Talk:Avatar (2009 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Avatar (2009 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Animated films task force (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the New Zealand cinema task force.
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Animation / Films / Computer (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States / American Cinema (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (marked as High-importance).

Pandora's atmosphere is unbreathable, not poisonous[edit]

There is nothing to suggest that Pandora's atmosphere is actually poisonous, only that it cannot sustain humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Probably just too low presure to breathe. It'll probably be like Mars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha3031 (talkcontribs) 01:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

$2B Fact incorrect[edit]

It also became the first film to gross more than $2 billion.[31]

No. Titanic was. See — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


Both the United States and the United Kingdom are listed as countries, I included Britain along with America with a reliable source yet you still reverted it. Why? Anarchistdy (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

See the previous discussion at these two locations: [1], [2]. There may be more discussions in other archives, but as I and others have said, this has been discussed before and a consensus has been reached before. It's not hard to search the archives to find evidence of such discussions. I managed to do it in less than 15 seconds. GSK 09:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No consensus was reached on those archives, other than not listing either 'American' or 'American-British' which is what I suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchistdy (talkcontribs) 10:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Anarchistdy, WP:Pipelinked my username in the heading; see here. I have removed it with this post of mine, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages.
The first discussion GSK linked to above is about using "Cinema of the United States" as a WP:EGG and "American" vs. "U.S."; the second discussion GSK linked to above is about "American" vs. "American-British." The consensus in that latter discussion, based on the weight of the arguments, is to list the film as American. And if some see no consensus there for that, it would be more accurate to state that the consensus was to list the film as American, to not list it as American or British, or that there was no consensus on anything regarding this. There might also be other discussions about the topic in the archives; though I've been at this article for years, I'd have to check the archives to see if there are any other discussions about this in them. Like I told Anarchistdy in one of the reverts shown at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard about edit warring over this county matter, WP:FILM is there to contact about this country-listing topic. Flyer22 (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

There should be no American or British-American as like I have said Wikipedia: FILM LEAD says if there is more than 1 country of production then the nation isn't listed in the first sentence. That is fair. I have removed the switched the sources for American and added them to the United States in country section. Do not add American or British-American or American-British as it is not necessary. Thank You WARNER one -9999 (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

See here on my talk page for where I point out that WARNER one (9999) likes to WP:Edit war over country listings for film articles, especially if it means that "British" is represented (which is why he doesn't want "American" in the lead). He is apparently incapable of applying the country-listing matter on a case-by-case basis, cannot see when "British" does not belong (such as when WP:Edit warring with Masem at the Memento (film) article or with Canterbury Tail at the Aliens (film) article), and cannot discuss before making edits; from what I see, he doesn't respect WP:Consensus and seems to think that things should go his way or no way; notice above that he uses the words "Do not." Oh, and here is his latest edit on this matter, which is grammatically-challenged and should be fixed if it's to stay. I don't have the patience for WARNER one's problematic behavior (problematic behavior noted on his talk page), and I suspect that he edited Wikipedia before as a registered editor before being indefinitely blocked, so I have instead let this matter go. But for future notice, I would support only "American" being in the lead, per that being the the long-standing WP:Consensus due to past discussions on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22 is intent on trying to ignore other countries involvement and using me as reason for his actions. I admit I have made mistakes in the past on Memento which I have learnt from. However on Alien I have been right and provided references. I have succeeded in changing Alien and have came to an agreement that puts USA and UK fairly in it, this was not decided by me alone. In Aliens UK is mentioned on BFI and Lumiere. How can that be denied?. I have never been blocked before. This is my first and only Wikipedia account. I support many countries such as Australia in The Matrix and Others such as Canada in Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters and Taiwan in Life of Pi. On Wikipedia the fact is USA involvement is almost always glorified ignoring other countries. I do support making countries fair. I use references. I do not attempt to admit being perfect though do not call my actions "problematic behavior" s please point out where it suggests that on my talk page. I use reasons set out by Wikipedia, which you know cause I have told you many times by even leaving the reason on your talk page. I am not overshadowing USA involvement. US is still before UK in country section. Your just stubborn and are ignoring facts. I love USA and still think there are many films that should be labeled "American" there are however many co-productions that should have no label. I am a serious editor who can not be bothered to keep dealing with this rude person. I work on other areas of Wikipedia such as World Wars and Rotten Tomatoes (I am currently monitoring Michael Bay's critism. How come when it is an Australian or British film the rules apply differently to when it is an American film. It is wrong and should be stopped. Thank you. WARNER one --9999 (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict; Betty's comment below came before my reply to WARNER one; I got briefly sidetracked before replying]: WARNER one (9999) , I am female, as many at this site know. And I'm not trying to ignore other countries' involvement; I am trying to get you to see reason with regard to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and that it's those policies and guidelines I was abiding by. You cite WP:FILMLEAD, and yet completely disregard WP:Consensus, which, unlike WP:FILMLEAD, is a policy. You were already told by Erik and by me that the "listing British" aspect is a case-by-case matter and that you should not be going around enforcing your personal preference (whether it's to list "British" in addition to "American" or to remove both listings) on Wikipedia film articles. You did not "succeed" at the Aliens (film) article; "American" is still currently the only country listed there in the lead, as it should be. And it's not about "making countries fair"; if you notice, the WP:Neutrality policy has a WP:Due weight section, which is another policy you should be following. And don't pretend that you actually discuss anything on Wikipedia in a productive manner; you simply WP:Edit war, make a note on the article or user's talk page and think that doing so settles matters because your word is final. You are a WP:Disruptive editor, as also recently seen by your edit warring with TriiipleThreat at the X-Men: Apocalypse page (seen, for example, here), even as he pointed out the WP:NFF film guideline to you; so I take it that you are selective in which film guideline you follow. I stand by everything I stated above. You won't last long here as an editor if you keep editing in the way that you have. And removing problematic sections like this one, which show that you also edited as an IP, will not help you. If I'm rude to you, it's because I "cannot be bothered" with someone who refuses to even discuss a contested matter that was previously settled by WP:Consensus and simply thinks that his word is law. Flyer22 (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Note that here on my talk page, WARNER one has stated that he's done with this discussion. I told him that we can and should hold off on the WP:Civility violations and instead work toward a new consensus, and that I don't mind much at all not having any country listed in the lead; it's his approach that I took more objection to. Flyer22 (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment there is a standing consensus not to include Britain in the lede but that does precede recent revisions to MOS:FILM. I am not sure to what extent the old consensus stands, but I think the status quo should probably remain in place and a new discussion started if there is an existing consensus in place. I should also point 9999 to WP:BRD which you should follow even if you believe you are right, except in cases of possible libel regarding living people, and constant deviation from BRD is likely to conclude with a block. On the issue at hand I think LUMIERE and the BFI are reputable sources, but let's not forget they are European centric sources too i.e. the BFI has a mandate to promote British film, and the American Film Institute may not agree with their findings. In the case of Avatar the BFI and the AFI do seem to concur it is an international co-production; on top of that it was filmed in the United States and New Zealand and written & directed by a Canadian so it does seem to be a bit churlish for us to refer to it as just an American film when not even the American Film Institute regard it as such. I know in other cases similar to this we refer to the film as an "English language film" and just have the two production countries in the infobox which I think would be a sensible compromise in this instance. Betty Logan (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Fringe "rip-off" reviews[edit]

I am slightly concerned about some recent additions to the film criticism section of this article (as well as at Firekind), as well as some of its present content. The reviewers and the publications in question are:

As with all published opinion we have a duty to observe WP:WEIGHT; that is, we record representative opinion and significant minority opinion. The critical reception section does not exist to bung in every opinion we can find. Personally I think the section includes too much from fringe publications. Websites like and io9 are pretty common and don't carry much weight compared to major publications so they should only be used judiciously. For example, of the three people mentioned above only Charlie Anders seems to have had a serious career in journalism; I can't find much info on the other two. Also, non of them are listed at Rotten Tomato critics, so if their work doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion there then is a legitimate question mark over referencing them here. I think we should perhaps look at stripping away some of this fringe criticism from less-notable reviewers; yes, obviously plenty of other films and books have been influential, but not to the degree that it is notable. I'm sure that a Sci-Fi fanzine can find plenty of parallels with other work, but we should perhaps stick to notable critics (or at least on the credited RT list) and major publications rather than these fanzine type websites. Betty Logan (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Here are all the edits in question:[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. I agree with Betty, except that I am fine with the way that the Critical reception section has been before the recent changes by Richard75 (changes that Betty reverted). If we remove some of that material, I would rather it be replaced by text from better-quality sources. What is there now has mostly been thoroughly worked out; for example, before that section became stable, editors would add that material, but too much of it and/or with poorer sources. Betty likely remembers that, since she has worked on this article for years as well. It's currently at the point where it summarizes all the significant comparisons, and therefore, with the exception of Richard75's addition, there is no desire (or usually no desire) for editors to add a comparison that they feel should be mentioned there. I was also thinking about reverting Richard75. However, as the second diff-link I provided shows, I decided to tweak his edit instead; this is because I didn't consider the addition to be a big deal (at least it was a very small addition) and because I didn't feel like getting into a WP:Edit war (whoever feels like getting into one?). But I was definitely thinking that there are enough reviews and we shouldn't just keep piling on to that section; not every review out there can be included (or rather should not be included), maybe not every comparison either (if that section doesn't already summarize all of the comparisons, except for what Richard75 added). Alternatively, there is the Themes in Avatar article...which includes extensive review information, and can be used to add further reviews (though we can't, or rather shouldn't, include every review in that article either; WP:WEIGHT also applies to that article). Furthermore, there is a hidden note in the Critical reception section (which I added years ago) that states: "THIS ARTICLE IS BIG ENOUGH. RECONSIDER ADDING MORE TO THIS SECTION." Yes, reconsider. And all those additional sources that Richard75 added weren't needed. Flyer22 (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Interesting that you think that that section was just the right size as it was but that one more sentence tipped it over some critical mass into too bloated... But nothing expressed above explains Betty Logan's reversion of my edit at the Firekind article (which only added a source to the material which already existed there). I wonder what your agenda might be. Richard75 (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Over 25% of the criticism section compares it to other work, and many of these comparisons seem to be sourced to fringe publications. I am pretty sure that 25% of the mainstream criticism devoted to the film's reception wasn't devoted to comparing it to other works so why are these comparisons monopolising the section? We should be summarising the whole spectrum of criticism rather than skewing it to one particular aspect. I think readers get the message, it is derivative of other sci-fi films and books, so let's try to keep it representative and balanced, and let's try to steer clear of fringe media. Betty Logan (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Richard75, I did not state or (in my opinion) imply that your addition "tipped [the section] over some critical mass into too bloated." After all, I stated that "I didn't consider the addition to be a big deal." But the problem is that steady additions similar to yours will cause that section to be out of hand. Where do we draw the line, other than sources that are not WP:Reliable? That is the main point that Betty and I are making on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, I can see why you think the section is big enough. I didn't notice the hidden warning because I immediately scrolled right down to the bottom of the edit window (consider adding another warning at the bottom). But Betty Ligan still hasn't explained her edit to the Firekind article, where different considerations apply, and I don't agree that these sources are not reliable ones. Richard75 (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Science fiction books[edit]

Comment The article says In 1994,[15] director James Cameron wrote an 80-page treatment for Avatar, drawing inspiration from "every single science fiction book" he had read in his childhood as well as from adventure novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs and H. Rider Haggard.[14]

Does this article point out which books such as comic science fiction books have a number of similarities with Avator? QuackGuru (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That would be original research unless reliable sources were provided. But...why are you asking when you can read the article for yourself? DonIago (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
QuackGuru, the article discusses similarities in the Critical reception section. Doniago, it seems that QuackGuru wanted a quick answer and/or wanted to make sure that he or she wouldn't overlook something and/or didn't want to read the entire article (or significant portions of it). Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Dark Roasted Blend[edit]

I've dug up some info regarding this edit. It seems to be done and dusted now, but since I have the info I will record it here in case it becomes an issue later down the line:

Dark Roasted Blend seems to be run by someone called Avi Abrams. Checking up on this guy, the site seems to be a self-published blog, and Abrams himself seems to be a graphic designer with no background in journalism or film analysis. As such I stand by my assertion that his blog is unsuitable for inclusion. Betty Logan (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, Betty. Clearly a non-WP:Reliable source (both the site and the author). Therefore, this and this revert you made are justified. Flyer22 (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Plot Gap[edit]

The plot description leaves a major gap at the end. If most humans are expelled from Pandora and mining is stopped, Unobtanium ceases to be available and humans on Earth face extinction. Is this gap left as a point of departure for a future movie or is it meant as a repudiation of the principle of Manifest Destiny that allowed white Europeans to conquer the Americas? Is Avatar merely full of sound and fury with no real substance or does it have a deeper meaning? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The plot summary section of the article should only detail what is seen in the film. Speculating as to what occurs beyond the end of the film is beyond the scope of the summary. DonIago (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2014[edit]

Please change the film from being called American to British-American or American-British as the film is clearly stated on the BFI and even in this pages "Country" box as being from United States and United Kingdom. I hope you look in to this matter as it indirectly undermines all the people from the U.K.' S work on the film. If you need anymore evidence of the UK's work then let me know. Thanks. (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: see above discussion Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)#Country Cannolis (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)