Talk:Avatar (2009 film)

Copyright lawsuit

My most vivid memories of this talk page have to do with all the discussions regarding what Avatar was a ripoff of. Well, now there's this:

http://gawker.com/5542239/the-insane-avatar-copyright-lawsuit-filed-against-james-cameron

This would appear to be the first actual legal action regarding copyright infringement in Avatar. However, the case appears to be extremely shaky. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Norm Spellman

Hi, I noticed that it says on the character list 'Norm Spellman' rather than 'Dr. Norm Spellman' as I am confident this is the correct title. I don't know the exact time when this is established but it is in the scene where Jake is introduced to his avatar for the first time, Norm introduces himself as 'Dr. Norm Spellman' 222.152.24.58 (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I searched the script using the keyword "Spellman" and in no case did I find "Dr." or "Doctor" associated with the name. Here's the part of the script on p. 10 that you may have remembered.

An eager young XENOANTHROPOLOGIST, staggering under an

overpacked duffel, runs to catch up to Jake.

NORM

Hey, you’re Jake right? Tom’s brother?

You look just like him.

(off Jake’s wary look)

Sorry, I’m Norm Spellman,

I went through avatar training with him.

It's not the scene that you mentioned but it is a scene where Norm Spellman introduces himself. Feel free to look through the script for the scene that you had in mind. Maybe someone who has the video of Avatar might check the actual scene in the film. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I checked the scene, and he introduces himself as "Norm Spellman." In fact, the scene is almost word-for-word with the excerpt above. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 17:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

He introduces himself as Norm Spellman to Jake, but about 2 minutes later he introduces himself as Dr. Norm Spellman to Dr. Max Patel as the camera pans to follow Jake observing his new Avatar. DrNegative (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I added "Dr." to "Norm Spellman" in Cast and characters section. ...and the "Dr." dialogue is 0:59 into the video clip in this article.--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

He does say, "Dr. Norm Spellman" in shaking hands with the bearded guy when Jake is looking at his Avatar. It's at 9:07 in the version I have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.232.46.26 (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

the proper title would be his name without his title (as titles can change over time, even though it's not seen within the one film). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.38.248 (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Critical reception - See also

In the Critical reception section there is

See also: Thematic reviews of Avatar

Why isn't it

See also: Themes in Avatar

since that is the name of the article? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Erik (currently retired) did that, and I'm guessing he did it to be more specific, since that article also covers reviews of the film, and since we already link to that article with its exact title in the Themes and inspirations section. Flyer22 (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it is proper to link to the correct title of the article when there is a "See also". Would it be OK with you if I changed it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed it. Feel free to revert. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, this particular wording of the "See also" hat note in Critical reception was discussed and agreed upon here. Not a big deal, but you may want to look it up to see if the rationale for "Thematic reviews of Avatar" satisfies you as well. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the discussion where a part of it was where you and DrNegative discussed this particular matter.[1] I noticed in that discussion that there was a link to Layout manual. From the guidance at that link I had the impression that one should link to the actual title of the other article, although the particular topic of linking to the actual title wasn't explicitly addressed. I looked around some more and maybe there's a better way of having the effect that you and DrNegative would like. In the guideline section What generally should be linked, there is the following example,

• articles with relevant information, for example: "see Fourier series for relevant background".

Now this isn't for a "See also" type of message but it seems that the same idea could be applied. The only problem is the mechanics of implementing it since I didn't find a way of using the {{see also}} template. However, maybe doing it manually without a template may be OK. With this example in mind, perhaps what you are trying to do could be accomplished with

See also: Themes in Avatar for more reviews

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Good wording. Please see if it looks all right in the article. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Cinosaur, so you were the one who originally added that link? Oops, I though it was Erik (as above shows). Maybe it was removed, and I saw Erik add it back or tweak it or something. Hmm. Flyer22 (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Flyer22. We were going back and forth on the link so many times that it has easily become confusing even to myself who the original author was. :) Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Cinosaur, I had considered having "thematic" in there too, but I decided it would be redundant since the title of the article is Themes in Avatar, so I left it out. Also, with "more thematic reviews" it might appear that the reviews in the section in Avatar are thematic reviews only. And it's not clear what a "thematic review" is. So that's why I prefer the above version without "thematic" to the version that is presently in the article, which includes "thematic". Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Point well taken, Bob. Changed. Cinosaur (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting section, but as is usual for the English language Wiki it's americo-centric. Some of my favourite reviews are not from american reviewers, but as far as this article is concerned they don't even exist. Disappointing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.84.21 (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "Some of my favourite reviews are not from american reviewers" - Could you give the links here? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok here you go, lets see if this works: http://www.heyuguys.co.uk/2009/12/18/review-avatar/ http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=133552&page=3 http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/first-night-avatar-odeon-leicester-square-1838275.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/6790286/Avatar-report-from-premiere.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.84.21 (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What specific information from these reviews would you like to see in the section Critical reception? Feel free to give excerpts here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Should image go?

In the current peer review, it is being said there are too many non-free content images. We are trying to trim down the number to 4 images, and it is down to 5 now, as I have removed one of them. It has already been suggested that File:Avatarjakeneytiri.jpg go, as it can be argued that File:Avatarmotioncapture.jpg negates the need of the former picture. Give opinions on this as much as you want. Guy546^(Talk) 20:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep-Its hard to say what should be done. While there are two images in the article that already show Na'vi (the movie poster and the avatar motion capture image), the image of Jake and Neytiri is the only image which shows Na'vi in detail, which makes it somewhat valuable. It also provides some understanding to Cameron's "dream" inspiration. I'll have to think about it.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC))

Yeah, I agree with Bob K31416. This image should be kept.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC))

Re the Jake and Neytiri image in the section Themes and inspirations, it should stay IMO. To the beginning of the caption, I added the line "Jake's avatar and Neytiri" which is informative for the reader and should help the reviewers see how well it fits in with the context. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There are currently 3 fair use images in the article; the other two are under a free license. We don't want to limit the number of images, only the number of non-free images. As long as each fair use image has a suitable rationale, 3 images is not excessive. mgiganteus1 (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hallelujah mountain image

While I understand that for this article to be FA some of the fair use images need to be removed, I don't agree with the removal of the Hallelujah mountain image in the "Themes and aspirations" section. To those readers who were unaware of the Huang Shang mountains of China, the image provided further understanding of Cameron's inspiration. Would the user responsible of this please reconsider.

Thanks- (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC))

Sorry. That must have accidently happened to the format, as you can see on the article history I didn't do anything to the image. Guy546^(Talk) 21:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok I understand. I'll post my opinion of the Jake and Neytiri image on the discussion above-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC))

Source for Budget

The linked source for the budget (Reference No. 2 at the moment) is broken. May please anyone who is allowed to edit the article change it to a real source? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.176.180.164 (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The link works fine. It's possible the site was down temporarily when you tried to load it. The source can be accessed at Webcite if you have any further problems with it. Betty Logan (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The site is not down but the article itself seems to be deleted. There is just the heading and the comments but no text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.176.180.164 (talk) 12:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just checked again and the full article is there. I really don't know what to suggest. Could someone else check the reference 2 please. Betty Logan (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Like 128.176.180.164, I only see the heading and comments at http://www.thewrap.com/article/true-cost-and-consequences-avatar-11206?page=1. There is a big white space where the article text was supposed to be. If you have a working version cached then try to bypass your cache. Google's cache [2] is currently from 23 May and shows a bunch of error messages in the space but no article. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be an Internet Explorer issue. It came up fine in Firefox, but I tried it in Explorer and got the same problem. I've added the archive address to the reference so people who can't access the article directly can still read it. Betty Logan (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that. Just tried it again in Explorer and it came up, but I'm now getting the problem in Firefox. It's obviously a server issue at there end. Betty Logan (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Just got a load of SQL error messages in Firefox so it's definitely server problems. Betty Logan (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

In any case, one should consider archiving as many references as possible because of link rot. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Also, when archiving links that are still good and haven't "rotted", using the following format would be consistent with the use in the references in the rest of this article and would still have the original as the main link, since it is better than the archived version if it hasn't rotted.

<ref name="Patten (2009)">{{cite news |author=Patten, D. |title='Avatar's' True Cost – and Consequences|url=http://www.thewrap.com/article/true-cost-and-consequences-avatar-11206?page=1 |date=December 3, 2009 |publisher=The Wrap |accessdate=December 12, 2009}} [http://www.webcitation.org/5m4EySibe Archived version December 16, 2009]. </ref>

which displays as

Patten, D. (December 3, 2009). "'Avatar's' True Cost – and Consequences". The Wrap. Retrieved December 12, 2009. Archived version December 16, 2009.

If the original has rotted, then the other format can be used.

<ref name="Patten (2009)">{{cite news |author=Patten, D. |title='Avatar's' True Cost – and Consequences|url=http://www.thewrap.com/article/true-cost-and-consequences-avatar-11206?page=1 |archiveurl= http://www.webcitation.org/5m4EySibe |archivedate=December 16, 2009 |date=December 3, 2009 |publisher=The Wrap |accessdate=December 12, 2009}}</ref>

which displays as

Patten, D. (December 3, 2009). "'Avatar's' True Cost – and Consequences". The Wrap. Archived from the original on December 16, 2009. Retrieved December 12, 2009.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize there were two separate protocols. I've run a Webcite comb on the article too so the majority of the links should be archived now. It never picks all of them up because some get blocked, but if people have problems with links not working/dead links then chances are you can access the article at Webcite now. Betty Logan (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "Sorry, I didn't realize there were two separate protocols." - Nothing to be sorry about. I'm not sure there is any formal protocol according WP:MOS or whatever, but I would have to check to be sure. The protocol you used is what is given by a template, and the one I used, for the reason I mentioned, I made up myself.

Re "combed" - I'm not sure what info that gives. It's my impression that most of the links in the references of the article are not archived. But I haven't checked recently or carefully. Sorry for being a bit lazy here. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Combing is just automatic archiving, and I ran it today on the article. I estimate that at least 70% of the references will be archived now. Betty Logan (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I did a manual check, as indicated below, and it appears that only 19 references are indicated in the citations as being archived. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand Bob. Combing doesn't add the archive addresses to the citations, that has to be done manually I think. But if the links die you can probably find copies on Webcite. It's not ideal I appreciate that, but it's better than losing the references for good. For instance, reference 1 can now be found at http://www.webcitation.org/5pAvXwfu8. It's probably not worth going through the article adding the archive address to all 200 citations but if editors come across dead links we can search Webcite and get the archived copy. Betty Logan (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "It's not ideal I appreciate that, but it's better than losing the references for good." - Yes. What you did was valuable. Although the archived versions resulting from the comb function don't appear in this Avatar article's citations, they may be available by searching Webcite with the broken links' urls.[3] --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So there are two formats for archived material being used in the article.

1) "Archived version..." with the main link as the original

2) "Archived from the original..." with the main link as the archived version.

I just checked the reference section and 8 references use format (1) and 11 use format (2). Of the 11 that use format (2), in 7 the original links have rotted. Of the remaining 4 references that use format 2 and have good original links, the archived links are as good a quality as the original links and so, having the archived link as the main link of the reference is fine. This is all according to the system that I've been using. I might be the only one that has been archiving, or doing almost all of the archiving, except for your recent action. Not sure. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete last paragraph of Critical reception section?

There's been some discussion at the Peer review of deleting the last paragraph of the critical reception section which starts, "The movie blog /Film accumulated a list of quotes ...". Any thoughts? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think some sort of coverage of peer reception is important. Maybe we can remove the "poster quotes" and rephrase the paragraph to read along the lines of "Avatar was well-received by Cameron's Hollywood contempories, with illuminaries such as Steven Spielberg, Frank Marshall and Richard Kelly among those who praised the film. Duncan Jones was an exception in criticising its predictability, but its doubtful that Cameron gives a shit about his opinion or has ever even heard of him." Betty Logan (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "gives a shit" - LOL, go for it Betty. (Or maybe I shouldn't encourage this??? So many decisions.)

Anyhow. Re "Avatar was well-received by Cameron's Hollywood contempories..." - I considered that, but we can't say that because the article didn't. We don't know how representative those quotes are of the feeling in the industry. And changing it to "some of Cameron's Hollywood contempories" doesn't seem worth mentioning. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Cinosaur's edit is a good change. Flyer22 (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I say keep it. When a director like Steven Spielberg says it is the best sci-fi film since Star Wars, it just screams notability and is worthy of inclusion in my humble opinion. He didn't really have to give it context as mentioned in the peer review, I'm sure he is assuming the average person knows what type of film Star Wars was to the industry for a comparison. I also like Cinosaur's copy-edit. DrNegative (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really for having that paragraph reduced to one lone sentence. Having "one-sentence paragraphs" is something that was criticized in the peer review. If we are only going to have a one sentence mention of Cameron's peers liking the film, then there has got to be a better place to place it, like near the beginning (somewhere in the "entertainment paragraphs"). Flyer22 (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I second Flyer22 on this one. The two sentences left by Bob's edit were too streamlined, with the second remaining a syntactic semi-orphan. I've merged them into one, but am not happy with the resultant one-liner. Why not keep at least the filmmaker unhappy with Avatar in, if for a semblance of balance? Cinosaur (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

See if it looks better now. Cinosaur (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Awesome work, Cinosaur. Flyer22 (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Addressing Bob's concern with the Critical reception section now tapering off into a lackluster quote by (sic:) a Duncan Jones, here is a possible rewrite for the last paragraph. See if you like it better, Bob:

While Duncan Jones felt that Avatar's plot lacked surprise and logical cohesion, the film was otherwise acclaimed by Cameron's fellow filmmakers—with Steven Spielberg praising it as "the most evocative and amazing science-fiction movie since Star Wars" and others calling it "audacious and awe inspiring", "master class", "stunning", and "brilliant".Cinosaur (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

First, I deleted the remark of mine before you put it in your message because, upon reflection, I thought it was unfair to Jones. However, I think we should be careful about giving him too much prominence in this context because he is not a prominent filmmaker AFAICT.

The problem with making comments like "the film was otherwise acclaimed by Cameron's fellow filmmakers" is that it is too general, considering the limitations of the reference: it wasn't a survey of the film industry, just some collected comments. This could be a criticism of the first sentence of what I had too. I think it's hard to use the information in the ref without encountering problems.

However, I thought Spielberg's remark was a significant comment from a highly prominent filmmaker. The other comments don't seem worthwhile, with little substance and not necessarily representative of the feeling of the film industry. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the exact mention of plagiarism stay?

This has been discussed before, and I am wondering if it is better left in. Plenty of editors have tried to insert information about the plagiarism claims before, and Bob eventually formatted it into the Critical reception section in a neat way. Bob has recently removed obvious mention of it, however. Is this best? I mean, considering the several plagiarism claims against Cameron for Avatar, so much so that Cameron felt the need to respond to them, shouldn't we leave exact mention of that in? It will also take care of people coming to this article and wanting or demanding that mention of the plagiarism claims be included in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of any legal action being undertaken I think the mentions of plagiarism should be kept to a minimum, but if Cameron has issued a response to the accusations I think that should be retained. Betty Logan (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Betty. That is why I feel that Bob's previous formatting of that information was best. Flyer22 (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Bob, how do you feel about this? Flyer22 (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the refs that were in the article at the time I deleted and they didn't have Cameron denying accusations of plagiarism, just a brief mention of "his team" denying accusations. I think in the article more attention was given to accusations of plagiarism of Noon Universe than it deserved, while the more significant and reasonable remark IMO about the Russian audiences noting similarities to Noon Universe was not mentioned. Also, I thought it was misleading because it implied that Avatar was substantially more like Noon Universe than it was like the other works that Avatar was similar to. Basically, Noon Universe was getting misleading attention and more attention than was appropriate, compared to other works, IMO. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining. So you're not for any brief mention of plagiarism claims? I get why you wouldn't be. I was just worried about the removal, due to what I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• In The Jesus Incident the world they are on is called Pandora, and the planet(or kelp covering it) is sentient, and this sentient planet controls the predators which are sent to attack the humans for causing destruction. That book came out in 1979, before others claim to have come up with some of the same concepts. This book was the inspiration for Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri which had humans going into sleep chambers and being sent to Alpha Centauri, the entire world a living sentient thing, controlling the various lifeforms sent to attack humans to stop them from causing destruction to it, and which also had people near the end of the game transferring their minds into a higher state of transcendence to become one with the planet, and control an avatar. This came out in 1999. Lot of similarities between that and Avatar movie... plus a few thousand other things. I find it ridiculous someone could claim to have come up with something which someone else ripped off, if the exact same theme was done decades before them even. Dream Focus 05:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Dream Focus. I feel that mention of plagiarism claims should be added back, but similar to the way Bob had it before...as not to give undue weight. I will eventually add back a bit of that information, if Bob or someone else does not. But as for the similarities to another work you cited above, of course we cannot add every book or film (or whatever) Avatar is similar to. If someone has claimed plagiarism in that case as well, though, that work can also be noted. Flyer22 (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"The Terminator" and "The Omega Code" Were Stolen, Why Not "Avatar"?

Okay, now that there's been a copyright lawsuit filed against Cameron for script theft, can we please get back to where "Avatar" actually came from? For me, this has been the most intriguing aspect of this movie, and it's 3D novelty has already become history with so many other 3D films now out. I personally think "Call Me Joe" by Poul Anderson was the primary script from which "Avatar" was made. And since script theft in Hollywood is rampant I don't see why the matter shouldn't be written about. The reason we don't hear more about script hijacking in Hollywood is that when a settlement is reached in copyright infringement cases in Hollywood, part of the settlement is that the ripped-off writer agrees NOT to talk about the script theft. Otherwise there'd be hundreds of writers on the lecture circuit talking about how Hollywood stole their script. I think over time the plagiarism issue will become the most noted thing about "Avatar", not the 3D. Would Wiki editors please explain why the plagiarism issue can't be fully noted? I think they're dodging the issue simply because they're fans of the movie but being a fan of the movie is not sufficient reason to ignore copyright matters, in my opinion. Thanks. 69.104.54.170 (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Sgt. Rock

Notability is the criteria for inclusion, and a case being filed simply isn't notable - I could file a suit against James Cameron too if I wanted. If a judge rules there are sufficient grounds for a case to be heard then the details of that particular case as it progresses can be documented in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

IP, the plagiarism claims against Avatar can be noted, as long as it is kept to a minimum. As stated above, we had mention of it in this article before. Since it appears best to at least mention it, similar to the way we did before, I will add mention of it back. You just have to be patient. I am also trying to give others a chance to weigh in on this before such an edit is made. Flyer22 (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sgt. Rock, The second to last paragraph of the "Critical reception" section begins with "Critics and audiences have cited similarities with other films, literature or media." Call Me Joe and other works are mentioned there. As far as I know, Cameron hasn't been sued for plagiarism of Call Me Joe or for plagiarism of the other works mentioned. Do you have a reliable source that says that Cameron has been sued for plagiarizing Call Me Joe or any of the other works that have ideas that are similar to those in Avatar? Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me try and understand what you are requesting, please correct me if I'm wrong. You "personally" feel that Avatar plagiarized from Call Me Joe, but you know however that the writer of the stolen work(s) wouldn't complain even if it were, simply because he agreed not to talk about it. In light of this you feel the editors here should note it anyway? DrNegative (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Avatar
200px Wagon Train cast (1964): Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, Dr. McCoy, Scotty, and Chekov.

Just an aside, but as an example of blatant plagiarism, Star Trek was originally pitched as "Wagon Train to the stars."[4] --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sgt. Rock has already been told twice on his talk page that he shouldn't use article's talk pages as an internet forum. On the same day he posted this message, Sgt. Rock also posted rather inflammatory and irrelevant comments on the talk page for Saving Private Ryan in these two edits- [5] [6]. While the mentioning of plagiarism in this article is an actual issue, I'm not sure if Sgt. Rock's comment should be taken seriously.- (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC))

Edit request from Mrjbond007, 19 June 2010

i would like to update this page with correct infomation i will not vanedelise this page i want to put Sony pictures Entertainment with 20th century fox since they both c budget the film together i got this info from www.sony pictures.com .

Mrjbond007 (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC) thank you very much

Declined. Malformed request. Betty Logan (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the info you got from http://www.sonypictures.com/ , could you be more specific about where you got the info at that website? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DrNegative (talk) 02:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)