatar is second only to Titanic.[49] All time domestic, Avatar is seventh, the Dark Knight is second.[50]

Betty, what do you mean the "first run"? I assume you mean movie theaters?

I am not stupid enough to post as an anon any material on a page as popular as this one, I would quickly be reverted by editors who watch this page. Anons are wise to post on talk pages first, and get approval from the long time editors watching the page first, before posting anything on a popular page such as this one. 158.70.145.156 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP, please read Wikipedia:No original research. DrNegative (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A first run is basically a film's initial release. Most films only have one release these days, but Disney still have re-releases for some of their films. Star wars had a re-release for its 20th anniversary that allowed it to steal the top spot back from ET. IMAX films often have re-releases - The Pola Express gets released every year. The problem for Avatar when comparing it to Titanic is not how much it has made, but how much more it can make. Titanic for its first couple of months didn't have any drop-offs; Avatar on the otherhand had no drop-off in its second weekend, a 10% drop-off in its third and a 25% drop off in its fourth. It's highly likely that either next week or the week after Avatar will be making less money on a weekly basis than Titanic at a comparitive stage. The same thing happened with The Dark Knight - it was way ahead of Titanic for the first four weeks but ended up well short of the final total. Avatar will probably get IMAX re-releases because lets face it, if you are a huge fan would you rather watch it on DVD or go to a IMAX showing? So if it is re-released every year and makes $10 million a pop it will eventually overtake Titanic, but I would be surprised if it surpasses it this year. Betty Logan (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Betty, I am not sure how you believe that Avatar will not surpass Titanic domestically or worldwide when even box office analysts are unsure of that. This guy says he has the numbers showing that Avatar will surpass Titanic. And this article from Hollywood-elsewhere.com is asking when Avatar will surpass Titanic. Both believe that Avatar will surpass Titanic sometime in February. I am not sure what to believe.
As for re-releases, Cameron is re-releasing Titanic in 3D. I take it this means in theaters? It would be interesting to see Avatar and Titanic surpassing each other back and forth. Flyer22 (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Will it beat "Titanic," or not? Before inflation, probably. After? that's a tougher call. Despite its popularity, it's unlikely that "Avatar" will stay atop the box office for as long – 16 straight weeks – as "Titanic" did. sphere.com.[51]
  • "Film traders predict that the Pandora fever will top the box office in the next few weeks." Avatar getting ready to be king of box office. galatta dot com. (wikipedia blacklist for some reason)
  • "At the international box office, it certainly has the pace to overtake the boat story’s $1.242bn total, but can it pull in enough to push past Titanic’s $1.842bn combined all-time score? To do so it would need to gross a further $400m or so overseas to add to the $100m that is still possible from North America – after all, Fox top brass expect it to overtake The Dark Knight’s $533.3m to become the second biggest domestic release. So in conclusion – maybe" Guardian.[52]
Who knows? 158.70.145.156 (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And this guy from Manolith.com, already included as a source in this article, has reasons why Avatar will not surpass Titanic. But what is your point, IP? The "will it or won't it?" matter about Avatar surpassing Titanic is already sufficiently covered in the Performance analysis section. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is your point in covering it in your "Performance analysis" section? For the same reason I am covering here, because it is a notable subject covered by many reliable sources.
Based on your chilly response, lord knows I would never try to add any reliable sources to your "Performance analysis" section. 158.70.145.156 (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was not meant to be a chilly response. I was asking so that we can assess whether we left anything significant about this topic out of the Performance analysis section. You put this section here on this talk page without specifying your reason for doing so. Thus, my question of "What is your point?" being issued. If it is simply to discuss the matter, I have to point you to WP:FORUM; Wikipedia is not a forum. Yes, it is interesting to discuss this stuff. But discussing this stuff should be about bettering this article, what to add and what not to add (stuff like that). Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"domestic" means US and Canada?

In the 4th paragraph of the lead is this phrase, "$77 million in the United States and Canada on its opening weekend", whereas in the the source there is this phrase, "domestically with a total of $77.3 million". Is there some reason to believe that "domestic" means US and Canada instead of just US? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, the word "domestic" in the box office applies to both the United States and Canada. I have rarely seen source differentiating between Canadian and American grosses. There is a bit better explanation at Box office. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 04:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict):As far as I know, "domestic" does mean US and Canada.. or North America, whatever you fancy. :-) —Mike Allen 04:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Domestic traditionally means the domestic market. For US or Canadian films that will be US and Canada. For UK or Irish films that will be UK and Ireland. Betty Logan (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments were helpful. I made a corresponding edit to be in accord with source and added a wikilink to explain "domestically".[53] --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use "domestic" when you can say United States and Canada; we are the English-language Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. Considering that this film has performed enormously well because of territories outside the United States and Canada, we should avoid even more the usage of the word "domestic" in any capacity. Erik (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And to answer the original question, Box Office Mojo says here: "All grosses published reflect domestic earnings, i.e., United States and Canada, unless otherwise noted." Erik (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re "Considering that this film has performed enormously well because of territories outside the United States and Canada, we should avoid even more the usage of the word "domestic" in any capacity." - I don't understand the logic of this remark. Also, "domestically" is what is used in the source. It's not clear why you would have Wikipedia avoid the usage of "domestic" when it seems to be the standard usage in all the sources, and specifically the source that is used to support the statement. Perhaps you have a source that uses US and Canada gross instead of gross domestically, with regard to Avatar? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source is for American readers, so "domestic" is clear to them. In this article on the English-language Wikipedia, we do not have this specific audience. We have a global audience. Saying "United States and Canada" is clearer to everyone than "domestic". It is just a matter of converting the word so no one misunderstands the meaning. Erik (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
re "The source is for American readers, so "domestic" is clear to them." I don't think it is less clear to those outside the US. Also, note that the sources make no mention that domestic means US and Canada, and it would thus be safer to follow the sources instead of violating WP:SYNTH and making the conclusion that domestic means US and Canada for Avatar domestic gross, which doesn't seem to be in any of the sources for Avatar. Note that we are an encyclopedia and we reflect what is in the sources. The usage of "domestic" seems to be standard usage in all the sources, and specifically in both sources that are used to support the statements. Perhaps you have a source from outside the US that uses "US and Canada gross" instead of "gross domestically", with regard to Avatar, to support your assertions? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Box Office Mojo states that "domestic" means the United States and Canada, so there is no synthesis on our part. "Domestic" and "United States and Canada" can thus be used interchangeably, but it is better to be specific and just identify the territories being referred to. The cited sources that use "domestic" are written for American audiences. Here is an example of a non-American source: BBC says, "Avatar has topped the Christmas box office in a record-breaking weekend for cinemas in the US and Canada." Thus, using "domestic" is systemic bias in favor of American wording. We should be writing "United States and Canada" for the English-language Wikipedia's global audience. Erik (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC article that you mentioned did not say that numbers for the opening day gross of $27 million or opening weekend gross of $77 million was for the US and Canada. The reference to the US and Canada was not in reference to any specific numbers. When it came to specific numbers, the article mentioned the US but not Canada, "In its 10 days of release, Avatar has made $212m (£132.6m) in the US, and could be on its way to grossing more than $1bn (£625.6m) worldwide." --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that you don't believe that "domestic" means United States and Canada, even though Box Office Mojo and BBC indicate this? Yahoo! Canada says, "James Cameron's 3-D sci-fi epic earned $48.5 million across the United States and Canada..." In addition, this is why we have List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada. Erik (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ABC News says, "So far, moviegoers had snapped up $9.67 billion worth of tickets at domestic -- U.S. and Canadian -- box offices through Tuesday." Erik (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that all of those sources that mention US and Canada base their interpretation on Box Office Mojo for their definition of "domestic". I hope Box Office Mojo is right. I wonder what Box Office Mojo's source is for that definition? It is curious that the BBC article you mentioned used only "US" and not "US and Canada" when it referred to specific numbers. For now I will accomodate your points regarding "domestic" and leave "US and Canada" in the article. Of course, if a source more authoritative than Box Office Mojo shows that "domestic" means US only, or if it is shown that "domestic" or "US" alone is also used the most in articles outside of the US for the gross numbers, then I would reconsider. Please note that sometimes incorrect information from a single source can propogate a lot and it may seem to originate from many sources when it doesn't. However, I am open to wholeheartedly agreeing that using "US and Canada" is preferable if these points are cleared up, but for now I won't object to using "US and Canada" in the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the "United States and Canada" term precedes Box Office Mojo. The 1980s in Google News Archive Search reflect this. Erik (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll look that over. There was an (edit conflict) when I tried to add something to my previous message so here it is:
However, it would be cleaner if you could find a source that uses "US and Canada" for the numbers $27 million and $77 million. It's a bit of synth in the article as is, according to the first paragraph of WP:SYNTH, in my opinion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enough! "Domestic" does not specifically mean "US + Canada". "Domestic" means the national market of the country of origin of the movie, where the movie is considered to be originally released (not counting gala releases or special early screenings), the primary market, etc. For "Hero", it would be China, for "Ringu", it would be Japan and for "Låt Den Rätta Komma In", it would be Sweden. The fact that articles concerning non US+Canada movies use the term makes this abundantly clear. Also, the word "Domestic" in itself has no direct ties to the US+Canada. For "Avatar", the domestic market happens to be the North American market! Yuna-chan (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>Whoops. Second thoughts. In reading that section again, the use of "in the United States and Canada" twice seems awkward. Please note that with "domestically" there is a wikilink to where it is explained that it means United States and Canada and it is not so cumbersome. So, for the purpose of better writing, could it be rewritten so that either "in the United States and Canada" only appears once, or substitute "domestically" etc. ? I didn't see a good way of rewriting it so that "United States and Canada" only appears once. Maybe you will have better luck. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about this,

It grossed $27 million on its opening day domestically, i.e. in the United States and Canada.[2] On its opening weekend it grossed $77 million domestically[3] and $232 million worldwide.[4]

This seems to be more in accord with the sources used, clarifies for readers outside the US and within the US too, informs the reader as to what "domestic" means in the context of Avatar discussions (which is useful when they look at sources), and isn't awkward like using "in the United States and Canada" twice. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should someone have to go to another article to understand what "domestic" means, when it can be easily written in the original article (i.e in the United States and Canada). I don't see an issue with writing out United States and Canada. That way it clears any confusion. —Mike Allen 06:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the above suggested version it is written out, so perhaps you could clarify your comment. Did you mean that you were supporting the above version? --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see what you did and I like it that way (written only once). Disregard that above. —Mike Allen 04:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please re_read the wikilinks for "Domestic", which reads: For movies released in North America, box office figures are usually divided between domestic, meaning U.S. and Canada, and foreign which includes all other countries. The term "Domestic" is not, at all, usable only for the US+Canada. Yuna-chan (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need a reminder to stay civil, per WP:CIVIL? Flyer22 (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edited. Yuna-chan (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human's aren't using gas masks but oxygen masks

This is my first ever post on a talk page. All of my other edits I have done while not logged in. Forgive or correct me if I do something I shouldn't. I just noticed an inconsitency in the article. The following line might need to be changed:

"Humans cannot survive exposure to Pandora's atmosphere for very long and must use gas masks."

TO

"Pandora's atmosphere lacks oxygen necessary for human life so oxygen masks are required." Or something to that effect.

The masks that they wear are not gas masks. They are simply oxygen masks. The guy in the beginning of the movie says 20 second to unconsciousness and dead after a short while longer (can't remember his exact words for the second part). I am versed in altitude physiology and I know that Hypoxia (medical) causes unconsciousness. I also know that your body has a "reserve" of oxygen that last 12-20 seconds and then it is gone. I would just like to propose that the "Gas Mask" gets changed to "Oxygen Mask" as it seems plain to me that the atmosphere doesn't contain toxic gases but DOES lack the oxygen. Think about the point where Jake Sully loses consciousness because the window is broken and he isn't wearing a mask. If it were a toxic gas, he would require treatment or might have died. With just hypoxia, he recovers as soon as oxygen is reintroduced into his body. Let me know what you think. Jcobb86 (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Activist Survival Guide has this on the Exopacks (p.12): "Pandora's atmosphere would be easily breathable—if it wasn't contaminated by a pungent mixture of carbon dioxide, xenon, and hydrogen sulfide. The additional gases cause a variety of unpleasant reactions, including choking and burning of mucous membranes, followed by unconsciousness within twenty seconds and death within four minutes." and further, "Nevertheless, the partial pressure of oxygen in the Pandoran atmosphere is similar to that of Earth's atmosphere. In order to breathe, it is only necessary to filter out the toxic components." Sebastian…talk 14:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice thanks for that. On a side note... I might pickup that book. Jcobb86 (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that the issue is resolved here. I still believe that the gas mask statement is misleading. I propose we change this statement to say something closer to what the book tells us. Maybe even a direct quote. Assuming a direct quote is not something we want to use, it would be more accurate to say:

"Pandora's atmosphere is harmful to humans, exposure to the atmosphere causes unconsciousness in a matter of seconds and death in minutes. A lightweight breathing apparatus, called the Exopack, has been designed to filter out the high concentrations of carbon dioxide, xenon and hydrogen sulfide so that a human may breath the oxygen that is present."

Seems a little lengthy but it is more informative IMHO. Opinions? Jcobb86 (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I really don't think it's necessary to bloat the already-long plot section with such a large discussion of a relatively minor point- the atmosphere is toxic, we get it. That being said, I suggest - "Pandora's atmosphere is toxic to humans, necessitating the use of breathing masks." Doniago (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with this. Thanks for putting it more succinctly. Can we get it changed or do we need more input? Jcobb86 (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - I went ahead and made the change. It's only one sentence, so if anyone feels further discussion/modification is needed, it's not a big deal. You're welcome! :) Doniago (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foolish subplot about unobtanium

What is actualy means "precious mineral"? Even under current technologies any chemical compound (inorganic) could be synthesized from chemical elements.I don't talk about technologies of the future when intergalaxy travels will be available.Precious could be element (such as Platinum),not mineral.Once chemical formula will be discovered it will be much cheaper to synthesize it than to mine it on a toxic planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.228.58 (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Unobtanium and MacGuffin. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Avatar an original story?

Is Avatar an original story or is it based on another work? Livingston 10:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want contemporary stuff a bit like Fern Gully and Independence Day, only here the humans are the ones who have basically exhausted the resources of their own homeworld(s), and are now unpleasantly seeking amends. Koyae (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem very similar to Fallen Dragon by Peter F. Hamilton. Haven't seen any mention of that as an inspiration ... but it's hard to ignore. Kmmontandon (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It also has many similarities with Strugatsky brothers' works, especially Disquiet (which actually features planet Pandora that is very similar to the film's one).
It also seems to have a character called Nava in it.
I am sure that the plot is very similar to another I read about in the last few months, but I cannot remember what it was, or who wrote it. This is doing my head in, as I am sure that it is derived from it. Jason404 (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a short story featuring similar exploring method. "Call me Joe".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_me_Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.124.54 (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The movie premise does include almost _every_ Furry [Fandom] fiction Trope in existence... --203.14.156.193 (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a a definite resemblance to "Call me Joe" - I noticed it as soon as I heard the plot of this film (I first encountered "Call me Joe" in the Starstream comicbook adaptation!). In Development, I have added mention of apparent connection to writings by Anne McCaffrey (dragon bonding) and Ursula Le Guin (tree-hugging aliens invaded by militaristic humans). Considering Cameron openly stated that his film is a compendium of all the science fiction he's read, maybe a separate section on infuences is called for? - 152.76.1.244 (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original items in the story were the tree, Eywa, the biolinks between creatures and the "unobtanium" that made the Hallelujah Mountains fly. As soon as the movie got 5 minutes in I thought of "Call me Joe." I kept expecting the avatars to strengthen and the people to die in their pods, but the equivalent was handled well through the tree. There are three other sci-fi stories I read before 1975 that this movie used for the plot, but I can't think of two of their names. The first was a story with a lush world that had a plant intelligence exactly like the one described by Sigourney Weaver with a female botanist-scientist who figured it out. There were these harmless and pretty floating creatures that the botanist called "phytos" that acted quite like the "seeds of the tree" that landed on the lead character in Avatar. The later part of that book is about the planet's total biosphere "waking up" and becoming conscious. The second story is less exact, but had a world I remember being named Pandora. And that world had incredibly dangerous animal life in it like the Pandora world in Avatar. The third story was even less exact, "The Integral Trees" and didn't have floating mountains, it had trees growing in space in a disk of dense gas surrounding a star. 69.230.116.219 (talk)SciFiKid —Preceding undated comment added 00:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Not to mention everything from Pocahontas to Ferngully to Dances with Wolves...

Exactly what I thought: Dances with Wolves - IN SPACE! AND 3D! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.11.76 (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fern Gully was the first thing I found myself thinking of when I watched the movie, same with my mum apparently. But as far as I know it wasn't directed based on anything, it just seems to include a lot of very common storylines. Danikat (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just leave this here... --89.27.15.232 (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the description given so far in the article it sounds a helluva lot like Ursula K. Le Guin's The Word for World is Forest. Metamagician3000 (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also very similiar to Alan Dean Foster's book 'Midworld' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midworld —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.47.44 (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also was struck by the many, many similarities to Foster's works (midworld, sentenced to prism, and mid-flinx). I could go on for paragraphs on the similarities. And these are *not* simple plot elements -- these are major components of the world. It has me thinking "rip-off". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeshoff (talk • contribs) 19:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am suprised that nobody mentioned 1995 Blue Byte's software game 'Albion' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion_(game) which is strikingly simillar not only with story but also with character desing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.179.14.78 (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Avatar appears familiar because many of the story elements are very simple ideas. Even the idea of humans controlling other lifeforms with their minds is as old as stories themselves. Witchcraft, psychic powers, and now science. Heck, Lovecraft wrote about aliens transferring their minds into alien bodies. Some people are always trying to take the wind out of other people's sails for no good reason. 92.9.60.71 (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pandora, the lush jungle planet with incredible lifeforms and non-technological native population, is featured prominently in several of the Strugatsky brothers works, especially the late 1960's Snail on the Slope, specifically featuring a downed human helicopter pilot whose severed head was fastened on a native's body, immersed into their society - having his conscience in effect implanted into an alien body - who becomes a warrior on their behalf in the end. And, at the "base", there's an episod when a seed takes root in a human's body very rapidly. Coincidence? Not very likely.

There are many "coincidences" between this book & a film. For example, Forest in Stugatskys' book is reasonable being. Also book has such a fragment: "Hет, — сказал Алик, — просто они чувствуют друг друга на расстоя— нии. Фитотелепатия. Слыхали?" Translation: No - said Alex. But they (trees) sense each other from grate distance. Herbal telepathy. Have you heard about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.100.117.32 (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How's that not a set of *many* *amazing* similarities? Name of planet, name of a character, type of civilization, type of life, the cituation of a human implanted into the native body and society, the natives able to control their incredibly vital environment by sheer thought, humans trying to exploit the natives (well that's one is a virtual given in any story but all the rest..... c'mon!). WillNess (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a reliable source to back that claim, it can't be included in the article. The IP above you said it best, "Avatar appears familiar because many of the story elements are very simple ideas." Erik (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am a reliable source. I've read the book. Also, the book itself is a reliable source. Do you want year of print and page number for every one of the facts I mention? WillNess (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably reliable, but how general are we allowed to get? Can we include similarities between Romeo and Juliet because they fell in love and they're from two warring groups, any romance book with a love triangle, or The Hero with a Thousand Faces (what I first thought of for some reason)? I feel like this is our interpretation; perhaps accurate and knowledgeable interpretation, but our interpretation nonetheless. CM (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are not a reliable source. You are basically doing synthesis, which is original research and not appropriate for inclusion. Unless actual reliable sources make such comparisions, it doesn't belong in the article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of reliable source you may looking for? Official confirmation from film creators? Of course they won't do that! Moreover they'll do their best to delete such kind of information from English version of article. Russian Wikipedia already include paragraph about that and some links to sources, but they are internet media. I may suggest another link to real newspaper [54]. Isn't it reliable enough? And, of course, anyone may read the book and find that similarity. It is unfair not to include such information to the article because Wikipedia should not support malicious or casual attempts to mislead people of fantasy origin. 217.71.225.58 (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC) I mean, doesn't resistance of including drawing of a parallel between Strugatsky's and Avatar's Pandora goes against principle of neutrality? 217.71.225.58 (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the excerpt from your reference[55] that you are referring to?
"Еще дальше — и ближе к Кэмерону — пошли Стругацкие, заставив своего Кандида из «Улитки на склоне» не просто жениться на Наве, но и столкнуться с породившей ее вымирающей цивилизацией, и даже защищать эту цивилизацию от прогресса. Но такой остроты конфликта, как в «Аватаре», у Стругацких не было: все-таки биологическая, деревенская, лесная цивилизация мужиков подвергалась атаке не со стороны родного кандидовского института. Ее атаковала сила, одинаково враждебная и Лесу, и Кандиду."
"Кэмерон тырит у Стругацких щедро, используя не только изобретенную ими планету Пандору с ее ракопауками и тахоргами, но и название своих туземцев — Нави, недвусмысленно восходящее к упомянутой Наве (Б.Н. Стругацкий от претензий официально отказался). При этом он создает — и, к сожалению, никак не использует — ситуацию по-настоящему перспективную: вот есть Пандора с ее органической, полурастительной жизнью, которую регулирует, кормит и охраняет целая сеть мыслящих деревьев. Вот есть Земля образца 2154 года — думаю, именно 2154 терабайта потребуется для сиквела, — Земля высохшая, загубленная прогрессом, для жизни малопригодная."
If so, could you give here your translation into english of this passage? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Yeah, this one, I'll try to translate... Just I'd try to start a little early: "Другие предлагают вспомнить «Покахонтас», к истории которой Кэмерон в самом деле демонстративно отсылается: любовь цивилизованного (либо инопланетного, либо иностранного до полной инопланетности) гостя к туземке — чрезвычайно выигрышный сюжет, и русскому человеку тут грех не вспомнить примеры поближе и поинтереснее, чем «Покахонтас»: эта схема объединяет столь непохожие сочинения, как «Олеся» Куприна, «Аэлита» А.Н. Толстого и «Сон в начале тумана» Рытхэу, полузабытый на Родине, но культовый в Европе, особенно в эпоху моды на этно. Олеся, Аэлита, Пыльмау — Аэлита, кстати, тоже синяя, — ни типологически, ни даже поведенчески ничем не отличаются от принцессы Нейтири. Еще дальше — и ближе к Кэмерону — пошли Стругацкие,..." and finish a little early too.
Others suggest to remember "Pocahontas". Cameron indeed demonstratively referred to the story of it: love of civilized (either extraterrestrial or so foreign up to full extraterrestriallity) visitor [grammatically referred by author as being male] to indigene [grammatically referred by author as being female] is extremely advantageous plot and it wouldn't be a bad thing for Russian to remember more close and more interesting examples than "Pocahontas". This scheme [i.e. "Avatar"] unite such dissimilar works like Kuprin's "Olesya", A.N. Tolstoy's "Aelita" and Rytkheu's "A Dream in Polar Fog", almost forgotten at the homeland but cult in Europe, especially at the epoch of vogue of ethno [not sure how to translate, but it means ethnic culture since Rytkheu is Chukchi]. Olesya, Aelita, Pylmau - Aelita, by the way, is blue too - neither typologically nor behaviorally does not differs from princess Neytiri. More further — and close to Cameron — went Strugatsky [it is ironically written by author of article that is it Strugatsky's books which are more close to Cameron's "Avatar" than other's books]. They not only forced their Candid to marry Nava but meet dying civilization that gave birth to her and even protect that civilization from progress. But there was not such acuteness of conflict in Strugatsky's work: biological, village, forest civilization of man still was attacked not from Candid's home institute. It was attacked by force similarly hostile both to Forest and to Candid.
Cameron steal from Strugatsky generously [Russian verb тырить written here have the same meaning like English steal but it does not sounds as direct indictment, people who use such verb to indicate process of "stealing" does not treat this "stealing" as extremely serious crime but show understanding of "pilferer's" behavior but including shade of meaning of contempt robber. Also тырить does not indicate robbery of large money or big damage, it means quite the contrary] using not only devised by them planet of Pandora with crayfishspiders and tahorgs in it, but name of his indigenes - Na'vi - unambiguously come from mentioned Nava (B. Strugatsky officially abandon a claim).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.71.225.58 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the translation. I don't see that much similarity between Strugarsky's work and Avatar, except possibly that both works got ideas from similar places. Other works mentioned, e.g. Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves, seem much more similar. Have you considered that Strugarsky may have gotten ideas from the same place that Cameron got ideas, e.g. Pocahontas? The avatar idea seems to be much closer to Call Me Joe that has already been mentioned, where someone controls an alien body remotely, compared to Strugarsky where a head is fastened onto another body (mentioned in a previous message), which is more like Frankenstein. The tall blue people came from a dream that Cameron's mother had, and Cameron put that into his first screenplay in the 1970's. See Themes and inspirations section. The name Na'vi being close to Nava in Strugarsky doesn't seem like much to speak of. Maybe Strugarsky and Cameron both got it from the native americans called Navajo. BTW, was Strugarsky's work published in english? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is no much similarity especially in the plot of the story of Avatar and Strugatsky's books, but the idea of Planet of Pandora with wild jungle filled with wild dangerous animals many appears in many Strugatsky books of the series of Noon Universe, most of them where published in English. List is here.
The Pandora with forest with living moving trees in it first appears in Disquiet which is probably wasn't translated into English. Strugatskys write a "remake" of that book which was published as "Snail on the Slope" in English according to that link. The Forest in that book is much similar to Disquiet's one but there is no mention of Pandora in "Snail". (That is because or why "Snail" is not from Noon Universe series.) Strugatsky's Planet of Pandora looks like original idea, Frank Herbert's Planet of Pandora appeared many years after.
I do not tell that there is much similarity between Strugatsky's and Cameron's stories, just the jungle of Planet of Pandora. But there are really a lot of similarities between "Avatar" and other works, Strugatsky's is just one of them. So many references made me thinking that Avatar is combination of many ideas... 217.71.225.58 (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC) 217.71.225.58 (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re " I do not tell that there is much similarity between Strugatsky's and Cameron's stories, just the jungle of Planet of Pandora." - Regarding the similarity of the jungle of Pandora and Strugarsky's jungle, could you present a published source that makes this claim? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the newspaper article I tried to translate is only published source I have. I mean I have this newspaper issue and I do not know if there other published sources, just large amount of internet pages.217.71.225.58 (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I too have come up with my own analysis of the film but I realize that I can't put it in the article because of WP:NOR. It is unfortunate, but that is the nature of this encyclopedia, which tries to report only what is in reliable sources, rather than the ideas of editors which may or may not be correct. So, although it may be unfortunate personally for the editor who comes up with an idea, and possibly unfortunate for the reader if the idea is correct, it is fortunate for the reader that the Wikipedia is more credible because of this policy. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Does the Russian Wikipedia have a policy that is similar to WP:NOR? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar is another remake of Heart of Darkness[5] User: nova9047 —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Avatar is closely based on the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs and other authors of the pulp fiction era of literature, of course it should be mentioned. Neurolanis (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a post explaining the resemblance to an episode of "Avatar: The Last Aribender" entitled "The Swamp", though some person probably deleted it for some reason. Anyway, in this episode, the characters venture to a great swamp/forest that is similar to the flora of Pandora. At the center of this swamp is a giant tree, larger than all others, much like Hometree and the Tree of Souls in Cameron's Avatar. What strikes me as most odd is that in this swamp, every organism is 'connected' to one another just like the "global organism" on Pandora. The giant Hometree-like-tree in the center of this swamp is also the center for all of the connected organisms in the swamp. One character in this episode explains that the swamp can make death and time only an illusion. This is like the Na'vi's belief that when they die, they simply go back to Eywa. Also, this character is the defender of the swamp, like the Na'vi, who prevents it from outside destruction. Surprising similarities, no? Infoadder2010 (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is just original research. Feel free to post it on a blog! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 15:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re "I had a post explaining the resemblance to an episode of "Avatar: The Last Aribender" entitled "The Swamp", though some person probably deleted it for some reason." - It was archived as is done routinely with older sections. At the top of this page there's info on archives. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Too real?"

This from CNN might be a noteworthy addition if the trend continues. Some fans seem to be getting emotionally attached to the world of Pandora due to the realism of the special effects and its portrayal of a utopian society. Might be something to keep an eye on. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 23:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. My. God. lol Also on that news report, the picture at the top. Why is there someone recording the film? :-\ —Mike Allen
They're all wearing some sort of credentials. It looks like a special screening. Woogee (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, wow. That is very interesting. --haha169 (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone added it to the article. But the question is, should it be in the article? —Mike Allen 04:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fluff piece about a film forum. It's a absolute joke that's allowed in but some editors wouldn't let Cinosaur cover the Avatar controversy in the mainstream Indian press. This just confirms my suspicions that 'notability' doesn't extend beyond the US press on this article. Betty Logan (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that it should not be allowed, be bold and revert it, then discuss it here for consensus as Cinosaur did. DrNegative (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There really is no point when it comes to US/international notability. I'll say it's not notable and before we know it there will be half a dozen US editors saying it is claiming a consensus. Given the fact that two thirds of the box office is international meaning that the film's audience outnumber the US by 2:1 and yet 100% of the critical reception is attributed to US sources pretty much indicates there is no desire by the regular editors to abide by WP:WORLDVIEW. Betty Logan (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not wish to challenge it, then that is your consensus. Keep in mind the "Worldview" article you quote is not any form of policy or guideline. It is merely an essay of "advice or opinions" as noted at the top of the page. I too questioned its notability and reliability to the article when I first saw it, but the source was a "CNN headline" and it graced their front page for a short time. Doing a quick search, I already found the article mirrored on other US sites and several notable Canadian and UK news sites as well. This however doesn't mean I support its inclusion in the manner that its displayed here though. DrNegative (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FallenAngelII removed the CNN part about the Pandora health effect, as seen in this edit. And Hopefloat007 removed the part about people feeling nauseous while watching the film, as seen in this link. I personally find the CNN source more notable for inclusion, and do not understand FallenAngelII's reason for removing it while leaving in the Daily Mail source about a person throwing up after seeing the film. FallenAngelII feels that people feeling that Pandora is real while watching it and getting depressed after the film is over is "hardly a notable health effect" because "[p]eople get depressed and suicidal over the most ridiculous of reasons. This isn't real!" and "It's a Sci-fi/Fantasy epic!)" I disagree that it is not notable. If people are having that kind of reaction to this film, it is a health effect. A serious one, in my view. But I want to point out that depression is often about a combination of things. Most, if not all, of these people likely already had life problems significantly stressing them out...and used Avatar as an escape from that. But once the film was over, they felt incredibly worse. The film successfully took them to this other world and made them forget about all their problems for a few hours, and when it was over, it hurt even more to go back to the real world. That is my analysis, but we cannot use mine (of course). This story would be more notable if coming from a psychologist who has interviewed a few of these people. Either way, I feel that this story is worth a mention. Yes, Pandora is not real; we know that. And that is why people believing that it is...is even being reported.
I feel that all this should be discussed more, in case it comes up again. The Daily Mail source has come up more than once on this talk page. There is also an ABC source backing that up. And I definitely feel that people believing that Pandora is real so much so that they have gotten depressed from accepting that it is not should be mentioned somewhere in this article. Perhaps, in the Critical reception section. And, no, the Critical reception is not just for critics. We have reviews from fellow directors, for example. Maybe this Critical reception section needs to be expanded in the way that the Changeling (film) article's Reception/Reviews sections are. I was thinking of waiting until this article is up for Feature article status before expanding the reception section in that way, though (so that that the article would have some significant difference when wanting to upgrade it). Flyer22 (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an alternative, this information could be incorporated into the Filming and effects section somehow (maybe even as a subsection). But I'm not sure I like that idea, since mention of this pertains to the film's release. Flyer22 (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked why I removed the references to people becoming depressed and having suicidal thoughts due to the movie being too "believable" and thus, a lot of stupid people became depressed when they realized the lush surroundings weren't real. Why? Because it's stupid! People get depressed and have suicidal thoughts over all kinds of things! Unless it's a widespread phenomenon, it's not noteworthy! A select few idiots does not a noteworthy fact make! I'm sure people got depressed after watching The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter (any of the currently 6 existing ones) or any other Sci-Fi/Fantasy. I mean, that's the deal here, it's a Sci-Fi/Fantasy epic! Of course it's not real! And of course a few idiots will feel down after watching it, realizing that it's not real! If I go out and watch "Sherlock Holmes" today and then get a newspaper to cover an interview of myself saying I got depressed after watching it since I realize it's no longer 1902 or whenever the story is set to play out, will that make it a noteworthy fact? NO! Yuna-chan (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FallenAngelII, I find your reasons to simply be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. They are not founded in any of Wikipedia's policies, and are downright rude. Calling people stupid and idiots because they have gotten depressed or suicidal (or both) after watching this film not only shows your lack of tact but also your lack of experience in dealing with topics of depression and suicide. Besides that...you act as though it is a no-brainer that you are right; your reasons were delivered in a condescending manner, I feel. What if consensus had been for keeping that piece, since it was in an obviously well-watched article? If anything, you should have checked this talk page first to see what the thoughts on this matter were. And if nothing was on this talk page about it, then you should have started a discussion about it before or after your removal. Going around removing reliably sourced information from articles, simply because you do not like it is not how things are supposed to work here...unless you give valid reasons for the removal on the talk page. And by valid, I mean, not simply calling it stupid or idiotic. But, yes, consensus is currently with you on the removal. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it should not be in the article until there is a statement by a mental health professional that it is actually a problem. Note that CNN could have gotten the opinion of a mental health professional, but it didn't. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fully concur with that. If the Daily Mail or CNN were to include a formal medical opinion in their articles then it would be notable enough for inclusion, but without that it's just puff journalism. Betty Logan (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. But if consensus is against inclusion, there is nothing I can do. Although, I was not for the Daily Mail and ABC sources being included anyway, because some people or a single person being nauseous during the film is minor. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As later stated by Bob K31416 and Flyer22, it is not notable. It has not reported by any health professionals. In other words, all we have now are unconfirmed (reports by some major news outlets =/= confirmed) rumors about a small number of people. Unconfirmed and insofar insighnificant. This is the TL;DR version of what I said, however. I just called them idiots as well. Yuna-chan (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that it was not notable. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←)Someone deleted the section that was in the article on fans who are depressed after seeing the film because Pandora is not real. This sounds silly, but it has been reported on by major news sources. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/6977817/Avatar-fans-suicidal-because-planet-Pandora-is-not-real.html and Piazza, Jo (January 11, 2010). "Audiences experience 'Avatar' blues". Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. CNN.com. Retrieved January 11, 2010. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete it but I think we should discuss it here as to how to implement it into the article instead of creating a whole new section for it. Anyone else have any thoughts? DrNegative (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Part of a new section/subarticle on cultural impact? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The best part of the internet is it gives everyone a voice. The worst part about the internet is that it gives everyone a voice. A great many of the positive and negative sourceable comments about Avatar fall pretty firmly under WP:WHOGIVESASHIT (it doesn't exist, I know, but by God it should). The article would be cumbersome to the point of unreadability if every single idiot who has internet access gets their opinion on the movie put into the article. The criticism section alone would be longer than the entire article is now. Obviously, we aren't going to do that, which means whittling the article down to the most widespread criticisms of the film and ignoring the writings of Joe Sixpack writing an op-ed piece for the BFE Kansas Herald. In this kind of situation, we are forced to rely heavily on WP:UNDUE. It's important not to spend half the article bringing up ever single criticism made about a movie that has received overwhelmingly positive reviews. I mean that for this particular issue as well as all the others brought up in the last few days, most of them are ridiculous to the point that I can't figure out how their writers actually gather up the brain power necessary to breathe. Trusilver 05:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NY Times, UK Telegraph and CNN are not "every single idiot", they are major media. It seems like there should be a Criticism section that summarizes the criticisms of the movie that have been widely discussed in the media. That does not mean it will be terribly long. It should present the criticisms that have received widespread coverage in major media and a reliable source or two illustrating each. Otherwise the article is not balanced; it is promotional. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try this again. If we included every single criticism that has been levied against the film, the criticism section would be three times longer than the rest of the article. That's why we follow policies like WP:UNDUE. A wikipedia article is not a laundry list of EVERYTHING that has ever been said on a subject, it is a broad and (god willing) succinct overview of a subject. This eventually happens to pretty much every article about a movie during its first few months, especially very popular movies; someone is on the internet and find a story that hasn't been at all mentioned in the article and then runs up eagerly like a little kid who just found a nice shiny rock and says something to the tune of "ZOMG! I found a story about a woman who said that The Golden Compass made her fall away from Catholicism, this NEEEEEEDS to go in the article!!!!111one1!" There are plenty of criticisms about the film that have widespread coverage and discussion on, we don't need to worry about the minor ones. If you can find a way to include something in a way that actually shrinks the bloated "critical reception" section, then lets hear it. If you look over the last seventy or eighty items in the archive, you will find that if we included every single bit of criticism that everything thinks should be in the article, the critical reception section would be twice the size it is now, maybe longer.
I'm totally aware that it's more interesting to find and post negative criticism about a movie, but when we currently have a criticism section that has 12 negative quotes to 9 positive ones (and a smattering of neutrals), on a movie that gained 80%+ positive reviews from critics, could you point out where balanced is rearing its head?Trusilver 07:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should not be in the article until there is a statement by a mental health professional that it is actually a problem. Note that CNN could have gotten the opinion of a mental health professional, but it didn't. The Telegraph article had a statement by a mental health professional.

"Stacy Kaiser, a psychotherapist, said obsession with the film was masking more serious problems in the fans' lives. 'They’re seeing Avatar, they're lonely people, a lot of them don’t have a lot going on in their lives right now,' she said. 'The movie opened up a portal for them to express their depression.'

So according to the only mental health professional's opinion reported so far, it doesn't seem like there is anything to the idea that Avatar causes depression, but rather those people were already depressed, in the opinion of a psychotherapist. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because one psychotherapist said something (their personal opinion, most probably) does not mean it's notable. Or that we need another mental health professional's refutation in order to deem it unimportant enough to disregard in the Avatar article! How about this, since no one else has mentioned it, let's assume no one else agrees with her! Silence =/= Agreement. Yuna-chan (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I basically agree with her, with the exception that I believe Avatar made it worse, and I stated something similar above: "Most, if not all, of these people likely already had life problems significantly stressing them out...and used Avatar as an escape from that. But once the film was over, they felt incredibly worse. The film successfully took them to this other world and made them forget about all their problems for a few hours, and when it was over, it hurt even more to go back to the real world."
The woman knows what she is talking about. All psychotherapists base their professional thoughts not only on opinion but experience, or at least they should. It is not about guessing. And, no, silence does not always equal agreement. But, yeah, since Avatar most likely did not make these people depressed, but rather made their depression worse, it does not seem as though it needs to be mentioned. This type of thing could and does happen with other stuff as well. Flyer22 (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I agree with Trusilver's more general comment that just because there is an article about the film, doesn't mean that it should be included in the Avatar article. With the relatively large number of articles on this film, there is bound to be a large diversity of quality, accuracy and bias, and some articles may not be worthwhile. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to remind people to check the talk page for already discussed matters. This topic, for example, is already discussed above at #"Too real?", and I am not big on rearranging talk pages to keep similarly discussed topics together. My feelings on this depression/suicide matter is above. I am for the inclusion, but am not too keen on it having its own section...unless it actually becomes a bigger issue. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, and  Done. About this: I think it's absurd and should not be included just because a few notable websites reported something on it. It didn't really go into detail, and I think we should wait and see if this does become an "issue". Right now I think it's a non-issue and will probably pass. Probably. —Mike Allen 01:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been established, it's not just about notability. Notable news sources report on fluff and unconfirmed rumors/opinions all the time. For something to be confirmed and important, it has to be widely reported and have multiple original sources. 3 major news outlets reporting on the same issue using the same original source = 1 source. Yuna-chan (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not say that for something to be confirmed and important, it has to be widely reported, but I get your point and thank you for coming back with a better attitude. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Language creator

The article states that Cameron developed the Na'vi language. However, at the end of the movie the credits are given to Whatshisname, Ph.D. (whose name I forgot, and you may have understood.) This deserves either correction or enlightenment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.34.188.206 (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It was Paul Frommer. You're welcome to make the appropriate correction. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See more on the Na'vi language development here, from Cameron's own mouth. Cinosaur (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pandora of Avatar - Roger Dean's ideas?

If you are familiar with the work of Roger Dean, you will notice that many features of Pandora are his ideas. Roger Dean became famous especially for his famous 70's album covers for progressive rock groups like Yes, Uriah Heep, Rare Earth and many more. If you check the album cover for "Not necessarily acoustic" by Steve Howe, it looks just like a scene from Avatar. See the curved bows of rock in the jungle - the center of the Pandora antigravitational current - here: [56] The flying dragon is in Avatar - see here: [57] The floating rocks are in Avatar - see here: [58] and here: [59] You can see more of his ideas here: [60] His ideas create the magic of Pandora. Very bizzare is the fact, that Roger Dean is not mentioned in the credits, although his album covers are widely known. Is this really a matter of mere plagiarism? Max farmer (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to review the first topic on this Talk page, and bear in mind that unless there are reliable sources discussing this, anything you would add would be original research and hence inappropriate for inclusion. Doniago (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The last link in Max Farmer's message is a reliable source. The question in my mind is how original are Roger Dean's images and whether images like those have appeared before, for example, on the covers of sci-fi mags or in the works of other artists. I think that Cameron drew on the whole genre of sci-fi for the ideas in the film, and I think that was mentioned in a reliable source, although offhand I can't remember which one. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen other movies and read books that could also be considered to be influenced by artwork such as this. I'd be against this under WP:UNDUE. We don't need to include EVERY single comment written by every single non-notable person who posted their opinions to "teh interweb". Trusilver 16:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting, to show proofs of what I think is plagiarism, but people prefer rules. But I agree: Rules are important. To start with reliable sources: I keep it like Roger Dean himself on his homepage [61] with "What the world is saying about Avatar". If you just simply google avatar+roger+dean [62] you find a never ending list of what notable and non-notable persons find obvious: Roger Dean is the artist of the Pandora features. Artist James White supports this idea. [63] ArtistsUK also think Roger Deans should claim rights. [64] As I said: The list is endless. It is not just an idea of some singular "non-notable persons" on the web. Rather anyone who knows Roger Dean and Avatar sees the obvious similarities. So in my humble opinion it is quite worth being discussed here. Max Farmer (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but a lot of us are always a little bit suspicious when truth-bearing SPAs come to an article with dramatic posts about something that is only being talked about by little-known sources and non-notable writers. Forgive us for our skepticism. Trusilver 19:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the section "The "Roger Dean" Thing" at this link: http://io9.com/5444960/avatars-designers-speak-floating-mountains-amp-suits-and-the-dragon . Perhaps we can finally come to a conclusion about this, and even include it in the article. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I quote Avatar-designer Dylan Cole [65]: "Dean's work has a whimsical quality that we absolutely wanted to avoid." First: They knew his work. Second: When Dean's design is "whimsical", then why does everybody who knows Dean and Avatar think, that the floating mountains, the rock bows and the dragons look like Dean's? All of these features are peculiar and unique in design and no common ideas. [66] Even wikipedia itsself has an entry on that: [67] It seems a bit too easy to me to quote the maybe plagiarist, who said: "No, we haven't taken his ideas." I think Wikipedia cannot be the judge here. Wikipedia should stay unbiased. There is an ongoing discussion, which will remain. [68] [69] I agree with Aniraptor2001: It should be included in the article. And just to say this: I like the film a lot and saw it several times... Max Farmer (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another interesting statement about the floating mountains, this time from Cameron: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20336893_10,00.html (10th slide) AniRaptor2001 (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what is going to happen in the people's encyclopedia? I think it would be good to put in a few phrases just to inform, that there is a discussion and deliver the sources, so people can judge themselves. There are sources pro and con, which would keep the entry unbiased as wikipedia should stay. (At the moment the chapter "Themes and inspirations" reads a bit like a fully positive pr-text as seems based just on Cameron-quotes. Not good for an encyclopedia in my opinion.) Who decides here and takes action? Max Farmer (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the 4th paragraph of critical reception discusses similarity to previous work. So if a sentence about Roger Dean is included, that may be the appropriate place to put it. Max, you or someone else might consider trying something there. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved recently added sociopolitical paragraph here for discussion

recently added international sociopolitical paragraph

Internationally, critics applauded its themes of anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism. Bolivian columnist Huascar Vega Ledo, writing for Bolpress, said, "It is the imperial attitude with all the coarseness and fiction of cinema. And in the cinema, the good guys win. But in reality ... there is no change."[6] Bolivian President Evo Morales praised Avatar for its "profound show of resistance to capitalism and the struggle for the defence of nature".[7] Columnist Oscar van den Boogaard, writing for De Standaard in Belgium said, "It's about the brutality of man, who shamelessly takes what isn’t his."[8] One Chinese columnist said the film might incite unrest there because of parallels between its plot and the plight of many Chinese fighting eviction in the face of development. "Avatar may not have much depth, but it inadvertently hits a nerve in a country where the bulldozer is both a threat and a sign of progress," wrote Raymond Zhoe for the China Daily.[9] Angolan critic Altino Matos saw a message of hope. For the Jornal De Angola, he wrote: "With this union of humans and aliens comes a feeling that something better exists in the universe: the respect for life. Above all, that is what James Cameron’s film Avatar suggests."[10] Writing for Hindustan Times and The Sydney Morning Herald, Maxim Osipov commended Cameron for “convincingly” defining culture and civilization as “the qualities of kindness, gratitude, regard for the elder, self-sacrifice, respect for all life and ultimately humble dependence on a higher intelligence behind nature”. [11][12]

I think we need to consider WP:UNDUE regarding this paragraph about comments in some articles outside the US. Just like comments about sociopolitical issues that appear in some US articles, I suspect it doesn't correctly represent international opinion on the film with respect to WP:UNDUE and focuses on sociopolitical aspects only. It seems that it should be considerably shortened and merged with the sociopolitical paragraph that is the third paragraph in the same section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I not for it being in the "sociopolitical paragraph." I feel that we need a "positive paragraph," a "negative paragraph," and whatever else. Right now, the "sociopolitical paragraph" is the "negative paragraph," with one positive take. I am not keen on it being a blend of negative and positive comments. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this paragraph, in whichever form and in whichever section, is long overdue, for reasons that I have already started discussing above. We agreed before on unnotability of certain minority groups and their views on the movie, gone and done with. However, without mentioning, to some healthy extent, responses from notable international media the Critical reception section will appear WP:Biased. Admittedly, defining the exact ratio and selection of such reviews is an arduous task, but this does not cancel its importance. I, for one, am ready to take part.
Besides, cherry-picking only those reviews (or excerpts from them) that dwell exclusively on sociopolitical aspects is in itself a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. IMO, as it stands now, the Critical reception section is already overdosed on sociopolitical stuff and will not benefit from more of the same from overseas. Cinosaur (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting that this info go into another article, where the themes are expanded upon, but not just a list of non-film world critical responses. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Cinosaur's sentiment, but I agree with AniRaptor. The critical reception section is constantly threatening to fly out of control. It's already skating a very thin line with WP:UNDUE. I like the idea of creating another article to expand on the criticism section with a hat added to the critical reception section on the parent article. Trusilver 16:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these information is quite unnecessary. Since the film is popular worldwide, there are countless of bloggers and columnists from everywhere who are now commenting on the film, or criticizing and interpetating its various themes. Unless the article is extremely reputable, or is of "serious" film criticism by notable film scholars, it doesn't belong in the critical reception. The article is getting very long already.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is "extremely" reputable? We only go by reliably sourced, reputable, and non-reliable. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of a separate article dedicated to the film's critical reception internationally. Bloated articles are ugly -- but so are skewed ones. Cinosaur (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, many of these are just individual's perspectives (commentaries) on the film's themes, and not "critical reception". A lot of these are just from some columnists and bloggers; they are not necessarily professional film analysis. If there is a separate section, I would actually like to see content from professional film scholars and some in-depth analysis from "prestige" film publications such as Sight and Sound, Film Comment, Cahiers du cinéma or Senses of Cinema if they are available; these are real film criticisms, not web-columns from a newspaper.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Critical reception section is not only for notable film scholars. And we could easily format the Critical reception section in the way that the Changeling (film) article is formatted. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Professional film critics abroad are quite likely to write pretty much what their counterparts in US have already written exhaustively about 3D, the wow factor, special effects and the like. On the other hand, there is a lot of deep and interesting reviews, both within and outside of US, albeit not by professional film critics, which explore the movie's cultural and philosophical aspects in a better way than any film pro would do -- and Wiki readers deserve to have them readily available somewhere.
Say, I believe that conservative Christian stances on the movie, like the one by Ross Douthat, should not be squeezed into a line between similarly notable (and squeezed) reviews, and would be better situated in a separate article, as is feedback from Vatican. And we can safely assume that, as the rave settles, there will be more in-depth cultural and philosophical analyses of the kind from other quarters that will have to be accommodated as well. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have definitely hit and slightly passed the recommended max size for an article. Its giving me a warning on my edits. Maybe a branch at this point wouldn't be such a bad idea if consensus led to it. DrNegative (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen anyone yet that seems opposed to splitting the article. Trusilver 20:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the paragraph in question. It seems the community is suggesting separate but equal for international reviews. Why should international perpectives be carved out on a separate page? They differ significantly, offer a different cultural perspective and are as valuable to the discussion and as informative as the American reviews. I also apologize, as I added it back without knowing who deleted it and knowing proper etiquette, and I welcome the discussion occurring here. Amandaroyal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandaroyal (talk • contribs) 20:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you address the points mentioned at the beginning of this section that explained my actions and suggestions. It doesn't seem that you read them yet.
Re "It seems the community is suggesting separate but equal for international reviews." - I'm not. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I'm trying to combine them, keeping in mind WP:UNDUE for the sociopolitical topics that you selected from some of the international reviews. I also noticed you selected two from Bolivia on similar subjects. It's not clear why you gave that country twice the weight, in somewhat repetitive sentences, compared to the others in your paragraph. With a movie that is getting so much attention in the press there is going to be many articles on all sorts of subjects related to the movie. What is to be considered is how prominent the subjects are compared to the subjects in all the articles. Their percentage representation in the Avatar article should roughly reflect their percentage representation in all the articles written about the film, in my opinion, according to WP:UNDUE and here is the opening sentence for that policy, for your convenience.
"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."
Again, you have not put in just international reviews, but selected parts or reviews that are purely sociopolitical in subject matter. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The primary concerns about this seems to be its influence with article size, weight, and MOS:FILM guidelines placing recommendation on critique in the "Critical reception" section to be from the film's country of origin. DrNegative (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should start thinking about summarizing the info in the quotes while keeping the citations, like is done in an encyclopedia, and reducing the number of quotes in general. Some of the quotes in general seem repetitive and without much informative value, except to say that so and so liked the movie, for example. Also, mentioning in the text the name of the person quoted, and their affiliation, seems to squander space, and this can be helped by reducing the number of quotes and hence the number of times this is done, while keeping the citations and summarizing the information in the quotes that are removed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, mentioning in the text the name of the person quoted, and their affiliation is not squandering space...especially if the person is well-known or simply has an article on Wikipedia. During FA nominations, for example, mentioning the reviewer is often important. Saying things like "The New York Times said" (attributing the thoughts to the newspaper rather than the author) has been considered bad practice here on Wikipedia, as seen with the Brad Pitt article when it was up for FA status. There could be two editors from the same newspaper with two different views on the same film, for example.
The Critical reception section does not need some radical re-design, unless we are going to be significantly expanding it. It is not difficult to simply summarize the international thoughts about this film. Flyer22 (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re "mentioning in the text the name of the person quoted, and their affiliation is not squandering space" - Perhaps I was unclear. I meant that with all those quotes, there comes all those people and affiliations mentioned too. Reducing the number of quotes, in the way I suggested, would correspondingly reduce the space taken up by mention of all those people and affiliations. Re replacing some of the quotes with summaries and keeping the citations, I thought I made a good case for that. I guess we just disagree on that. Sure are a lot of quotes that don't seem like encyclopedic style. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am only for summarizing if it comes off as good as it does in the Zombieland article. These reviewers do not all have the same thoughts, and I am worried about their thoughts being reduced to "the same" as others. The notable people with similar thoughts should be side by side, I agree with that. The Roger Ebert and A. O. Scott comments, for example, are better left as they are. We note a bit of what Ebert stated, then how Scott felt. While watching Avatar, they both felt like they did when watching Star Wars, but their thoughts are not necessarily the same. I am also worried about what I stated above, mentioning publications without mentioning the authors' names; this would likely happen while summarizing. In addition to that, I am worried about weasel words, such as "some," per WP:Weasel. How would you summarize these reviewers' thoughts? Would it involve words such as "some reviewers"? I would appreciate you giving a "rough draft" below in this section (text here or a link to your user space), about how you would write the current reception section with your proposed summary style. The reception section seems encyclopedic to me, Wikipedia style-wise. I also do not see summarizing cutting down on too much space regarding this article. This article's reception section should be bigger anyway; it is the second biggest film in the world thus far, and a lot of critics and various types of notable people have had something to state about it. But if you can convince me that your summary style would be better, I may be for this particular proposal. Flyer22 (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest leaving in the current article only reviews by very prominent US and international professional film critics, and shifting cultural, religious and sociopolitical analyses, both from US and abroad, to a a separate article named "Avatar (2009 movie) -- Cultural, religious and sociopolitical themes" or something like that. I agree with Amandaroyal that splitting these two articles along the geographical line will otherwise appear WP:Biased. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am against the split. It makes no sense to me to split the article to cover reception for a film, even one as popular as this one. It certainly makes no sense to me to split the article just to cover international reviews. This is not the American Wikipedia. And, yes, this article is big, but so is the Changeling (film) article. The Critical reception section can be formatted to resemble its Reception section. And the sociopolitical aspects should definitely stay in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22, not that I am for the split per se, but only as a means to accommodate more in-depth and objective coverage. If that could be done without the split, all the better. But it seems to me that many editors here do not want to increase the size of the article. Cinosaur (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The size of this article is likely going to increase regardless. I again point people to the Changeling (film) article and its size. The Critical reception section of the Avatar film article should be bigger anyway, especially when you take into consideration the Changeling (film) article's Reception section...and the fact that Avatar is a much bigger film (with plenty of more reviews available about it).
Having a separate article to cover Avatar's widespread reviews does not mean that a bit of the non-American views should not be covered here in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to BobK31416, I count at least 14 American reviews in the critical reception section right now, and zero international sources. One from Bolivia, one from China, and one from Belgium does not seem out of balance to me. I also included a quote from Bolivia's first indigenous president, who is not a critic, but his critique I found fascinating. As I expected, someone added more as soon as I was done, from India, etc. In response to the suggestion that one page contain only "very prominent US and international professional film critics." How do we define prominent? And how do we determine if a collumnist is prominent in another country, if we do not live there? How do we determine if someone is a "professional"? I assumed all the collumnists I linked to, besides President Morales -- are paid by their publications to wrte. As to the sociopolitical content of the reviews, this is valuable information and belongs somewhere, and I'm not so sure the American reviewers left out their sociopolitical perspectives Amandaroyal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your response, but I was a bit disappointed that you didn't address the quote I presented to you from WP:UNDUE. Please note that the quote referred to viewpoints, rather than the people having them. Since I don't feel you adequately responded to my concern re WP:UNDUE, I'm still opposed to that paragraph, for the reasons I mentioned. May I make a suggestion? The first sentence of the 3rd paragraph of Critical reception is, "Armond White of the New York Press wrote that Cameron used villainous American characters to misrepresent facets of militarism, capitalism, and imperialism.[13][14]" I thought one could show another viewpoint regarding this with a sentence made from the material in your paragraph. Could you make a sentence that could be used following the 1st sentence of the 3rd paragraph of Critical reception? That would appropriately give another viewpoint there, in my opinion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amandaroyal, some of the editors here seem to know who the prominent professional film critics are much better than me. All I can try and judge more or less objectively is the relative prominence of the international media in their respective countries. As far as their international notability, one of possible gauges (but by no means the only one) could be the IMDB's "list of partners". Cinosaur (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Bob K31416, Thanks for your patience. And thanks to everyone else for the discussion. I agree that the proposed graph is similar in viewpoint to Graph 3 of Critical Response. For the sentence Bob K31416 proposes, it would be easy to just say: “Critics from as far away as Bolivia, Angola, and China expressed similar sentiments.” That boils it down, but doesn’t give them as much space as others. Thanks to Cinosaur for the list of partners.
Here is a shortened version of the original, divided into two graphs of "anti-imperialist" and "postive" themes, proposed to follow Graph 3:
Bolivian columnist Huascar Vega Ledo said it represented America’s invasion of Iraq and lamented, “In the cinema, the good guys win. But in reality ... there is no change." Columnist Oscar van den Boogaard, writing for De Standaard in Belgium said, "It's about the brutality of man, who shamelessly takes what isn’t his."[8] A China Daily columnist said the film might incite unrest there because of its revolutionary themes.[9]
Angolan critic Altino Matos saw a message of hope: "With this union of humans and aliens comes a feeling that something better exists in the universe: the respect for life."[10] In the Hindustan Times and The Sydney Morning Herald, Maxim Osipov commended Cameron for “convincingly” defining culture and civilization as “the qualities of kindness, gratitude, regard for the elder, self-sacrifice, respect for all life and ultimately humble dependence on a higher intelligence behind nature”. [11][12]--Amandaroyal (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to note that there is no reason at all to exclude reliable sources such as China Daily, etc.
As for keeping all the sociopolitical comments in the "sociopolitical paragraph," there is nothing wrong with having two "sociopolitical paragraphs"; one can be about certain themes, and the other can be about certain themes. Or we can have a "negative sociopolitical paragraph" and a "positive sociopolitical paragraph." Whether we have one or two, I feel that the current paragraph should begin noting that it is about the sociopolitical themes of the film. Not everyone realizes that paragraph is only about "the sociopolitical" when reading it. We already had one editor who feels that the reception section bounces back and forth from positive to negative reviews, after the initial two paragraphs, and is sort of scatterbrain in that way...not getting that the reception section is divided into any themes. Flyer22 (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that such a paragraph has long been overdue. I argued for an inclusion of a similar paragraph but encountered firm resistance from other more active editors to this article. But the film's sociopolitical value has been increasingly garnering attention internationally and domestically. I agree with allowing the paragraph to remain, and the Changeling (film) is a wonderful template for re-formatting this article's reception section.--haha169 (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re "But the film's sociopolitical value has been increasingly garnering attention internationally and domestically." - It has? How do you figure that? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Amandaroyal for the edit. It is fine with me. I agree with Flyer22 -- it is better to keep a short verbatim quote from China Daily, if possible, since this gives the source more weight. Something like: "Avatar... inadvertently hits a nerve in a country where the bulldozer is both a threat and a sign of progress". The name of the author should also be kept, as per FA standards mentioned by Flyer22 above. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break - Moved1

This is just my opinion and it is not documented, but I won't need a source for this personal argument. When Avatar first came out, most of the media was about its beautiful visual effects. Later on, some conservative media popped up with negative criticism and the LA times documented it thoroughly. Now, however, especially with a major release in China, these --sociopolitical views have been popping up every which way, especially in the foreign media.haha169 (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with that type of answer. : ) I'm also open to that possibility, if I see enough to believe it. It does make sense that about all there is to say about the reaction to the visuals of the film have already been said. So after the press has logged that forest, so to speak, it moves to another forest, e.g. sociopolitics, and continues its logging operation there. But of course that's just my speculation. Personally, I haven't seen enough to tell if there has been an increase in the subject of Avatar sociopolitics in articles. Anyhow, I'm just trying to follow WP:UNDUE. If you can make a case that there is a prominence in sociopolitcal avatar articles that would allow a greater amount of discussion in the Avatar article, I'd be open to that. But so far I haven't seen it. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, most of them are in foreign media. I recall reading a 20-page long Chinese article on Sina regarding the bulldozer analogy presented in the above paragraph (for some reason, I can't find it. It might have been removed). I'm not very well-read with most of the sociopolitical issues concerning Avatar, but I have read some prominent articles about the bulldozer "nail-houses" issue in China, as it is very present even in Western media, such as the Wall Street Journal and other English-version Chinese media like Xinhua. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haha169 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
That article seems to digress from Avatar the movie, since the demolitions mentioned in the article took place in a city, not a forest or jungle. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My take on this would be that the sociopolitical aspect of the film was not actually promoted leading up to the film's release, which is why the effects received most of the coverage originally. It's not specifically because the film was released in China. FWIW I think the paragraph in question would be more suited to a "themes" section than the reception, but otherwise it's very well written and it's definitely worthy of inclusion in the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's sum it up. We seem to have four options in this discussion:
  1. leave the paragraph or its rewrite under Critical reception;
  2. place it under a separate subheading, like "Cultural, religious and sociopolitical themes" in Release (or somewhere else, as Thumperward is suggesting);
  3. shift it to a separate article like "Avatar (2009 movie) -- cultural, religious and sociopolitical themes" and elaborate on the topic there;
  4. scrap it altogether.
Now, where do we go from here? Cinosaur (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of a separate, expanded "Themes" section, where we can break down each theme (religion, environmentalism, race, imperialism) and detail its particular critical reception, should definitely be considered. For an example, see Changeling_(film)#Themes AniRaptor2001 (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the present amount of space given to sociopolitical aspects is roughly in line with WP:UNDUE. If much further info on the subject is desired, a separate article may be the way to handle it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I added Bolivian president Morales comment with citation for the reasons I mentioned previously about adding a sentence from the subject paragraph to the place after Armond White's quote. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, we do not split critical reviews of a film into a separate article. I cannot think of any film article that has done that. This article would be setting a precedent on that matter, I think, and that is not a good thing. I feel that the notable positive reviews and criticism about the film should be covered in the film's article. Some people do not even like splitting stuff that would be WP:UNDUE in one article to instead be in its own article. I suppose a precedent could be set with this article, on the matter of it having a subarticle about its critical reviews, but it should not be just to deal with WP:UNDUE. There is no reason that more than one international review cannot and should not be in the Critical reception section of this article. That is not WP:UNDUE, in my view. I am certain that there are international reviews out there which are not just about the film's sociopolitical themes. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was no suggestion by anyone that only negative reviews should be split off into a separate article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was speaking of international reviews, whether negative or positive. But using the subarticle mainly to cover the negative and international reviews seemed to be the main suggestion. Either way, there should not be a separate article just to cover all viewpoints. If all viewpoints are adequately covered in this article, there should be no need for a separate article just to cover reviews for a film. My point is that international reviews can and should go in this article. If certain international criticism of the film, for example, is covered in two or more sources...yes, it should be in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But what DrNegative stated below, in the section immediately after this one, should be taken into consideration. Flyer22 (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break -- moving towards consensus?

Bob K31416, thanks for including the quote from Morales. Still could we somehow reach consensus on what to do with the rest of the paragraph? Should we consider steering the discussion to a vote? Right now editors' preferences expressed here on the issue look like this (please correct me and amend misrepresented placements in the list, if any):

  1. keep the proposed paragraph or its rewrite under Critical reception: 5 in favor - Amandaroyal, Flyer22, Cinosaur, Haha169, Thumperward
  2. place it under a separate subheading, like "Cultural, religious and sociopolitical themes" in Release (or somewhere else, as Thumperward is suggesting): 3 in favor - Haha169, Cinosaur, Thumperward
  3. shift it to a separate article like "Avatar (2009 movie) -- cultural, religious and sociopolitical themes" and elaborate on the topic there: 5 in favor - AniRaptor2001, Bob K31416, Trusilver, DrNegative, Cinosaur
  4. scrap it altogether: 1 in favor - DerechoReguerraz

Comments? Suggestions? Cinosaur (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "sociopolitical paragraph" already in this article should not be scrapped. There should be a paragraph in this article about this film's sociopolitical aspects, of course. We already have a Themes section in this article, called Themes and inspirations, and critical reviews about the themes should not go there...because those are the opinions of the reviewers. As for a Themes section in the Release section, it would need to be a subsection of the Critical reception section -- unless we divide the Release and Reception sections, like the Changeling (film) article -- but I am not sure that a subsection for the cultural, religious and sociopolitical themes is best. That can be sufficiently covered in the Critical reception section without a subsection. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22 -- do I get you right that you're suggesting to keep the sociopolitical paragraph proposed by Amandaroyal in Critical reception? Or do you mean the already existing one starting with "Armond White of the New York Press wrote..."? BTW, I looked at and liked Changeling formatting a lot. A good FA film article to emulate. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the already existing one. But as for the proposed one, I will state I do not feel that the current Critical reception section has taken care of enough; I feel this way because of the constant complaints about the Critical reception section leaving out certain criticisms and not having a worldwide view. The American view is not a worldwide view. Yes, it is obvious that a lot of people all over the world like or love this film, but some reviews from those other aspects of the world can be noted without being redundant...or at least traded out with a few of the American views saying the same thing. It is not WP:UNDUE to include a few non-American reviews. In fact, Wikipedia articles should present a worldwide view. Flyer22 (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. How do we move ahead, though? Cinosaur (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we decide to put notable international reviews within the article, try to remember that if the majority of critcs in China (for example) gave the film a positive review, and we put one single negative comment from a critic in China, that would falsly represent the views of the majority in China to the average reader of the article. Just try do give it due weight, thats all I am concerned with at this point. DrNegative (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that quote as negative, merely an observation.--haha169 (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DrNegative (et al) -- can we then formulate and agree upon some specific criteria for acceptable international sources for this section, like the most obvious ones (for me) that such a source:
  • must be in English;
  • must be a prominent/leading source in a large geographical/demographical region of the world;
  • must not repeat the already over-reported lines about the movie's visuals, plot, and cast;
  • must present a novel and relevant cultural, religious or socio-political angle, which US critics did not report and could not have reported;
  • should preferably be from a partner of IMDB.com or news.google.com or...
  • etc.

Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a logical start for criteria. On another note, have we come to a consensus as to how we should address this issue? DrNegative (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, and I have no idea how to proceed about it. What would you DrNegative suggest? Cinosaur (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The way I read this situation is that NPOV demands that international reception should be documented. With all films the focus seems to be how it performs in its home country and how it performs internationally, not how it performs in Germany, Kazakhstan, Bulgaria etc. Therefore NPOV does not dictate we balance the reception in China, just that we balance the coverage of reception internationally. The coverage between domestic and international reception should roughly be equal. China and India having 2 billion people between them should be represented individually. As financial backers the UK should represented individually. As a major filming location the film is of interest to local industry so New Zealand should be represented individually. The EU can be represented as a whole, and the former Soviet bloc are usually classed a cultural whole. We then just need something from Africa and South America and then all the continents and interested parties will be accounted for. The section should not be any larger than the domestic coverage. The preference should be for English language reviews, although Wikipedia guidlines do not insist on this (and may be impossible in cases like China). Google and IMDB connections are certainly not necessary, the criticism should be from prominent reviewers within that country's mainstream media. As for repeating commentary by the US reviewers this will be unavoidable because many international reviewers will pick up on the same things so will be necessary for the coverage to be balanced. Betty Logan (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On that note we also have the option of looking at international views as a collective whole too. I am really unsure about which option would be the best to implement in this case. DrNegative (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good points Betty Logan! How about restructuring Critical review in a way similar to Changeling movie, as a few editors here have already suggested. The way it is structured now, the Critical reception section is very heavy on the eye, inflexible and mixed up in parts. See below. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I have stated before though, population and demographics do not have influence on notability or weight. If we were to even go by those terms the US would actually win the ticket per capita ratio. China and India with their 2 billion people combined have only pulled $95 million total together in contrast to the US (300+ million people) and its $500+ million box office receipts. So should US reception be more prominent as a result? My point is this is why quoting demographics is pointless on these issues. Another problem with giving each country its very own space for reviews is, this[70] - Who decides which one of the countries get their say in the reception? Editors will ask why don't their reviews get listed as well? Before you know it, we could literally have enough reviews to merit their very own article(s) which would be what some other editors seem to be against as well. See the spill-over effect?
Do any of these countries have a censored press on certain issues is another question. Would Chinese journalists be allowed by its government to praise a US film on a certain socio-political issue for example?[71] Could that violate NPOV? These question are mostly rhetorical, but are still questions we need to take into consideration. "International" is a very broad term and could easily violate NPOV if not done correctly. DrNegative (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed restructuring of the Critical reception section

Based on suggestions by a few editors here, in the hidden section below please find a dummy on how we could try and overcome current limitations of the Critical review section, such as difficulty for reading, inflexibility, mixed contents, and arbitrary allocation of space to various reviews.

I believe that the proposed format will also facilitate objectively balancing relative weight of various geographical and perceptional contributions, by means of both the area and the place they occupy. Each subsection under Thematic reviews should ideally be preluded by Cameron's own statement on that topic in the movie, to ensure compliance with WP:UNDUE. I removed heading formating to exclude the dummy from TOC.

And please remember that this is this is only a dummy. I am just proposing a structure and am showing how the current Critical reviews section fits into it. Please feel free to suggest revisions to bring it in accord with WP:UNDUE and other Wiki policies. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

proposed restructuring of the Critical reception section


Reception

General response

The film received generally positive reviews from film critics. Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that 82% of 246 professional critics have given the film a positive review, with a rating average of 7.4 out of 10.[15] Among Rotten Tomatoes's Top Critics, which consists of popular and notable critics from the top newspapers, websites, television and radio programs,[16] the film holds an overall approval rating of 94%, based on a sample of 35 reviews.[17] The site's general consensus is that "It might be more impressive on a technical level than as a piece of storytelling, but Avatar reaffirms James Cameron's singular gift for imaginative, absorbing filmmaking."[15] On Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from film critics, the film has a rating score of 84 based on 35 reviews.[18]

Domestic reviews

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times called the film "extraordinary" and gave it four stars out of four. "Watching Avatar, I felt sort of the same as when I saw Star Wars in 1977," he said. Like Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings, the film "employs a new generation of special effects".[1] A. O. Scott of At The Movies also compared viewing the film to the first time he viewed Star Wars. He said "the script is a little bit ... obvious" but that "is part of what made it work".[19] Todd McCarthy of Variety praised the film. "The King of the World sets his sights on creating another world entirely in Avatar, and it's very much a place worth visiting."[20] Kirk Honeycutt of The Hollywood Reporter gave the film a positive review. "The screen is alive with more action and the soundtrack pops with more robust music than any dozen sci-fi shoot-'em-ups you care to mention," he stated.[21] Rolling Stone film critic Peter Travers praised the film, giving it 3.5 out of 4 stars and in his print review wrote, "It extends the possibilities of what movies can do. Cameron's talent may just be as big as his dreams."[22] Richard Corliss of TIME Magazine stated, "Embrace the movie — surely the most vivid and convincing creation of a fantasy world ever seen in the history of moving pictures."[23] Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times felt the film has "powerful" visual accomplishments but "flat dialogue" and "obvious characterization".[24] James Berardinelli, film critic for ReelViews, praised the film and its story, giving it 4 out of 4 stars he wrote, "In 3D, it's immersive - but the traditional film elements - story, character, editing, theme, emotional resonance, etc. - are presented with sufficient expertise to make even the 2D version an engrossing 2 1/2-hour experience."[25]

International reviews
Europe
United Kingdom
India
China
New Zealand
Africa and South America
Peer reviews

The movie blog /Film accumulated a list of quotes about Avatar from fourteen writers and directors in Hollywood. From Steven Spielberg, "The most evocative and amazing science-fiction movie since Star Wars." Frank Marshall wrote, "Avatar is audacious and awe inspiring. It's truly extraordinary". Richard Kelly called the film "amazing". John August termed it a "master class". Michael Moore recommended, "Go see Avatar, a brilliant movie [for] our times." The only negative reaction in the list was from Duncan Jones, "It's not in my top three Jim Cameron films. ... at what point in the film did you have any doubt what was going to happen next?"[26]

Plot similarities

In terms of similar plot, film critic Ty Burr of the Boston Globe called it "the same movie" as Dances with Wolves.[27] Parallels to the concept and use of an avatar were in Poul Anderson's 1957 short story Call Me Joe, where a paralyzed man uses his mind to remotely control an alien body.[28][29] Other reviews have compared it to the films FernGully: The Last Rainforest[30] and Pocahontas.[31] NPR's Morning Edition has compared the film to a montage of tropes, with one friend of an editor stating that Avatar was made by mixing a bunch of film scripts in a blender.[32] In a similar vein, columnist David Brooks describes the story as "oft-repeated". In this trope, he stated, "a manly young adventurer ... goes into the wilderness in search of thrills and profit" but finds the native people of the wilderness "noble and spiritual and pure. And so ... emerges as their Messiah, leading them on a righteous crusade against his own rotten civilization".[33] Cameron acknowledged that the film is thematically similar to such classic "going-native" films as Dances with Wolves and At Play in the Fields of the Lord.[34]

Thematic reviews

Various interpretations of the film led Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune to label it the "season's Rorschach blot".[35]

Socio-political themes

Armond White of the New York Press wrote that Cameron used villainous American characters to misrepresent facets of militarism, capitalism, and imperialism.[36][37] Russell D. Moore in The Christian Post concluded that propaganda exists in the film and stated, "If you can get a theater full of people in Kentucky to stand and applaud the defeat of their country in war, then you've got some amazing special effects."[38] Adam Cohen of The New York Times was more positive, calling the film's anti-imperialist message "a 22nd-century version of the American colonists vs. the British, India vs. the Raj, or Latin America vs. United Fruit".[39] Annalee Newitz of io9 concluded that Avatar is another film that has the recurring "fantasy about race" where "some white guy" becomes the "most awesome" member of a non-white culture.[40] Internationally, reviewers applauded its themes of anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism. Bolivia's first indigenous president, Evo Morales, praised Avatar for its "profound show of resistance to capitalism and the struggle for the defence of nature".[41] Bolivian columnist Huascar Vega Ledo, writing for Bolpress, said, "It is the imperial attitude with all the coarseness and fiction of cinema. And in the cinema, the good guys win. But in reality ... there is no change."[42] Bolivian President Evo Morales praised Avatar for its "profound show of resistance to capitalism and the struggle for the defence of nature".[43] Columnist Oscar van den Boogaard, writing for De Standaard in Belgium said, "It's about the brutality of man, who shamelessly takes what isn’t his."[44] One Chinese columnist said the film might incite unrest there because of parallels between its plot and the plight of many Chinese fighting eviction in the face of development. "Avatar may not have much depth, but it inadvertently hits a nerve in a country where the bulldozer is both a threat and a sign of progress," wrote Raymond Zhoe for the China Daily.[45] Angolan critic Altino Matos saw a message of hope. For the Jornal De Angola, he wrote: "With this union of humans and aliens comes a feeling that something better exists in the universe: the respect for life. Above all, that is what James Cameron’s film Avatar suggests."[46] Writing for Hindustan Times and The Sydney Morning Herald, Maxim Osipov commended Cameron for “convincingly” defining culture and civilization as “the qualities of kindness, gratitude, regard for the elder, self-sacrifice, respect for all life and ultimately humble dependence on a higher intelligence behind nature”. [47][48]

Ecological themes
Cultural and religious themes

Ross Douthat of The New York Times opined that the film is "Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism" which "has been Hollywood's religion of choice for a generation now".[49]

Awards and nominations
Main article: List of awards and honors received by Avatar
The New York Film Critics Online have honored the film with its Best Picture award.[50] The film also received nine nominations for the Critics' Choice Awards of the Broadcast Film Critics Association, including those for Best Picture and Best Director.[51] St. Louis Film Critics have nominated the film for two of its annual awards—Best Visual Effects and Most Original, Innovative or Creative Film,[52] and the film won both awards.[53] The film was a runner-up for the best Production Design award of the Los Angeles Film Critics Association annual awards.[54] The film also picked up four nominations for the 67th Golden Globe Awards including Best Motion Picture – Drama, Best Director, Best Film Score and Best Film Song.[55] The Austin Film Critics Association and the Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association have placed the film on their top ten films of the year lists,[56][57] while Chicago Film Critics Association has nominated the film for its annual Best Cinematography and Best Original Score awards.[58] The Las Vegas Film Critics Society has awarded the film with Best Art Direction award,[59] and the Florida Film Critics Circle honored the film with Best Cinematography award.[60] London Film Critics' Circle has nominated the film for its Film of the Year and Director of the Year annual awards.[61] Phoenix Film Critics Society has honored the film with Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Production Design and Best Visual Effect awards and also included it on its top-ten films of the year list.[62] The Online Film Critics Society has nominated the film for Best Director, Best Cinematography and Best Editing awards.[63] The film was also nominated by the Producers Guild of America for its Darryl F. Zanuck Producer of the Year Award in Theatrical Motion Pictures.[64] James Cameron has been named as one of the 2009 Nominees for Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Feature Film awarded by the Directors Guild of America.[65] The film is considered to be a front-runner for Best Picture at the 82nd Academy Awards due to its strong box-office and critical reception, and reportedly successful screening held for Academy members.[66]

Opinions, corrections?

Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opposed - In my opinion it would violate WP:UNDUE by giving too much weight to what are called in the proposal "Thematic Reviews", which appear to be sociopolitical aspects. In just the subsection Socio-political themes there is a significant increase over what is currently in the article. The other subsections in "Thematic Reviews" that are presently empty or nearly empty would add even more when completed.
From WP:UNDUE, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." My feeling is that the movie is primarily an action/adventure film for entertainment purposes, and the interpretations of the sociopolitical aspects is a minor part in comparison. This is based on my viewing of the film, and the coverage that I have seen in reliable sources.--Bob K31416 (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, I have to disagree with you on this one. Just because the movie is seen by some (or even by most) as primarily an action/adventure film on the surface, does not imply all its other themes are subservient and secondary. The article itself already quotes both Cameron and other sources as saying that the film has very important aspects deliberately planted in it, like pro-ecological, anti-military, anti-colonial, ethical, cultural and even what some call 'spiritual' themes. After all, these themes are the author's own and expressed intention. Therefore reviews covering these implicit but still palpable aspects of the movie deserve, in my view, as serious an attention. Visuals are the wrapping, but message is the contents, and both require adequate coverage in the article, unless we want it to be plainly superficial.
And, as I said earlier, there are ways to regulate a particular view's weight in the proposed rewrite by means of allotted position and space. Headings such as "Thematic reviews" do not confer weight by themselves. Dixit. Cinosaur (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, regarding your concern over undue weight of Socio-political -- this is just a dummy and dummy only!. I am just proposing a structure and am showing how the current Critical reviews section fits into it. Please feel free to suggest revisions to bring it in accord with WP:UNDUE. Sorry if this was not clear. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed to the proposed structure. That is an interesting layout you have going on, Cinosaur, but all those subheadings are not needed (especially the Thematic reviews one, which only has one lone sentence). And I am not quite getting the rearrangement, such as putting the peer reviews higher than the sociopolitical aspects. You started off the structure in the Changeling (film) format, but then you got a little carried away (no offense). We can simply design the structure completely like the Changeling (film) article; General consensus and Reviews is all that is needed before the Awards and nominations section. We do not even yet need to split this article up like that just to cover the international reviews you and others want covered. Furthermore, not all those international reviews are needed. Just a few will do. And if they are redundant with what has already been stated by the non-American reviews, they can be traded out with a few of those or combined with them. Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you can sub divide the section into domestic and international reception, and peer review. As for plot similarities and themes I would try to incorporate those type of reviews into that structure. For instance, the American press has focused on the influence of other films while the Indian press has focused on the Hindu influence, so these aspects should perhaps be discussed in relation to those countries. Thematic review shows how different peoples and cultures perceive the film in different ways. It reminds me of Spielberg at Cannes in 1975 when Jaws premiered and he explained the film was about a killer shark, and the French press kept asking him about the underlying Communist message! To Americans the film is about a shark, to the French it's about Communism. The geographic structure looks fine to me, giving a short paragraph to China, a short paragraph to Europe etc, as long as the overall international ratio for positive and negative reception is reflected and of course the section doesn't exceed the size of the domestic setion. Betty Logan (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, will you expand on what you mean? Are you saying that the Critical reception should be divided like proposed? If so, I am not seeing how that is the best route to go. Why does the Critical reception need to be divided into more than two subsections just to cover the reviews? All this came about with Bob's removal of the international reviews. We do not need a radical redesign of the Critical reception section just to cover the international reviews. And it is not like all the international reviews should be included, especially the ones redundant to the American reviews.
DrNegative gave good reasons above in the #Arbitrary break -- moving towards consensus? section for not dividing into these proposed subsections. Flyer22 (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE and prominence of sociopolitical aspects

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." WP:UNDUE

I think this means that we do not give more or less prominence to the sociopolitical aspects of Avatar, than they are given in reliable sources. Currently these aspects are discussed in the section "Themes and inspirations" and in the 3rd paragraph of the section "Critical reception".

What's the consensus here on this? Do the editors here feel that the sociopolitical aspects that are presently in the article, have more, less or about the same prominence that is in reliable sources? --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob K31416, it would help me answer your important question decisively if I knew how you measure prominence of a particular view in reliable sources, so we could sync our "prominence yardsticks". I am serious, no sarcasm intended. Cinosaur (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There didn't seem to be specific guidance on a "yardstick" from WP:UNDUE, although the following from it might clarify how it pertains to this issue. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."
My feeling is that the movie is primarily an action/adventure film for entertainment purposes, and the interpretations of the sociopolitical aspects is a minor part in comparison. This is based on my viewing of the film, and the coverage that I have seen in reliable sources. Of the sources that I have seen, I feel that the present weight given to sociopolitical aspects is similar to the weight it is given in the reliable sources. It's my judgement call, rather than a mathematical proof. However, in coming to this opinion, I have tried to think of the space that these aspects have been given in the articles on Avatar. I think that one has to be careful not to confuse what is significant personally with what has been considered significant by the totality of reliable sources.
So those are my thoughts on how to approach this issue. Other editors may have other approaches and it is one of the purposes of this discussion for editors to express how they have decided what constitutes appropriate weight. Perhaps you could express how you would try to satisfy the policy WP:UNDUE. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Bob, the above makes sense to me. As for the "yardstick", I mostly meant your and a couple of other editors' treating news.google hits as such a gauge. Since in order to decide on exactly how the article space should be apportioned among different views on the movie we have to have a quantifying method, I wonder if news.google could be one of them.
I have to disagree with you in that the movie is primarily an action/adventure film on the surface, but Cameron himself admitted to having planted in the movie pro-ecological, anti-military, anti-colonial, ethical and cultural themes, and drew upon some oriental motifs for their settings. So reviews covering these implicit but palpable aspects of the movie deserve, in my view, as much attention.
As for how to best satisfy the WP:UNDUE policy in regard to international reviews, I think Betty Logan summed it up quite nicely above, an I support the idea expressed by this editor. What do you think? Cinosaur (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, WP:UNDUE cannot apply in this case. There is no mention of any sociopolitical aspect in the article, and an addition of a single paragraph on the topic does not violate that rule at all. In fact, I would say WP:IGNORE because the media is attracted to the visual effects of the movie, while the sociopolitical aspects have generally been thrown aside; but such aspects have been mentioned and acknowledged by relevant people such as James Cameron. Therefore, it is notable and does NOT give too much weight to one side. The current article that lacks a sociopolitical aspect, I believe, violates WP:UNDUE. --haha169 (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you. Presently, the article features only American reviews and the socio-political aspect is ignored. A separate section should be created where this issue could be addressed in an appropriate manner.--Gaura79 (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite getting how the sociopolitical aspects are ignored. Not only are they addressed in the Themes and inspirations section...but they are also presented in the third paragraph of the Critical reception section. Perhaps, it needs to be clearer that those are the sociopolitical aspects, like I suggested before. Not everyone is going to know from just looking at that paragraph that it is the "sociopolitical paragraph." It needs a lead-in.
Either way, I am for more international reviews in the Critical reception section, and it seems consensus is for that as well. Flyer22 (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the current socio-political comments already within the article satisfy enough due-weight on this topic. DrNegative (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Cinosaur for your efforts. It appears everyone feels the same as they did last week when we started this discussion. I support including the international reviews in the critical review section because of their unique and inherent value. There is nothing is WP: UNDUE that would prevent their inclusion. These reviews are both "reliable" and "verifiable" and I'm not sure I want to debate the "prominence" of a China Daily collumnist whose potential audience is 1 billion people. There is clearly a sociopolitical discussion ocurring worldwide over this movie. If the American reviews that mention the sociopolitical aspects are included in the main article, some international reviews should be included as well. This should not be first come first serve. Another solution is taking all sociopolitical discussion to another page. Dividing American and international viewpoints, as is currently the case, is not acceptable.--Amandaroyal (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, except for putting all the sociopolitical views into another article. Dividing the viewpoints like Cinosaur's proposal may not be acceptable to most (me included), but presenting more than one international review is clearly acceptable to some editors here (...me included). Flyer22 (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22, please feel free to edit the dummy according to your vision. This was the original idea to collectively iterate the proposed structure towards consensus. For a start, we can convert all geographical subheading to placeholders and move Peer reviews beneath Thematic reviews, as you suggested. Sorry, I meant to incorporate yours and others' suggestions myself - and still do - but got caught up on another front. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with all the headers, may are unnecessary imo, but I think we all agree that we need a more international presence in this article. Wikipedia is supposed to prevent a worldwide view on the topic, and the fact that the worldwide gross is more than double the domestic gross completely puts to rest the WP:UNDUE debate. I also staunchly believe that some semblance of socio-political aspects are included in the final revision of the critical reception section. --haha169 (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha169, do you support making Critical reception into a second level heading Reception as proposed? Cinosaur (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm for including more "international film reviews" in the critical reception; however I don't see the need for more sociopolitical analysis, especially if they are all over the place. By international reviews, they should be actual "film reviews" from reputable publications, again, not just an opinion column from a newspaper. I would welcome foreign language film reviews (for example, excellent Portuguese film magazines such as Escrever Cinema and Spanish publications such as La Fuga). I would definitely like to see more international reviews in the critical reception, but the quality of the film review should be considered.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should consider what is in a source, rather than where it comes from. For example, I added information from the Bolivian news agency ABI that appeared in the Huffington Post, to the sociopolitical paragraph. It is the second sentence in the 3rd paragraph of the Critical reception section. The reason for adding it wasn't because it was international, but because it was the other side of the issue mentioned in the 1st sentence of the paragraph, and hence it improved the article.
Here are the two sentences.
Armond White of the New York Press wrote that Cameron used villainous American characters to misrepresent facets of militarism, capitalism, and imperialism.[67][68] Bolivia's first indigenous president, Evo Morales, praised Avatar for its "profound show of resistance to capitalism and the struggle for the defence of nature".[69]
--Bob K31416 (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Amandaroyal deserves credit for initially bringing this item to the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template

The number of articles related to Avatar is growing. It might not be such a bad idea for someone to start working on an Avatar template. If there's anyone who is good at creating templates, maybe that's something you would be interested in working on. I could do it, but my template skills are monumentally bad, it would take me ten hours to make what should be done in one. Trusilver 16:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to confess ignorance. Could you clarify what you mean by "Avatar template"? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do it. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 18:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There have been two templates for it and they have both been deleted. Honestly, I don't think six articles is enough to warrant a navigation box. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 18:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, bugger, I've done it. If it gets deleted, whatever. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 18:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Link is here. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good looking template. DrNegative (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. That's only my second constructed. ^.^ --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That looks great, what do you think about also including the starring actors? That seems to be a kind of hit and miss issue for movie templates, but what does everyone think? Trusilver 20:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. I'll think about it. Consensus? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has already been reached regarding adding actors in the nav box. Good luck around that one. :) —Mike Allen 03:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thejadefalcon, the template looks good! I wouldn't worry about it getting deleted as there are six articles; although it isn't a large number, I've seen some with less. And with the talks of future films, there may be opportunity for more articles to be made. The actors definitely shouldn't be in the navbox, there is a standing consensus it across the film, television and actor projects. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Template has been nominated for deletion here. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 15:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

50th highest grossing

The article says:

This now makes the film the second-highest grossing of all time worldwide;[20] it is the 50th-highest grossing film of all-time worldwide when adjusted for inflation.

This is inaccurate because it is the 50th highest grossing DOMESTIC film when adjusted for inflation. The source is clear about this. Avatar's worldwide adjusted rank is not forthcoming.


Dante2308 (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They worked out Gone With the Wind's adjusted worldwide gross in 1989 and it came to $6000 million, which would be over $10,000 million in 2009 dollars. Avatar has some way to go there! Betty Logan (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A piece in the Financial Times about how Avatar is a poor performer when adjusted for inflation: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9a26665c-fe11-11de-9340-00144feab49a.html. It may be worth incorporating that into the article, it's not often we get a reference as strong as the Financial Times analysing adjusted box office figures. Betty Logan (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Betty, that doesn't change the FACT that it is 50th highest grossing film domestically when adjusted for inflation. It is absolutely lower than Gone With the Wind domestically and worldwide but there is zero proof that its domestic and worldwide adjusted rank are exactly the same. The article should be changed to represent factual information. Proof Here: http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htmDante2308 (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Poor performer is a bold statement, by the standards of almost a century ago it may have been so but by today's standards it is not. I have also read articles that take into account the fact that there were no home-media in those times or availibility of small portable cameras, the internet, and DVD burners for pirating. The films of the past era would also enjoy a much longer theatrical release time because of not having the home-media option as well, sometimes well over a year. DrNegative (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought it brought an interesting new angle to the story. Betty Logan (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is an interesting angle, but if Avatar is a poor performer, then all movies since 1999 are in the same basket. Taking into account the fact that several movies premiered during Avatar's run, Avatar is an original non-sequel movie, and the competing forms of entertainment, then I would say that Avatar performed very well for a modern movie. That aside, the correction still needs to be made. Dante2308 (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a good idea to include any reference to the film's inflation-adjusted performance; as you can read here, it is extremely difficult to calculate an adjusted gross, and comparison between films based on inflation-adjusted receipts is of dubious value. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think including the number is fine as long as the appropriate caveats are included. It is up to the reader to discern the significance of such a value. It is Wikipedia's job to present the facts in their proper context.Dante2308 (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of box office analysts do not go by the inflation adjustment for the reasons AniRaptor2001 linked to. The numbers are by no means precise, they are interesting speculation at most, not pure facts. Analysts do at times mention "unadjusted for inflation" after the number which is what we have done in the article and noted as such. DrNegative (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Themes

This article could be made better if it expanded on the underlying environmentalist themes in the movie. I mean, James Cameron mentioned it has an environmentalist attitude. Or at least make this stand out more in the article? thnx 76.180.165.34 (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Academic references to Hindu deities' color

Bob K31416 -- I disagree with your removal of the sentence:

...alluding to the fact that principal deities in Hinduism, such as Vishnu and Krishna, are traditionally depicted as dark-blue. [70][71]

under Themes and inspirations because (1) it is not an original research, but references to books on the topic by some of the most prominent contemporary scholars of Hinduism, and (2) the article ought to explain to readers what Cameron means by "connection to Hindu deities, which I like conceptually" -- something he himself did not bother to elaborate on. Please consider reverting your removal of this line. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made the point against the edit yourself when you wrote, " something he himself did not bother to elaborate on." When an editor elaborates, it is a violation of WP:NOR because it hasn't been mentioned in a source in connection with Cameron's comment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the use of the words "alluding to the fact" smacked of ascribing intentions to Cameron that he did not spell out, and thus could be against WP:NOR. However, the exact connection between the color and Hindu deities which he is talking about in the quote is not clear and may leave readers wondering, and IMO requires a reference. Would it be ok to say, plain and simple:

...connection to Hindu deities. Traditionally, principal deities in Hinduism, such as Vishnu and Krishna, are depicted as dark-blue. [70][71]

Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Same reason. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you feel that such an explanation from some other source that is not against WP:NOR could/should still be included? Cinosaur (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, because it is a digression, in my opinion. But who knows, maybe you can come up with something worthwhile, and I'm open to that possibility. But frankly, any more about Hinduism than what is there, would seem to have the purpose of informing the reader more about Hinduism, rather than the film. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and what's wrong with informing the reader of Hinduism just to the extent and in a manner that helps him/her get a clearer idea of what Cameron is referring to in the quote? Cinosaur (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that there's any problem with the revision? Cameron stated that he chose blue in part because of the connection to Hindu deities. Followed by an explanation ("principal deities are depicted as dark blue.") It's a clarification, it seems to be fine. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is how it seems to me too. However, Bob K31416 appears to believe it to be OR. Bob K31416, could you please consider elaborating on your claim? Cinosaur (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is in the 2nd paragraph of the lead of WP:NOR, "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article". The sources that you gave are not directly related to the film Avatar, which is the topic of the article. The material in the sources that you presented are related to the topic Avatar (film) by you, not by the sources themselves, and hence the material that you are trying to include is a violation of WP:NOR. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, Cameron said "Plus, there is a connection to the Hindu deities, which I like conceptually". Based on this phrase alone, an average reader unfamiliar with Hinduism will think that all 33 million Hindu deities are blue. This is not true. Some of them are red, green, yellow, white, black, or you name it. Citing reliable reference to clarify the important but potentially misleading quote and to show that there is a connection that Cameron is talking about is not OR, but a clarification. Is not it directly related to the topic? It would be OR if I tried to imply which deities exactly Cameron meant. But I just cite the fact that there are blue deities in Hinduism and that they happen to be the principal ones. That's all.

BTW, this is pretty much what you yourself did with Alpha Centauri in the lead paragraph. If the explanation that I propose here is OR, then so is yours on AC, isn't it? Cinosaur (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re "BTW, this is pretty much what you yourself did with Alpha Centauri in the lead paragraph." - Was the source for the Alpha Centauri sentence directly related to the film Avatar? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was, I agree. But from what I could gather from the discussion there, Boston Globe it was a borderline source, which was included for clarification, and the statement about AC is not supportable by Cameron's own words yet. Mine are nor related to the film "Avatar" directly, but are supportable by Cameron's words. So how does this fact make the explanatory sources on Hindu deities more OR than yours? And could you please comment on the first paragraph as well? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem to be confused about things like the Alpha Centauri sentence that you brought up, directly related, and WP:NOR, I don't think we are able to communicate. Perhaps you should get another opinion at WP:NORN. Here's the first sentence at that link. "This notice board is provided so that editors can ask for advice about material that might be original research (OR) or original synthesis." Good luck. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link to WP:NORN, Bob. I will check it out. However, I am not the only editor questioning your judgment on this inclusion as OR, which gives me reason to believe that I am not as confused about OR as you seem to think I am.
On a different note, agreeing that the AC source is direct and not OR, what would you say about the following quotes as possible clarifications of Cameron's statement, which mention Na'vi color as similar to that of Vishnu, Krishna, and Rama and Vishnu-blue? Cinosaur (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment via WP:NORN - the academic references come across as labouring the point, but I wouldn't view an explanation as original research as such. There's no doubt that Cameron is referring to deities such as Vishnu and Krishna - what else could he possibly mean? - and it seems reasonable to explain the allusion for those who don't know they're blue. Personally I'd just footnote it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Cameron said that he just liked the color blue and its conceptual connection to the Hindu deities. <ref name=ew.com>{{cite web|url=http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20336893,00.html|title='Avatar:' 11 Burning Questions|work=Entertainment Weekly|last=Svetkey|first=Benjamin|date=January 15, 2010|accessdate=January 16, 2010}}</ref><ref>Deities such as [[Vishnu]] and [[Krishna]] are traditionally depicted with blue skin.</ref>

Re "it seems reasonable to explain the allusion for those who don't know they're blue. " - Perhaps the following would be the simplest way,

"Also, Cameron said that he just liked the color blue and its conceptual connection to blue Hindu deities."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, do I take it to mean that we agree now that the proposed inclusion was not OR? Cinosaur (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After carefully considering the comments, I have added the following footnote to the article.

According to Hindu beliefs, the god Vishnu has appeared in human form as a blue avatar. Wadhwani, Sita (2009-12-24). "The religious backdrop to James Cameron's 'Avatar'". CNN Mumbai. Cable News Network Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. Retrieved 2010-01-18.

Cheers, --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like a good idea, who reads footnotes anyway? It's better to just include this information in the article, it will be very useful. It is in no way OR since there're RS which mention Vishnu and Krishna in relation to the film.--Gaura79 (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bob K31416 -- I appreciate your silent consent with my first revision as being non-OR. I also admire your careful crafting of the footnote that you want to replace my revision with.
However, let me point out that:
  • your removal of my original revision is no longer justifiable by WP:NOR;
  • three independent editors (including one from WP:NORN who was consulted on your suggestion) saw no problem with keeping my original revision "as is" in the text;
  • the footnote format is your own choice, and I do not support it;
  • however carefully worded and descriptive, a footnote of any kind does not serve the purpose of clarifying Cameron's elliptic statement on Hindu deities here as much as a couple of words in the text do; and
  • the text you composed for the footnote: "[a]ccording to Hindu beliefs, the god Vishnu has appeared in human form colored blue" is your own inexact rendition of the source referenced, and one that might itself be leaning towards OR.
Agreeing with you that sources directly related to Avatar are preferable to the academic ones I quoted (though none of the three editors objected to those either), I would like to replace your footnote revision with the following:

Also, Cameron said that he just liked the color blue and its conceptual connection to Hindu deities, [72] which some reviewers linked to blue-colored Vishnu [73], and his avatars Rama and Krishna.[74]

Please let me know if you have any further comments on the wording and references. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having a footnote was also suggested by the opinion you got when you went to WP:NORN, and which was mentioned above. As before, I think that it is too much of a digression and isn't needed in the main text. Unfortunately, this discussion is approaching WP:DEADHORSE, at least from my perspective, since I don't think you have responded with anything new to my concern that it is too much of a digression for the main text. I probably won't be participating any more on this matter, but you are free to pursue getting a consensus with other editors. Please keep in mind that I am opposed to putting that material in the main text, and you shouldn't presume that I have changed my mind if I don't respond. This situation seems to be approaching another you had where there was a long discussion which ended in WP:DEADHORSE. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A simple footnote would suffice here. It doesn't matter what the reader concludes because we covered what Cameron stated. Anything beyond that could lead to WP:SYNTH. DrNegative (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding, Bob. I presumed that you changed your mind not because you did not respond, but because you went ahead with a revision that you had earlier opposed to as OR. "Having a footnote" was indeed suggested by the NORN editor, but only as a personal preference, and we did not discuss it before you implemented it. "Too much of a digression" is exactly what the three editors above, besides myself, have explicitly differed with you on, so I am not sure what "new" you expect me to respond with to make this clear. So it seems that we do have a consensus of sorts. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DrNegative -- could you please elaborate on how the above latest proposed inclusion "could lead to WP:SYNTH"? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a statement by Cameron in his choosing of the color for his characters in the film. The phrasing used after his comment are two sources of combined viewer reception to this choosing, implying that was what Cameron had in his mind when he was thinking of the deity(s), but we do not know exactly what he was thinking beyond what he actually stated. Synth (A+B/=D). DrNegative (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The way I worded it with the verb "linked" implies that the opinions are attributed to the viewers and them only, in accordance with WP:V. But maybe you can offer a better wording? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did, a footnote "to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article." But thats just my opinion, your free to seek others. DrNegative (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DrNegative, on a second thought over your comment I think it should say "some reviewers" to be on the safe side. As far as footnotes, looks like the entire choice between a footnote and a few words in the article hinges on whether it will be seen in the article as a useful explanation, and as such, an improvement of the article, or not. Since so far more editors here seem to favor this option, and since it complies, to the best of my knowledge, with all Wiki policies, including WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V, I will give it a try in the article and hopefully get more feedback there. Thanks and regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob K31416 -- You have not described and certainly have not proved by referring to any of policies and guidelines that my revision which you removed was a case of digression. In fact, you acted in defiance of expressed opinions of other editors as well. I am asking you to either prove your digression charge here in terms of WP:PG or, if you consider your further participation in this discussion unlikely, restore my revision in the article and let other editors agree or disagree with it. So far I have not given you a single reason to suspect me of disrespect towards you and your opinions, please do not give me one either. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soul vs. consciousness revisited.

FLyer22 -- the reason why I changed "consciousness" to "soul" was to be consistent with the first description of this ritual done on Grace. Now this looks inconsistent, as if the Na'vi did something else to Jake than what they had attempted to do to Grace. Besides, "soul" is 3.25 times shorter than "consciousness". :) Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get why you changed it; I did read your edit summary. But the main reason the word "soul" is used for the first part is so that it is clear that it is from the Na'vi point of view, which is why it should go back in quotation marks. I was going to do that earlier when I saw that an editor had removed the quotation marks, but I was like "whatever" after a bit. Did you read all of the discussion about using the word "soul" at Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 2#Editing the "plot" section? Not everyone believes in the concept of "soul" when it comes to the physical spirit sense, of course. This is why some people kept and will keep changing "soul" to "consciousness," if "soul" is left plain...especially if left plain twice. To implement some sort of compromise, it was decided that the first mention of "soul," at Tree of Souls, would stay "soul" and in quotation marks so that people could see that this is from the Na'vi point of view, but that the second and final mention of "soul" is relayed as "consciousness" because it is more so being relayed by us. I prefer the word "soul" because that is what the Na'vi believe, it seems. But when we put "soul," some people get all bent out of shape about it...simply because they are not religious or spiritual in that sense. Thus, I suggested "soul" be put into quotation marks. But putting it into quotation marks both times seems offensive, as if we are saying "soul" in the physical spirit sense does not exist. I feel that putting it in quotation marks that once is not as offensive, though, because it is making it clear that it is from the Na'vi point of view and that "soul" is a debatable topic. Flyer22 (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this change because this is how the Na'vi viewed it. DrNegative (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the word "soul" in this case as well, as I just stated right above in this section, but my explanation for the revert is also included. Flyer22 (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Cinosaur on this one. If we are going to use one term, we should use it in both instances. The way it stands now, it seems as if one were different from the other and as presented in the film, this clearly isnt the case. This could mislead the reader into believing that Grace's transfer was different from Jake's, which I do not believe is the case here. DrNegative (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, the force could be challenged because users don't believe in it. It is however, a work of fiction, and our personal beliefs go right out the window when it comes to these topics. We must stay in-universe. DrNegative (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed Cinosaur as well on the word "soul" being the better word to use, but not on it seeming inconsistent with what is happening. With the word "soul" in quotation marks for the first mention, I am not seeing how it can lead people into believing that Grace's transfer is different than Jake's. If they do not know already what "soul" is/can mean, the Soul article makes it clear that "soul" can also mean "consciousness."
In any case, I have pointed out the issue with "soul" being used plainly or both times. The previous discussions about it clearly show that people have a problem with using the word "soul." Simply putting "soul" back in twice, either plainly or in quotation marks, will not solve that problem. If this discussion is really being had again, then further or past suggestions for solving this problem should be given. Flyer22 (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there was one editor who felt that the Na'vi do not believe in souls in the physical spirit sense, despite the Na'vi having a Tree of Souls. Flyer22 (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And as for "the force," that is completely different; that is a made-up expression used throughout that series. With Avatar, they do not once say that they believe in "souls" in the physical spirit sense; it is rather implied, and there are other words that can be used in place of "soul." Flyer22 (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true but the transfer occuring at the "Tree of Souls" supports my argument a lot better than labeling it as a consciousness. "Physical spirit sense" is once again our interpetation of it, not the Na'vi's. In fact, I would like to debate this editor. We cannot relate this film to anything in real-life. Like I said, this is a work of fiction, the evidence within the film itself clearly steers toward the term "soul". As permitted in Wikipedia policy, consensus can change. I would like to get a fresh consensus on this matter. DrNegative (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Physical spirit sense" is our interpretation? It is clearly the correct interpretation, if you go by the Tree of Souls and its transfer ability. What else is "soul" supposed to mean from the Na'vi point of view? If we say the "mind," well...yeah, "soul" also encompasses that. We can indeed relate this film to things in real-life; it has real-life concepts, themes, etc. among all the fiction. "Soul" is clearly one of those, or else there would not be so much debate about using the word "soul" and trading it out with the words "mind," "consciousness," etc. And while Cinosaur prefers the word "soul," Cinosaur also originally felt that it is best not used at all...due to it being "too religious." Cinosaur may still very well feel that way. You do not have to debate me about anything on this matter; I have already stated my points, with a link to the past discussions about it...showing that using the word "soul" plainly both times will be a problem. I personally do not want to have to revert back to "soul" every time it is changed to "consciousness" by some IP, and I doubt that other editors will keep up with reverting IPs and others every time it is changed. But, yes, I am all for a fresh consensus on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 and DrNegative -- sorry for making you both rehash this topic. I did read the archived thread but was not convinced by the reasoning for 'consciousness' because, personal preferences aside, at the end of the day the article should be clear and consistent throughout -- which unfortunately it is not with 'soul' in one place and 'consciousness' in the other.

May I suggest that we rewrite the sentence under question as: "The clan perform the ritual to permanently transfer Jake from his human body into his Na'vi avatar with the aid of the Tree of Souls" and let every reader stick his/her own philosophical tag onto what they transfered. Otherwise there will be no end to it. What do you both think? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for it. So we leave the Grace part as "soul" in quotation marks? Flyer22 (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am for it as well. It seems like the most neutral way of phrasing it without someone taking it out of context. DrNegative (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep.  Done Cinosaur (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But be on the lookout for a reliable source that uses soul or consiousness, which would trump Wikipedia editors. I thought that I had found one here, but I don't think it would be considered a reliable source since that synopsis seems to have been constructed by users who visited that site, somewhat like the Wikipedia. In any case, if anyone finds a reliable source for whether to use consciousness or soul, we should go with that, unless there is another reliable source that says the opposite. . --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thats a good idea Bob, I'll be looking. I admit that in the end, its not what we think, but what we can prove/cite. DrNegative (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable source using soul or consciousness would simply be from some columnist's or summary writer's point of view...unless it is coming from Cameron himself or a book that elaborates on this story. It would still be what a person thinks. What Cameron thinks, though, since he created this world, is the only source that we can fairly cite on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a reliable source vs wikipedia editors' opinion. Hmmmm, which should we choose? --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. Clearly neither. Because where you can find one reliable source that says "soul," another person can find a different reliable source that says "consciousness." Unless it comes from Cameron or an expanded book on this fictional world, also by Cameron (in full or partly by), then it is merely opinion. Cameron may even feel that his take on this matter is opinion, since he sometimes leaves things open to interpretation. I do not see the big deal with trading out one word with the other on this matter, anyway, except that some people seem to always relate "soul" to being religious (when "soul" can simply mean a person's personality or values typically cherished by human beings, considering that non-religious people also use the word "soul"...such as when saying, "That movie has no soul.") Flyer22 (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism - the Vatican?

Should we include information about criticism from the Vatican, particularly about the environmental message[72][73], in the article? ~AH1(TCU) 01:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, AstroHurricane2001. I already proposed Vatican's criticism for inclusion above, but this is pending the outcome of a broader discussion on international coverage in general, which you may want to take part in too. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam war? Westerns?

There was a section, now deleted pointing to inspiration by vietnam movies such as Apolcalypse now, and western cowboy / indian movies with bows and arrows, more modern conflicts like blackhawk down with helicopters and automatic gunfire. Why is there is there no mention of the vietnam war or the indian wars portrayed by hollywood. Designers of the VTOL aircraft specifically mentioned the vietnam war, and the skids clearly resemble the form of the Huey helicopter of Vietnam war fame.Bachcell (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? There were people wearing shirts in the movie, too. Should we have a section discussing the thematic elements of shirt-wearing and the influence that shirts had on the movie? At some point have really have to limit the amount of sheer ridiculousness that goes into an article. Trusilver 08:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Avatar Depression

Should we add some info about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComradeWolf (talk • contribs) 11:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read above, at the #"Too real?" part.
Again, I ask people to check the talk page for already discussed matters (even recently archived discussions); a topic you are thinking of starting has likely already been discussed or is currently being discussed. Flyer22 (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Young actors to keep budget down [citation]

It says there is a citation needed for "Cameron cast the Australian actor after searching the world for promising young actors, preferring relative unknowns to keep the budget down."

http://www.hulu.com/watch/116516/the-tonight-show-with-conan-obrien-sam-worthington-part-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmanser (talk • contribs) 06:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I watched the video and added the reference. DrNegative (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

citation no15

"with cameras that were specially designed for the film's production." I can't find it on the citation no15. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aris berd (talk • contribs) 09:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De-archiving the talk page?

I was not going to bring this up, but seeing that the bot still has not re-archived these past discussions, I felt the need to. I have never seen discussions de-archived just to get a bot working again. In fact, I do not recall seeing discussions being de-archived under any circumstances. It is pretty frustrating to see past discussions on the talk page again, not to mention very messy with the length of this very active talk page, and I was wondering how long it will take before they are re-archived. What if someone posts something new in one of these past discussions? Flyer22 (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd. The bot archived some discussions at 1.30 this morning, why was all this stuff pulled back out? Can we revert the de-archiving? Betty Logan (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may have already read it, but in his edit summary, Thumperward (Chris Cunningham) said he did it to get the bot working again. I did not want to be rude and revert him, so I waited...trusting that he knew what he was doing. Perhaps we should wait a little longer for Chris to comment further on this? Flyer22 (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see that the archive bot has started back up again. Hopefully, it will archive all those de-archived discussions back in order. Flyer22 (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what confused me though because the bot hadn't stopped working. If you check the edit history it had done the archiving for that day already. Betty Logan (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banning in China

Oh dear, what happened to the talk page?

Anyway, very interesting development: http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/film-cinema/avatar-banned-by-chinese-sensors-because-plot-could-cause-civil-unrest-2021043.html AniRaptor2001 (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what that article is trying to say, but it seems to have its information mixed up. For one, it has already been released in China and got Cameron a good load of dough. There are better sources for this, like [74]--haha169 (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's two news links New York Times, Los Angeles Times. Yes, the information got mixed up.

It should be clarified that "most foreign films only get a 10-day run in China", from a quote in the Los Angeles Times. Also, the film is only been pulled from 1,600 2-D screens, and not the 900 3-D screens in China (which accounts for 64% of the gross-revenue for the film in that country).--Sevilledade (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

China denies the ban here.[75] They say the industry (not the government) chose to pull 2D because the majority of tickets sold were 3D anyway. DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

new section China 2-D ban moved here from article

China 2-D ban

On January 19, 2010, Hong Kong's Apple Daily reported that the state-run China Film Group had ordered cinemas across the country to stop showing the 2-D version of the film and only show the film in 3-D. Due to the lack of cinemas in China with 3-D technology, this effectively prevented the film’s general distribution in China. The Apple Daily also reported that the Central Publicity Department had issued an order to the media prohibiting it from hyping up Avatar.[75]

Chinese bloggers argued the measures were due to parallels between the plight of the film's Na'vi creatures – who are forced to flee their homes – and the forced evictions in China, and so was banned over possible concerns that it could lead to civil unrest.[76] The Apple Daily also reported that Avatar made almost £45m during the two weeks it played in China; the film becoming the top-grossing film in the nation's history led some to believe that the Chinese authorities were worried Avatar had seized the market share from domestic films; they cited that many of the vacant cinema slots will be replaced by a state-funded biopic, Confucius.[77]

The above comments need to be addressed. Also, keep in mind this excerpt from WP:UNDUE.

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just tweak it, and re-add it. It is clearly notable enough to be mentioned, especially with China saying it is their industry that banned the film. WP:UNDUE cannot be thrown around every time something negative in regards to this film arises. And I would say, yes, it should go back as a subsection of the Box office section. It does not make as much sense to cover it in the Box office section without it being a subsection, and it certainly should not be covered in some alternative spot of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its not really a "ban" though. It was interpeted that way until China said it was a misunderstanding and that they were letting it stay in 3D but wanted their in-house film to have a prominent spot on 2D. In my opinion, its not bad or good news. Its just not worthy of noting now in my opinion. DrNegative (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pulling out 2-D for 3-D is a 2-D ban in my view, and I do not always believe someone when they say "it was just a misunderstanding." It is worthy of a mention, in my opinion, given all the media waves it has clearly made over there. Flyer22 (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on the possibility of a deception and that may be the case here but I know it doesn't matter what I think, China's response is verifiable, regardless of truth. Also as this article has grown to a substantial size I also take into account of WP:EVERYTHING when it comes to these matters on being noteworthy. But if consensus leads to this section remaining, then I'll go with it. DrNegative (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. Though I feel that China commenting on the matter only adds to its noteworthiness. I am also constantly thinking about the size of this article...when I see people add things to it that are trivial/not needed, despite being from a reliable source. But there is not much more to add to this article anyway (so far), and the small space given to this "banning" matter would be...well...small. Flyer22 (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If China had a problem with a film, they'd ban it outright, and say so. Since they still allow it at the 3D showing areas, then it obviously isn't banned for political reasons. I agree, undue weight for crack conspiracy theories should not be in the article. Reasoning ability leads to common sense, which overrides anything the media spews out. Dream Focus 04:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you feel that this information should not be included at all? Either way we look at it, the 2-D version of the film was banned ("pulled," whatever). China obviously felt the need to comment on it, due to all these reports, and some Chinese bloggers have even felt that the Chinese government did likely pull the film. There are conspiracy theories about 9/11 as well, all of which I find ludicrous, but we include those. Including or not including this information has nothing to do with common sense. And WP:UNDUE is about not giving undue weight to small matters/opinions or too much weight to one particular topic or viewpoint. I am not seeing how this matter is that small or how it was given undue weight with the little that was covered of it in the Box office section. Flyer22 (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, I disagree with your opinion that the Chinese authorities would "ban it outright and say so." Given that China has been criticized by several countries for its policy on restricting some free speech, a political disaster of the nature banning a popular film could cause is something they - and any government - could do without. It is far less politically heated to do exactly what they have done; remove it from 2D theatres - the bulk of theatres outside main cities - and only permit it to be shown in 3D. Most people won't be able to travel great distances to see it, so you get censorship "by the back door". I do think it will become apparent whether this is in fact censorship when the DVD launches - if that gets restricted as well, then we'll know for sure. As a current event though, I do believe it's worthy of inclusion because whether one thinks this is censorship or not, the fact remains - and can be verified - that its showing has been restricted by this new directive. Whisperwolf (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times source stated though the 900 3-D theatres are fewer than the 2-D theatres, they are more popular and has pulled in much more money than the 2-D screenings. It has also been stated that most foreign films only get 10-day runs in China, and Avatar has already played longer than most of these films. Why not mention "ban" on most foreign film releases in China? These points should be raised.--Sevilledade (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, it should be noted the above said section "China 2-D ban" is almost entirely written from the view points of the newspaper Apple Daily and bloggers, and it fails to address several points. These should be addressed before the content is being presented:

  • "Most foreign films get a 10-day run before being pulled" in China, quoting David Wolf of Wolf Group Asia media consultancy, from the Los Angeles Times source [76]. He also mentioned Avatar has played in China's 2-D theatres far longer than most foreign releases [77].
  • The film is being pulled to support domestic film, during holiday season. "The decision to pull "Avatar" had more to do with the upcoming Chinese New Year holiday" and "there is an unwritten rule in China that at certain times of the year, such as the Spring Festival or National Day in October, Chinese movies have to be given precedence at the theater" [78].
  • It should be mentioned, only 1,600 2-D theatres are been pulled. Not the 900 3-D theatres, which has generated over 2/3 of the film's ticket sales in China ($50 million out of the total $76 million) [79].
  • According to the ABC source [80], China's State Administration of Radio, Film and Televisio has talked to Reuters and responded "The box office performance of the 2D version has not been great, whereas it's been really hard to get tickets for the 3D version,"..."So it's normal to take the 2D version off the screens. There'll be no change for the 3D version." Citing a reason of "a commercial decision."

There are various speculations and possible reasons why the film is been pulled during this time (i.e. Chinese New Year being one of them). However, those two paragraphs has failed to address many of these points, including China's Film Bureau denying the ban.--Sevilledade (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ABC cite notes that the Da Vinci Code film was prematurely pulled from theaters as well once it has overstayed China's hospitality. It seems to me that this is simply a routine domestic protectionism than any real censorship. --haha169 (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, for one, "China 2-D ban" is a non-neutral heading to you, Sevilledade? If this information were re-included under a heading again, what would propose for the title? Putting the word ban in quotation marks for neutrality seems the best option, to me, if this information were to be re-included under a heading. I cannot currently think of any heading that represents this topic better. "China debate," for example, would be horrible. Flyer22 (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about "China gives Avatar the Axe"? ;) DrNegative (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or, looking at things positively, "China gives 3D-Avatar a boost"? :) On a serious note, "China limits Avatar to 3D" could be an option, since it reports the situation neutrally, and has the word "limits" which conveys the flavor of...you know...the way things are sometimes done in China. Cinosaur (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common sense would be that if China had a problem with the movie, it wouldn't still be shown anywhere, or have been tolerated this long, if even at all. You don't just do a partial ban. If something is seen as dangerous or disruptive to your society, you block it entirely, don't leave it for millions to still access. Also China isn't a living entity. What government official or agency specifically made this decision? As for unfounded and ridiculous conspiracy theories, no, we do not mention them in the main article for things. Some people thought 9/11 was caused by space aliens, but we don't put that in the 9/11 article, because Wikipedia above all else bases its decision on common sense, not dancing around suggested guidelines to see if aliens can somehow fit in. Dream Focus 10:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more from an article mentioned above.

It’s not uncommon for China Film Group to protect domestic pictures. In 2006, "The Da Vinci Code" was unexpectedly pulled from theaters there after racking up $13 million in sales.

Foreign movies were also removed from theaters in the run-up to last year’s 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China. The sweep was believed to help promote the nationalistic epic, “The Founding of A Republic.”

Only 20 foreign movies per year are allowed to be shown in China's theaters. "Avatar," which opened worldwide in mid-December, was held in Chinese theaters until January because the 2009 quota had already been filled.

Pirated copies of “Avatar” are already available in Beijing’s bootleg DVD stores. [81]."

That doesn't sound like political censoring, but rather China's routine economic maneuvering, especially since the movie will probably be getting considerable distribution in China because of the pirated copies. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Has Turned Into Fanzine

The discussion has engendered a lot of sci fi speculation, so much so that the article has morphed into a fanzine. The two major items that should be discussed, I believe, are the plagiarism issue (Cameron already got caught stealing "The Terminator" and "Omega Code" so these constitute the "reliable source" criteria for claims of script hijacking, not to mention that Hollywood steals scripts on a regular basis) and the expensive 3-D effects. Everything else seems to fall under the heading of "zealous sci-fi fans" and perhaps a special fanzine section should be added, then people can discuss the film freely without having to wonder if it falls under proper Wiki guidelines. The discussion is interesting, but very, very long and could constitute an article unto itself. I think something should be done to sort all this out. After all, what is "Avatar" and has it created a sociological phenomenon in our "pop" culture? What about the downstream marketing? Are we to see "Avatar" costumes next Halloween? Will girls start wearing blue makeup? --See what I mean? All kinds of thought can be engendered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.246.181 (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Man died of over-excitement after watching Avatar

Apparently no joke: http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/man-died-after-watching-avatar/story-e6frfmvr-1225821333043 —85.178.107.97 (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b Ebert, Roger (December 11, 2009). "Avatar". RogerEbert.com. Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved December 17, 2009.
  2. ^ D'Alessandro, Anthony (2009-12-19). "'Avatar' takes $27 million in its first day". Variety. RBI, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. Retrieved 2010-01-11. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  3. ^ Douglas, Edward (December 21, 2009). "Avatar Soars Despite Heavy Snowstorms". Comingsoon.net. Retrieved December 21, 2009.
  4. ^ Reporting by Dean Goodman; editing by Anthony Boadle (December 20, 2009). ""Avatar" leads box office, despite blizzard". Reuters. Retrieved December 20, 2009.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  5. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Darkness
  6. ^ Bolpress, Bolivia“Jesus Christ and the Movie Avatar”
  7. ^ Huffington Post "Evo Morales Praises Avatar"
  8. ^ De Standaard, Belgium “What Does Avatar Mean to You?”
  9. ^ China Daily, PRC “The fourth dimension”
  10. ^ Jornal De Angola , Angola “Avatar Holds Out Hope for Something Better”
  11. ^ Osipov, Maxim (December 27, 2009). "What on Pandora does culture or civilisation stand for?". Hindustan Times. Retrieved December 27, 2009.
  12. ^ Osipov, Maxim (January 04, 2010). "Avatar's reversal of fortune". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved January 5, 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  13. ^ White, Armond (December 15, 2009). "Blue in the Face". New York Press. Retrieved December 15, 2009.
  14. ^ See also last paragraph of the above section Avatar Themes and inspirations.
  15. ^ a b "Avatar". Rotten Tomatoes. IGN Entertainment, Inc. Retrieved January 7, 2009.
  16. ^ "Rotten Tomatoes FAQ: What is Cream of the Crop". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 2010-01-03.
  17. ^ "Avatar Reviews: Top Critics". Rotten Tomatoes. IGN Entertainment, Inc. Retrieved December 22, 2009.
  18. ^ "Avatar (2009): Reviews". Metacritic. CNET Networks, Inc. Retrieved December 29, 2009.
  19. ^ Scott, A. O. (December 20, 2009). "Avatar film review". At The Movies. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Text "urlhttp://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/index.html" ignored (help) (TV episode)
  20. ^ McCarthy, Todd (December 10, 2009). "Avatar Review". Variety. Retrieved December 13, 2009.
  21. ^ Honeycutt, Kirk (December 10, 2009). "Avatar- Film Review". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved December 13, 2009.
  22. ^ Travers, Peter (2009-12-14). "Avatar review". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2010-01-03. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  23. ^ Corliss, Richard (2009-12-14). "Corliss Appraises Avatar: A World of Wonder". TIME Magazine. Retrieved 2010-01-03. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  24. ^ Turan, Kenneth (2009-12-17). "Review: 'Avatar'". Los Angeles Times. Tribune Company. Retrieved 2009-12-30. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  25. ^ Berardinelli, James (December 17, 2009). "Avatar review". ReelViews.net. Retrieved January 3, 2010. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  26. ^ Sciretta, Peter (December 21, 2009). "The Buzz: Filmakers react to Avatar". Retrieved December 30, 2009.
  27. ^ Burr, Ty (December 17, 2009). "Avatar". The Boston Globe. NY Times Co. Retrieved December 23, 2009.
  28. ^ Davis, Lauren (October 26, 2009) Did James Cameron Rip Off Poul Anderson's Novella? io9. Retrieved November 4, 2009.
  29. ^ Westfahl, Gary (December 20, 2009). "All Energy Is Borrowed: A Review of Avatar". Locus Publications. LocusMag.com. Retrieved December 29, 2009.
  30. ^ Chaw, Walter. "Avatar". Filmfreakcentral.net. Retrieved December 21, 2009.
  31. ^ Posted 06/08/2009 by Bill. "Movie News: Avatar to Follow a Pocahontas Narrative". Reelzchannel.com. Retrieved December 21, 2009.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  32. ^ Neda Ulaby, Zoe Chace (January 6, 2010). "'Avatar' And Ke$ha: A Denominator In Common?". NPR Morning Edition. Retrieved January 6, 2010.
  33. ^ Brooks, David. "The Messiah Complex", January 7, 2010
  34. ^ Cite error: The named reference latimesblogs.latimes.com was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  35. ^ Phillips, Michael (2010-01-10). "Why is 'Avatar' a film of 'Titanic' proportions?". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2009-01-10. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  36. ^ White, Armond (December 15, 2009). "Blue in the Face". New York Press. Retrieved December 15, 2009.
  37. ^ See also last paragraph of the above section Avatar Themes and inspirations.
  38. ^ Moore, Russell D. (December 21, 2009). "Avatar: Rambo in Reverse". The Christian Post.
  39. ^ Cohen, Adam (December 25, 2009). "Next-Generation 3-D Medium of 'Avatar' Underscores Its Message". Retrieved December 26, 2009.
  40. ^ Newitz, Annalee (2009-12-18). "When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like "Avatar"". io9. Retrieved 2009-12-27.
  41. ^ Huffington Post "Evo Morales Praises Avatar"
  42. ^ Bolpress, Bolivia“Jesus Christ and the Movie Avatar”
  43. ^ Huffington Post "Evo Morales Praises Avatar"
  44. ^ De Standaard, Belgium “What Does Avatar Mean to You?”
  45. ^ China Daily, PRC “The fourth dimension”
  46. ^ Jornal De Angola , Angola “Avatar Holds Out Hope for Something Better”
  47. ^ Osipov, Maxim (December 27, 2009). "What on Pandora does culture or civilisation stand for?". Hindustan Times. Retrieved December 27, 2009.
  48. ^ Osipov, Maxim (January 04, 2010). "Avatar's reversal of fortune". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved January 5, 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  49. ^ Douthat, Ross (December 21, 2009). "Heaven and Nature". New York Times. Retrieved December 21, 2009.
  50. ^ Davis, Don (December 14, 2009)."N.Y. Online Critics like 'Basterds'". Variety. Retrieved December 15, 2009.
  51. ^ Child, Ben (December 15, 2009). "Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds dominates Critics' Choice awards". guardian.co.uk. Retrieved December 15, 2009.
  52. ^ Maxwell, Erin (December 14, 2009). "'Air' soars with St. Louis critics". Variety. Retrieved December 15, 2009.
  53. ^ Robinson, Anna (December 21, 2009). "St. Louis Film Critics Awards 2009". Alt Film Guide. Retrieved December 22, 2009.
  54. ^ Strauss, Bob (December 13, 2009). "'Hurt Locker' takes top LAFCA honors". Daily News Los Angeles. Retrieved December 15, 2009.
  55. ^ "Complete List of 2010 Golden Globe Nominations". E! Online. December 15, 2009. Retrieved December 21, 2009.
  56. ^ Robinson, Anna (December 15, 2009). "Austin Film Critics Awards 2009". Alt Film Guide. Retrieved December 16, 2009.
  57. ^ Wilonsky, Robert (December 16, 2009). "DFW Crix Up in the Air With Year-End Tally". Dallas Observer. Retrieved December 16, 2009.
  58. ^ Maxwell, Erin (December 16, 2009). "Chicago critics high on 'Air,' 'Wild Things'". Variety. Retrieved December 16, 2009.
  59. ^ Davis, Don (December 16, 2009). "'Hurt Locker' wins big with Vegas critics". Variety. Retrieved December 17, 2009.
  60. ^ "FFCC Award Winners". Retrieved December 21, 2009.
  61. ^ Staff (December 21, 2009). "Quentin Tarantino receives London film critics' honour". BBC News. Retrieved December 21, 2009.
  62. ^ Boyd, Colin (December 22, 2009). "'Basterds' Dominates Phoenix Film Critics Awards". Get the Big Picture. Retrieved December 22, 2009.
  63. ^ Robinnson, Anna (2009-12-31). "INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, THE HURT LOCKER Top Online Film Critics 2009 Nominations". Alt Film Guide. Retrieved 2010-01-03.
  64. ^ McNary, Dave (2010-01-05). "PGA unveils nominations". Variety. Retrieved 2010-01-05.
  65. ^ Kilday, Gregg (2010-01-07). "DGA noms to Kathryn Bigelow, Tarantino". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2010-01-07.
  66. ^ Hammond, Pete (December 21, 2009). "Is 'Avatar' the new best picture front-runner?". Los Angeles Times - The Awards Insider. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  67. ^ White, Armond (December 15, 2009). "Blue in the Face". New York Press. Retrieved December 15, 2009.
  68. ^ See also last paragraph of the above section Avatar Themes and inspirations.
  69. ^ Huffington Post "Evo Morales Praises Avatar"
  70. ^ a b Klostermaier, Klaus K. (1994). [url=http://books.google.com/books?id=avYkrkSmImcC&pg=PA145 A Survey of Hinduism]. SUNY Press. p. 715. ISBN 07-91-42109-0. Retrieved January 17, 2010. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing pipe in: |url= (help)
  71. ^ a b Bryant, Edwin F. (2004). Krishna: The Beautiful Legend of God, Book 10. Penguin Classics. p. 608. ISBN 0140447997. Retrieved January 17, 2010.
  72. ^ Svetkey, Benjamin (2010-01-15). "'Avatar:' 11 Burning Questions". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 2010-01-16.
  73. ^ Goodyear, Dana (2009-10-26). "Man of extremes". The Newyorker. Retrieved 2010-01-10.
  74. ^ Wadhwani, Sita (2009-12-24). "The religious backdrop to James Cameron's 'Avatar'". CNN Mumbai. Cable News Network Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. Retrieved 2010-01-10.
  75. ^ Avatar banned by Chinese sensors because plot 'could cause civil unrest', Irish Independent, accessed 01/19/2010
  76. ^ China Bans Screenings Of 'Too Popular' Avatar, Sky News, accessed 01/19/2010
  77. ^ Ibid.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)&oldid=338972567"