Talk:Avatar (2009 film)

"Average" on Rotten Tomatoes

As I stated in my edit summary, "Removed the average rating mention. I never see why that is important to note; this part of the score is always "average" there, even when clearly above average."

It continued with:

The 'average' that you removed does not mean the movie was rated as 'average', it means that the rating was an 'average' (i.e. arithmetic mean) of several ratings. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I know that. But the rating is "average" (i.e. arithmetic mean) of several ratings for every film there. Thus, why exactly is it important to mention? Flyer22 (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

To indicate that it is based on an average of several ratings, not a subjective rating. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The vibe it gives off is that the film has an "average" score of whatever, as if the score (whether very low or very high) is just average. It is not even remotely important to mention, in my view. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It's fine to use the word "average" here. The Featured Article Changeling (film) writes it like this: "61% of 189 critics listed by review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes had given the film a positive review, with an average rating of 6.3/10." Erik (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

To expand, the percentage reported by Rotten Tomatoes is based on a pass-fail system. While the percentages are more prominent, the average rating is more "drilled down" and reflects that even if a film is 90%, a low average rating would mean that critics think that the film is generally pretty good, but not great. Erik (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I also used it for the Jennifer's Body article. But I still do not see why it is important. Either way, three editors are for, while two are against. So I will revert myself. Flyer22 (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to state, though, that I usually think of general readers and how they will perceive things. General readers, unless familiar with Rotten Tomatoes, do not know how all this works. Flyer22 (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example. Man on Wire has 100% at Rotten Tomatoes, which means that an assessment of the film critics' reviews indicates that none of them see it as a "rotten tomato". However, the average rating, 8.4/10, indicates that this is not a perfect film. The average rating is similar to what Metacritic reports because I do not believe that there are any films that have received 100 for the metascore. In a way, the average rating at Rotten Tomatoes and the metascore at Metacritic can be more directly compared for a more balanced idea of how critics received the film. (Man on Wire received 89 on Metacritic.) Erik (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

And to respond about how Rotten Tomatoes works, the way Changeling writes the report is the best way I've seen to explain it in summary form. Saying "84% approval rating based on 220 reviews from critics" is not the same thing as "84% of 220 critics have given the film a positive review". Erik (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I know how the Rotten Tomatoes scoring process works, Erik. My issue was with how the "average" rating might be perceived among general readers who are not as familiar with Rotten Tomatoes. Despite knowing what "average" means at Rotten Tomatoes in this case, my mind almost always immediately thinks, "Oh...the rating is simply average, as in an average film." That is how it is when I see "with an average rating of." This is why weighted mean is sometimes pipe-linked as "average" in the Reception sections of film articles, as I did with the Jennifer's Body article, so that people know exactly what type of average we mean. I like how Bob K31416, moments ago, changed it to "with a rating average of" for clarification in this article. That is how it should be formatted, in my opinion. I will start formatting that part of the score that way as well for film articles. I say thanks to Bob K31416 for the change and new format option. Flyer22 (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this about me changing/updating the scores last night? I copied the format from Up in Air (which is the same for Changeling). Are you saying the RT scoring should be explained like the MC scoring is? So "rating average" is the best way to put it? Also, I didn't know that there was any particular order they went in? I know I usually see RT first (and that's why I usually write it, but I just copied it from FA), but does it really matter? I haven't read any guidelines that I know of about this. Is is just a personal style? --Mike Allen 20:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It just had to do with a possible misunderstanding of the word "average". Average can mean "so-so" or it can be a mathematical term. Hence the change from "average rating" to "rating average" in order to make it clearer that it didn't mean "so-so". --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I understand the misunderstanding. :P --Mike Allen 22:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Mike, I would say that the reason why Rotten Tomatoes is usually put first is because it is more notable than Metacritic (as in usually cited more/more popular), and because it is usually formatted that way on Wikipedia. I personally prefer that the Rotten Tomatoes score be put first. Flyer22 (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with this. Metacritic reviews seem to stop at like 35, while RT can go beyond 250 reviews. --Mike Allen 22:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Release dates??

Is it just my computer the dates in the infobox have vanished from? When I go into "Edit" the dates are there, but on the publsihed page there are just gaps. Betty Logan (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right they are GONE. They are written oddly like this {{dts|2009|12|18}}. Wouldn't it just make sense to write it December 18, 2009? --Mike Allen 20:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Did the template get borked? Should we switch back to standard dates for now?AniRaptor2001 (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I switched it to {{Start date}} and its working now. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 20:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is it preferred to be in {{Start date}} format rather than just writing it out? --Mike Allen 22:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I honestly couldn't tell you. It has something to do with ISO or some technical reason. One of the other coordinators may know, though. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox film#Microformat. Erik (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Gracias. --Mike Allen 00:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Percentages Table?

[1] should we add a talbe similar to this to the reception section? I know it is only one film, which is why I am asking on here, and not (trying) to make a big deal out of it. Collectitron said something about only two valid sources, and while I do see the "problem" with community reviews, stating them should not be considered unvaild. Maybe you could explain in more detail, Collectitron? ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Absolutely not (and FYI, it is easy to copy/paste someone's username if you have trouble spelling it). Its pointless, when the content is already better covered in prose, and neither RT community views are valid nor Yahoo Movies which are user ratings same as IMDB. Neither are reliable sources and do not belong in the article anywhere. Eliminating those, you have three numbers for a single film which are, again, already properly presented in prose. The table just clutters the article and adds no value, nor does it make much sense IMHO to have a one line table for a single film. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see why we need a table, the information is well presented in prose. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 00:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. But could you at least give a WP link stating that Yahoo is not valid? If not, then I don't see why just you saying that it is similar to IMDB is a reason for it not to be valid. The Critics Review section (for example [2]) is valid as it states Rolling Stone, E Online, Hollywood Reporter, New York Post. Those are all valid. The one I am sure you are refering to is ( this [3]) where more then 7,000 Yahoo users scored the movie. The later one is therefore not valid, and the former is.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

WP:ACCESSIBILITY? I see why it would be used on film series/franchise pages, when listing multiple films, but just one?. Plus this table looks so out of place. I say absolutely not. --Mike Allen 01:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Pandora's wildlife

At least add something about the Great Leonopteryx....or the Toruk as the Na'vi call it.

Great Leonopteryx, Toruk. A close relative of the Banshee but significantly larger with a wingspan of over 25 metres. Striped scarlet, yellow, and black, with two midnight blue crests on the head and lower jaw. The crest on its head is razor sharp and can be used to injure or disembowel prey, or cut vegetation obstructing its flight. It has a distensible jaw, a large brain cavity and membranous wings that are stretched taut over its carbon fiber bone structure. It also has powerful talons for grasping prey and perching, twin tail for flight control, flow-through ventilation for high performance. The fierce beauty and nobility of the leonopteryx gave the species a central place in Na'vi lore and culture. It is celebrated in dance, song, and with elaborate totems that symbolize both the fear and respect accorded to the creature. Indeed, the leonopteryx is crucial to the Na'vi sense of destiny and interconnectedness. This creature's name in Na'vi translates roughly to 'Last Shadow' as its prefered method of attack is from above so therefore the last thing you see is its shadow.It is rare but ocassionaly a Navi warrior, called Toruk Makto can bond and ride a Leonopteryx though during the timeframe of the film no one has been successful for four generations and only five Na'vi warriors have ever managed to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mini p18 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought they said that six Na'vi warriors had become Toruk Makto in the film. --60.240.148.107 (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I heard five, with Jake Sully becoming the sixth... AniRaptor2001 (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

More information regarding this can be found out here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debnathsandeep (talk • contribs) 10:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Pandora's Wildlife: More Unanswered Questions

Given that all animals seen on Pandora appear to be hexapods, how come the Na'vi have only four limbs ? Assuming, as it is plausible, that the Na'vi, being a relatively new species, share a common six-limb ancestor with other closely related species on the moon, where did the extra limbs go ? From a Darwinian evolution point of view, shouldn't the Na'vi exhibit at least anatomical traces of vestigial limbs as found e.g. under the fins and tails of ocean mammals like whales and dolphins on Earth ? 200.168.20.35 (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is science fiction; in the real world, a species like the Na'vi probably would resemble the other creatures more closely than they do in the film, but the director probably wanted them to look very close to human, so that audiences could better relate to the alien characters.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

3-D how does it work - special glasses?

Is there a standard for modern 3-D projection? Is there an article that could be linked to that describes how it works? If it is something that only works with this film, then could someone knowledgeable please include it in this article? (fotoguzzi) 69.64.235.42 (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The 3-D effect works by projecting two images. The polarization on the glasses worn in the theater make each eye see a slightly different image. I think under the effects section of the article there ought to be a paragraph briefly explaining how the 3-D effect works in theaters. alach11 (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The 3-D effect is a proprietary technology known as RealD. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I projected this movie using a Dolby 3D system, which is an entirely different (and in my opinion superior) breed of 3D technology. 98.248.199.8 (talk) 10:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and no special screen needed? Interesting technology, do you know if there are any benefits regarding the pleasantness of the viewing experience over RealD? I didn't get much of a headache while watching the film, though it's still... annoying in a way.AniRaptor2001 (talk)

I don't want to drift too far off-topic, but: it doesn't lose as much light as Real so brighter picture with same wattage bulb, the 3D effects are equally viewable no matter where you're sitting (with Real you should ideally be sitting in center seating), and the offset for the different frames is less pronounced (some people can see a bit of a lag on Real, for each frame, at least with single-projector setups. Properly phased dual-projector, with each projector dedicated to one frame, doesn't really have this issue). The glasses are also much better quality, with thicker lenses and better polarization. I'm the same guy as above, just different location (don't like to log in when at public locations).71.128.132.238 (talk) 05:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

American-British film?

IP addresses keep removing the British/UK parts from the lead (intro) and infobox, when it comes to categorizing this film. One IP in particular, 98.235.192.45, keeps doing this. Thus...I ask, which is it? Is this film categorized as an American-British film or simply an American one? Flyer22 (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Film nationality is always difficult to categorize when there are multinational partners, but under Wikipedia style guidlines a film takes it nationality from the nationalities of the production companies. From Template:Infobox film under "Country": Insert the home country or countries of the film's main production companies. Since one of the production companies is UK based (Igenious Film Partners) then that makes the film a US-UK co-production. "Ingenious Film Partners" can be clarified as a production company at IMDB [4] (you will also note that IMDB have Avatar's nationality down as US/UK) and at Hollywood Reporter [5] (at the bottom of the page under "production companies). Betty Logan (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, Betty. I was hoping that you would be one of the first to reply to me about this, since I saw you also reverting the IPs who were removing the British/UK parts. Flyer22 (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question probably doesn't know the Wikipedia guidelines. In spirit Avatar is a big American Hollywood blockbuster, but the rules for defining nationality on Wikipedia are pretty clear cut. If you have to revert again put in a link to this discussion so they know why their edits are being reverted. Betty Logan (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

ChaosMaster16 An IP removed the American-British part from the lead as redundant, since it is also in the infobox. I do not object, but everything is usually redundant in infoboxes (LOL). Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The film style guidelines recommend that the film's nationality is included in the first sentence of the lede, but it's not a compulsory requirement. I've seen lots of film articles without the nationality in the lede though so it's your call. Betty Logan (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This should be restored. The infobox is SUPPPOSED to be redundant to the article - it is a quick shot summation of content sourced in the article. Removing it for being redundant is a bad reason to remove it. As for its nationality, follow the guidelines - and if its unclear, see what reliable sources call it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, as is clear from my statement above, I did/do not see how removing it because it is redundant made/makes much sense either; infoboxes mostly include redundant information. That is partly why I restored the current box office gross information to this article's Box office section after ChaosMaster16 removed it as redundant. But I know that ChaosMaster16 means well, and is also a good editor here at Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. ChaosMaster16 did not remove the American-British part. It was an IP who did it. I am not sure how I made this mistake, other than probably going through the edits too fast and assuming that ChaosMaster16 did it when I finally did not see it there anymore (after ChaosMaster16 made an edit about something being redundant). I wonder why ChaosMaster16 did not comment on this, though. Missed the new part of this discussion?

Anyway, sorry about that. Flyer22 (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In the past it has been ChaosMaster's way or no way. I hope he has learned from his last block. I hope. --Mike Allen 03:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is false to claim that the film is a joint American-British film. It is primarily an American film with the typical minor relationships with other countries. For example, the Lord of the Rings films used New Zealand production companies, but they are not considered New Zealand films. The driving studio for Avatar is American, so the film is American. Erik (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It may not meet your definition of what constitutes an international co-production, but it meets the criteria set on Wikipedia. The nationality on Wikipedia is identified through the nationality of the production companies, one of which is British. This follows the IMDB system which also regards the nationality of Avatar as US/UK. If we take your example, the Lord of the Rings films are also regarded as US/NZ co-productions on IMDB, and also in their Wikipedia articles because New Zealand production companies were involved in their production. If you disagree with the criteria then you really need to take it up at the Wiki Film Project, and until the criteria is altered the nationality should be defined under the current existing criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox film indicates that the "country" should be that of the main production companies. Looking at company credits, there is only one "main" production company, 20th Century Fox. The rest are secondary. 20th Century Fox is an American studio, so Avatar is an American film. Is it not considered a Hollywood blockbuster? Erik (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

IMDB doesn't seem to make any distinction between the 'main' production companies and other production companies. The NYTimes [6] mentions Fox, Dune Entertainment and Ingenious Film Partners, so they're obviously significant enough to be mentioned by a third party reliable source. Betty Logan (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that 20th Century Fox is the main studio when it comes to Avatar. The other production companies are not as prominent. The companies can be mentioned in the article in some capacity, but it is misleading to declare in the lead sentence that it is an American-British film. I ask you again, is Avatar not considered a Hollywood blockbuster? Erik (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Avatar is indeed a Hollywood blockbuster, but the objective is to present facts. A British production company was involved which makes it a US-UK co-production under Wikipedia criteria. If nationality was restricted to just the primary production company then it would be correct to call it American, but there are plenty of third-party secondary sources that identify the other production companies. This interpretation is consistent with other film articles like the Bond films and Lord of the Rings. Betty Logan (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no "Wikipedia criteria" for the presence of a secondary production company from another country escalating the film into a dual-country production. Avatar is verifiable as a Hollywood blockbuster. We can mention the other production companies in the article body, but they are not as prominent as 20th Century Fox itself. You are placing undue weight on the secondary production companies. Erik (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is always a primary production company, but if Wikipedia didn't allow for other prominent partners it wouldn't be pluralised. The term "main production companies" is a subjective term, where do you draw the line? After the main one? Do you list them all? Like everything else on Wikipedia, if it is notable for inclusion then you should be able to source it and there are plenty of sources out there that identify Fox, Lightstorm, Dune Entertainment and Ingenious Media as production companies. If they are significant enough to be namechecked in the New York Times, then the are significant enough to be included as production companies on Wikipedia, which the film's nationality derives from. It is consisten with the approach on other film articles, and it is consistent with IMDB which uses the same criteria and lists Avatar as US/UK. Betty Logan (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

We can agree that it is acceptable to mention the production companies in the article. This does not equate labeling Avatar as an American-British film, though. You acknowledge that 20th Century Fox is the main production company, and we see at Template:Infobox film that this is how the nationality is determined. We can still include the other companies in a lesser capacity, but there is no case for calling it a British film in part. In any case, we are at a stalemate, and it is best to wait for others to weigh in to set the consensus. Erik (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

← Yeah, I've got to agree. This is primarily an American film. Though a British production company may have been involved in some way, labelling Avatar an American-British film is misleading the reader; presented without context, such a statement may lead people to assume equal weight between the two, when this is clearly not the case. Far better to present the information about which companies worked on the film later on, where the available space will allow for a more nuanced explanation. Steve ^T • C 16:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If we're getting technical, if we just go off 20th century Fox's nationality that makes Avatar Australian since Fox is now Australian owned! It would be useful to have some clarification form teh Film project since it is you chaps that created the guidelines. Template:Infobox film pluralises "production companies" so it doesn't seem intended to limit the criteria to the primary producer, and what does limiting the criteria to just one production company here mean in the context of other films? Lord of the Rings was produced by a New Zealand production company with financing from an American company. Bond is British produced with financing from an American company. Does that make them NZ/British by virtue of their primary producer, or American as primary funder? In the case of latter is 2012 now a Japanese film because Columbia films are financed by Sony? It opens up a whole can of worms by limiting nationality to what is perceived to be the main producer. Betty Logan (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is to avoid being technical. Going with what Steve said, you are taking the secondary production companies and ascribing equal weight as an American-British co-production. 20th Century Fox is unquestionably a major American studio. In any case, I forgot to cite this part of MOS:FILM, "Ideally, the nationality of the film (based on its home studio) should be identified in the opening sentence." We can all agree what the home studio is. Erik (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

How do you define the "home studio"? The studio where the film is made? The company that has control over the project? The company that finances the film? The company that owns the copyright? Betty Logan (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you're getting technical. Actually, 20th Century Fox pretty much covers all that. Erik (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait, some stuff was filmed in New Zealand. It must be a New Zealand film, then! Erik (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am simply asking for objective criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the nationality of the film from the opening sentance under WP:GOODFAITH assuming the sentance you quoted applied to foreign-language films only since it immdediately follows that section of the MOS. If I am wrong please revert my edit as soon as concensus is reached regarding the disputed nationality of the film. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

We could do that approach because the lead section mentions 20th Century Fox, but I don't think it is very disputable to say it is an American film. Any major blockbuster will obviously involve companies around the world working on it, but the home studio for Avatar is quite clear. Erik (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that Avatar is an American film. Using foreign production companies because parts were filmed in those countries does not make it any less so. As Steve notes, adding the nuanced details in the production is fine, but for the lead, it is an American film. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So are all the Bond films "British" then? They are based in Britain, produced by a British production company but financed with American money. Betty Logan (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a different kettle of fish to the Bond films. American money, primarily British production—a completely different weighting. Again, it's nuanced, but more of a straight split and more easily summarised in a single sentence. The point is, there will always be exceptions to a rule, which is why I like to keep an open mind and consider these things on a case-by-case basis. Make no mistake, this discussion has been useful (if overlong!) and it will help in the future when a similar situation comes up. All the best, Steve ^T • C 20:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

How about we don't list either "American" or "British" in the lead? That'll solve that. :) --Mike Allen 23:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually mind if the film is American or American-British, which is what this dicussion keeps being reduced to. I would just prefer it if there were some objective criteria which I can look up and say "this film is American" or this film is "American-British". If we are going to assign a nationality surely it can't be done on an arbitrary basis at the discretion of editors otherwise it will applied inconsistently across the film articles. Thinking about it I don't think we should have a criteria because it constitutes original research. Writing that a film has a particular nationality is a claim, and maybe the way to approach this is to just insist on verifiable reliable sources like we do for all claims. Some editors say above the Avatar is obviously an American film, so I think references should be applied to that effect. If the 'nationality' is notable then it should be relatively easy to track down references - I think I've even seen Avatar referred to as an "American" film. This would be consistent with Wikipedia's verifiability policy when it comes to making claims. What do other editors think about this approach? Betty Logan (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The name of "the corporation"

Currently, the plot and the article as a whole is a mish of references to the entity that mines Pandora. From the film, all that can be deduced is that we're dealing with some sort of corporation, and that its name is "RDA" from the logos on ships and equipment. Other material available on the internet (and perhaps in the official books) reveals it to be the "Resource Development Administration", a quasi-governmental organization that developed from a much smaller company over the course of many years, and holds a monopoly over all resources in the Alpha Centauri system. How much of this should be mentioned in the article?

Once that's cleared up, we need to make a distinction between the corporation (RDA) and its security detail (creatively named SecurityForces). I doesn't seem right that the Avatar Program, a scientific/research initiative, would be operating under SecFor, if so, Quatrich would have had much more control over the scientists than he actually did. Equally confusing is the matter of who Jake was actually working for; the Avatar and his brother would be part of the AP, not SecFor; yet his participation began as security detail, and Quatrich expected him to report back to him... bleh, maybe I'm just turning myself in circles here.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It was the Weyland-Yutani Corporation!170.190.25.16 (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As AniRaptor2001 seems to claim, I believe that both SecFor and the AP seem to both work for the larger corporation so therefore they would both take orders from the administrator. I do not believe that the name of the corporation is at any time given during the film. --JoeHazzers (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The name of the corporation is RDA - Resources Development Administration --JoeHazzers (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis

Would it be considered WP:SYNTHESIS for me to take the domestic box office total from Box Office Mojo, and then take the foreign box office total from The-Numbers and added them together to come up with the worldwide figure? Since BOM has the highest domestic and T-N has the highest foreign? Just looking to make the total accurate.--Mike Allen 20:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as it would be taking two seemingly conflicted sources and adding A+B = D. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Figured it would be, wanted to make sure. --Mike Allen 20:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Racism

Why is there no mention of the racist undertones of the movie?[7] Snakemeets012 (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The content from this post seems like it could be integrated into the negative critical reception portion. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Plot

The plot section has been expanded to being a full account of the story, from start to finish. Obviously the plot section should only include a films synopsis. Gamaur (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Though it is usually difficult to enforce this in the early days of a film (or novel's) release. So the plot section will probably require periodic pruning, and then after the initial excitement dies down, it'll be easier to move in and craft something that will last longterm. --Elonka 10:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Betty Logan (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, but this should be watched closely. Gamaur (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The plot section currently reads like a teaser by the production company. Things like the end are missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.192.211 (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reworked the plot a bit, but it is still teaser-ish. Can somebody suggest improvements? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A user has again extended the plot to being a full account of the story-line. Please post your reasoning in this section prior to making any further changes. The plot section is only to contain a films synopsis, albeit a more elaborate version than you'd find given by the studio, for very obvious reasons. Please watch this section closely. Thank you. Gamaur (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I made some changes to the plot just a few minutes ago. It seemed the synopsis was being a little to brief in regards to the second half of the film, summarizing it in a sentence.alach11 (talk) 06:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm happy to go in and prune the plot, though doing it twice in two days (once from 1600+ words, once from 1200+) seems a bit excessive. I concur that the need for this will (hopefully) fade in time...just wish people would pay more attention to WP:FILMPLOT to begin with. Doniago (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a frustrating problem. To explain, a plot should NOT contain spoilers, or a scene by scene breakdown. Detailing the final scenes is obviously in direct breech of this. Please read the link provided by Doniago on plot sections, as well as WP:Spoiler to see the correct protocol. Although this issue may diminish as time goes on, unfortunately it's imperative right now as the article is seeing extreme traffic flow. To put it into perspective, over one million people have viewed the article in the past few days, which is roughly a 15% portion of the opening weekends audience (based on 3D tickets being more expensive). Gamaur (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is incorrect. The plot SHOULD contain spoilers and it should contain all major points of the plot, start to finish. It should not have minute details, but removing anything because it is a "spoiler" should be reverted. WP:SPOILER is very clear on this point, as is WP:MOSFILM and WP:WAF. Wikipedia is NOT a spoiler free zone. If someone doesn't want to be spoiled about the film plot, don't read an encyclopedic article about it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly, I am mistaken regarding spoilers. However, the main issue here is with regard to WP:FILMPLOT, which suggests linear story-lines should only have a 400 - 700 word plot summary, without minute points as you say. Gamaur (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The need to trim the plot is not a reason to remove "spoilers". The length is being discussed in another section...man this page is WAY too active. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This section was essentially to do with length from the beginning, and it was created first. There was no need for the second section on plot to be started. Gamaur (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a reason; this section was being overlooked, and I needed to remind registered editors and IPs to stop adding so much plot to the article. It did not stop them, clearly, but that section's heading is clear about what is being discussed. Flyer22 (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am really not feeling good that the plot section doesn't cover the Na'vi side of the story and is very lopsided. What could have been the facts according to the movie have been left to the assumptions of the Pandora's natives' characters. The plot section should have enough information that justifies thier cause. Right now it looks like tribals fighting for they don't want friendship. --Manyfacetsoflife (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Na'vi"

In simple terms, if human and Na'vi are both species, and Omaticaya, Cherokee, Navajo, etc. are tribes or clans, is it appropriate to capitalize Na'vi, or should they be referred to as na'vi? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be na'vi, as it is a species name and not a proper noun. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The official site does mention the natives of Pandora as Na'vi. Though, is Na'vi even a species name? This is a small quote from the website (am I allowed to mention sites?) "...he learns to respect the Na'vi way and finally takes his place among them." To me it sounds like they are referring to them as a proper noun. (I'm new, by the way ;)) Prove me (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be "Na'vi". Like other science fiction shows, with the exception of "humans", other species' names are capitalised. E.g. "Vulcan" and "Klingon".--Forward Unto Dawn 05:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it should be Na'vi. I noticed some problems with this and am changing them. JEN9841 (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, if the standard practice here on wiki (and in most sci-fi) is to capitalize the species name, we should preserve that. Here's an interesting [link to read], seems that Wookiepedia came across the same dillema and decided to go all the way and capitalize all species names. I'm curious as to the larger issue of capitalization of fictional sentient races, and also the nature of the Na'vi as a clan/tribe/species/peoples. The first time the word is heard used in the film, the subtitles read something to the effect of "back off, people" or "calm down, people" (sounds like mahwe, na'via). Among some human tribes, the word for "person" is the same as the tribe name, and thus people outside the tribe are not actually human, and do not enjoy the same rights in their eyes. Thus we can assume that "the people" are the Na'vi, which also happens to be their species. The name of a peoples is usually capitalized, though the species name is not. It is curious then, that the Na'vi seem to behave as numerous peoples within a species (they have warriors, which suggests that they fight amongst themselves). The Omaticaya clan would be one of these peoples, and indeed, at one point Jake Sully refers to "my people, the Omaticaya", not "my people, the Na'vi." I wonder if this is indicative of good worldbuilding or poor worldbuilding on Cameron's part. Any other anthropology buffs out there? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yesh, when Jake Sully refers to the Omaticaya, that's the clan of Na'vi, as that's just a general name, but as you see in the film (if you've watched it), there are different clans and they have different names. Oh, and also when he says "back off, people", not all languages are structured around the same way as English :)Prove me (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sequels

the page doesnt mention sequals, except that some characters are signed on for one. If there has been any talk about a sequal it should be mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by NTC TNT (talk • contribs) 07:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the lead states that "He [James Cameron] has stated that if Avatar is successful, two sequels to the film are planned.", and in the production section of the article, it says: "In June 2006, Cameron said that if Avatar was successful, he hoped to make two sequels to the film. In a 2009 interview, he stated that the story arc he developed is large enough to cover two more films." Nothing else has been confirmed by Cameron or the production company. Mathias-S (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sam Worthington's legs

I haven't noticed anything about this in the article, but does anyone know if there were some sort of effects used for Jake Sully's legs in the film? In the few scenes where you get a glimpse, they clearly look like the legs of someone who's been wheelchair-bound for a long time, so I assume they aren't Worthington's legs (AFAIK he's not wheelchair-bound in real life; after all, he isn't during the motion capture part of the filming or in Clash of the Titans). I wasn't sure what's going on there, and haven't been able to find it discussed online anywhere. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Mercenaries or U.S. armed forces?

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but is it ever mentioned in the movie that the soldiers are mercenaries? They give all the appearance of being members of the U.S. armed forces and that's how they are identified in at least one review by Roger Ebert.[8] Also, in the article there is discussion of Jake being accused of committing treason and that would seem to indicate that it was a government operation, rather than a private one. Now, I've seen the soldiers referred to as mercenaries in a lot of places online but if it's not mentioned in the movie, all those interpretations may be bogus. Does anyone recall from the movie that the soldiers were mercenaries? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It is explicitly mentioned in the first 10 minutes or so of the movie that the soldiers (former members of the U.S. armed forces) are mercenaries hired by the private corporation that is mining the "unbotainium" on Pandora. Therefore, it is not strictly speaking a government operation. Nevertheless, if the Pandorapedia [9] is to be taken as a canonical source, the RDA (i.e. "the company") is officially sanctioned by the UN, which granted the company a monopoly over extraterrestrial mining rights. A possible analogue in real-world history would be something like the British East India Company or its Dutch analogues, which were government-sanctioned, but employed private armies.

The only puzzling fact to me is that all RDA employees and private security seem to be Americans, which is rather implausible as Pandora mining would most likely be a multinational operation. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks for the info. Re the lack of multinational participation, it may be Cameron's style to use only American characters for military personnel, as in Aliens, although the American characters in the military in that 1986 movie weren't portrayed as villains, as in the current movie, and the extraterrestrials were quite different. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The corporation (the RDA, or Resource Development Administration) is an American company, or at least was born of an American company, according to the backstory. It is apparently wealthy and powerful enough that its status exceeds that of most Earth governments (though that statement could be easily applied to a theoretical conglomerate of the Earth's top five richest corporations today, for example). The RDA hires former soldiers as its security forces, in a clear parallel to the private military contractors employed by the United States in Iraq, such as the notorious Blackwater Worldwide. American soldiers would likely continue to be among the best-trained in the world, even in the 22nd century, making them a logical choice for the job.

Regarding the choice of word of "mercenary"; can former soldiers hired by a PMC be referred to as mercenaries? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that depends on who you ask. Most members of the military and PMC's would say there's a difference. Most students at a Liberal Arts college would likely say mercs. In the broadest sense, I guess you could consider PMC's mercenaries, as they are combatants who fight under contract for financial compensation. Still, most modern PMC's have relatively strict codes of conduct (yes, there are always bad apples and extraordinary circumstances) and operate at the behest of one particular government and it's allies who share similar ideologies irregardless of the money involved. (e.g.- I doubt you'd ever see DynCorp or Blackwater PMC's working for Castro in Cuba or the junta in Burma.) In this sense, they do not fit the popular image of the "classic" mercenary who simply fights for the highest bidder with little or no ideological or political consideration.

That being said, from what's seen in the movie, I'd lean more towards RDA being a large multinational corporation with considerable resources, including a subsidiary PMC company to provide "in-house" security. While this is only an inference, given what we know about multinational corporations today and the type of operations seen in the movie (everything on Pandora was RDA- the scientists, the miners, the Security Forces, the maintenance personnel, etc.) it stands to reason to be a likely scenarioPaladin127 (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 [10] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Lead Section Edits

Pandora "Earth-sized"?

In the article's lead, Pandora is refered to as "an inhabited Earth-sized moon of Polyphemus". However, during the movie, it is made clear that Pandora has a weaker gravity than Earth: all the Earth-like life forms are larger than on Earth; Colonel Quaritch says while training that he needs to because otherwise his muscles would be weaker than if he'd stayed on Earth. These details imply that Pandora has a noticeably smaller mass, and thus is also much smaller than Earth. In my opinion it'd be better to simply not call Pandora Earth-sized unless there's something to back it up. Mathias-S (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources refer to pandora as Earth-like, not Earth-sized, that should be changed back. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI though, Pandora could very well be the same size as Earth and at the same time have a weaker gravity field than Earth. This would mean that Pandora's density is less than Earth's. It's like Jupiter and Saturn; both are similar in size to each other, but Jupiter's density is about twice that of Saturn's. Consequently, Jupiter's gravity is much stronger than Saturn's.--Forward Unto Dawn 05:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI the following source [11], also referenced in the French-language Pandora article, claims that the Pandora's mass is equal to 72 % of the Earth mass. Pandora's diameter on the other hand is quoted as being equal to 11447 km, i.e. approximately 0.9 times the mean diameter of Earth (12742 km ?).200.168.20.215 (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Destruction of"?

I would like to recommend that "the destruction of" be removed from the sentence "...resist the colonists' expansion, which threatens the continued existence of the na'vi and the destruction of the Pandoran ecosystem," in the first paragraph of the page. It seems that the meaning of the sentence and its words may be at odds.

Shaverbh (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Welcome and thanks for contributing. Celestra (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Unobtanium

Also, where "unobtainium" is referenced: it is possible that the use of the word "unobtainium" in the movie is more a joke than it is the actual name of the material, as the term is often applied to difficult-if-not-impossible-to-OBTAIN materials or materials that perform every desired function perfectly, too good to be true. It is a generic, nearly humorous term, so it may be appropriate to make this distinction. For example: in the first paragraph of the "Plot" section, the sentence "The humans aim to exploit Pandora’s reserves of unobtainium, a valuable mineral," could be changed to "The humans aim to exploit Pandora’s reserves of a valuable mineral, referenced in the film as 'unobtainium'."

Thank you

Shaverbh (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Re unobtanium (note spelling), it didn't appear to be a joke in the movie but the actual name of a fictional mineral. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggest not editing the audio that was shown in the theater to edit out (or turn down) the voice of Dr. Grace Augustine when saying the word "cripple" to Jake Sully in the context of "Don't make me force feed a cripple" When she was urging nutrition he was reluctant to ingest due to timing issues with the eminent doom.

Please let us decide what we want to hear with our own brains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.114.193 (talk) 07:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Home realease, Blu-Ray?

No section on that? Arent there a Blu-Ray coming out in 2010? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.149.29.247 (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 00:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

How does Tsu'Tey know that Jake and Neytiri have "mated?" As soon as they walk up he accuses them of the act. What did I miss or is it just understood they can tell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.217.236 (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a guess, but the two of them holding hands as they entered might have been a clue. Who knows, maybe only Na'vi who've mated are allowed to hold hands? Paladin127 (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No confirmed release date as of yet but there is some great info about the Blu-ray release here [12] that could probably be implemented into the article. DrNegative (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 [13] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

GA (Good Article) status

I am going to nominate this article for Good Article status. Any objections before I do that? If so, of course list why. If it is a matter of one or a few references improperly formatted, that can be easily fixed. But judging this article as a whole, it is clearly GA status...as I see it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It is preferred that an article is stable before being nominated for GA status. An article that undergoes 500 revisions in a week is absolutely not stable. I like the article as it is currently written, but it's still changing too much, too quickly. I suggest you give it a couple months before shooting for GA. Trusilver 22:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the Trusilver. Stability is a part of the GA criteria. Theleftorium 22:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Academic question: if an article with GA status becomes unstable due to current news or vandalism even does it lose its GA status? Betty Logan (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, an article can be delisted from GA status. It doesn't happen all that often, and when it does it is usually to fairly contentious articles, but it still happens. Laura Schlessinger, for example, was a GA article that was delisted after current events caused it to diminish in quality. Trusilver 23:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I was also thinking about how fast this article changes. But then I thought, "Plenty of very active articles are of GA status." Maybe they are that way -- more active -- because it is after the GA process (in other words, they simply returned to being like that). But it is clear that you two mean how much this article has been changing (due to the back and forth on the Plot section, and other additions that may be made due to this being a very new and successful film). I'll take your advice not to nominate it for GA just yet.

And, Betty, the vandalism to an article would have to be quite extensive and difficult to fix (due to in-between edits) before an article were to lose its GA status because of vandalism. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that it is best if we wait until all the hype around the film settles down before nominating the article for anything.--Twilight Helryx 00:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If you think the article is GA status now, it should be nominated for GA status now. If it diminishes in quality at some point in the future, it should be delisted at that time. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 01:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

While it may be beneficial, especially with all the editors here, to "strike while the iron's hot", things might not go well during the GAN. This may be a good article one day but a horrible one the next if no one's around to stop newbies and IPs from messing things up with WP:OR among others. But still, if the edits show signs of slowing down, and no one's edit-warring, then I say go for it; it's an excellent article about an excellent movie and I don't see why it shouldn't attain GA status. Really, it's up to you. Besides, it typically takes forever before someone reviews an article (especially given that the movies section is filled to the brim) so by the time this article's reviewed, things should have quieted down by then. ;) --Twilight Helryx 01:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have read the entire article and it is a great read. I will agree that it is worthy of GA status but I must also agree with the others that we should wait till the "edits per day" drop down a little before moving foward with the nomination. Alot of new info is going to be pouring in about this film in part due to its early success at the box office and could easily lose its GA status just as quickly as it was nominated.DrNegative (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Should there be a "Similarities to Other Works" section?

This section is not a relevant addition to the article. There as been much conjecture regarding the similarity of the plot to other works on various online forums, but this has merely been a response to the James Cameron's early proclamation of it being an entirely 'original' film. Such a section is not typical of other film articles, despite the fact that nearly every other Hollywood production could be accurately compared to a preceding work. I propose that it be removed all together. Gamaur (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone important labeled Avatar as a shinier and more 3D Fern Gully-clone yet? Koyae (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this should go under Reception.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be removed all together. Gamaur (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't. Seems like most films haven't engendered this much discussion in reliable sources, including the filmmaker's discussion, re plot and themes taken from other films, so it's notable. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

On Tuesday President Medvedev will send a telegram to President Obama to protest the Oscar nominations of the Avatar movie, because it was based on the stolen, unpaid an uncredited plot of an sf novel by the famous soviet-russian authors, A. and B. Strugatsky. Russia wants 15% of the movie revenue to settle. 82.131.134.111 (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see any mention of that telegram on the internet or news. Does Medvedev still use telegrams? : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually uses, but in this case - it was a joke, I think :) --Luch4 (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Similarities to other works

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)

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)

What's this about Pocahontas?

In the article it currently reads:

“ Cameron saw his story as being about how advanced civilizations supplant indigenous cultures, in either actively genocidal or more unpremeditated ways, and was influenced by the story of Pocahontas[citation needed]. ”

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. [14] 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: [15], [16] 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)

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)

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)

I agree with Erik. Without an actual reliable source confirming this, it should be excluded. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree too. No source from the actual people involved in making the film it can't be added to the article. Peppage^tlk 20:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

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.[17]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 ...[18]

(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 ...)[19]

Similarity graphs :

1. The Natives blue skin...[20]
2. The wicked exorobots armed combat, want to exterminate the natives to exploit the planet.[21]
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Characters

"# Laz Alonso as Tsu'Tey, one of Pandora's finest Na'vi warriors and Neytiri's brother." is false information. Tsu'Tey, one of Pandora's finest Na'vi Warriors and Neytiri's predestined mate.

Source? I watched the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puttpig (talk • contribs) 01:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

yeah you're right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mini p18 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a need for a separate article that explains and describes the various characters and creatures of the film? This will also clear the debate over their description, features and evolutions. Like a 'List of Characters' or 'Characters in Avatar' !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debnathsandeep (talk • contribs) 01:11, December 24, 2009

No, there isn't. This is a single film and all relevant information can be easily put here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately for you (as you claimed), there is a need as people have pointed out. Please see Characters and wildlife in Avatar. bhuto (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Norm Spellman

The article refers to the character Norm Spellman as a "biologist". This reference [22] however mentions that Norm is actually an anthropologist, rather than a biologist. What is the source of the article's information on Norm's profession ? 161.24.19.112 (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

An external wiki is not a good enough source to decide. A viewing of the movie would probably give an answer, and it's also probably stated in one of the books.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the source though that the Wikipedia article's editors used to claim Norm is a biologist ? That is not mentioned in the movie as far as I can tell. The scene where Norm helps Grace to collect samples from a biolectric tree root might suggest he is a biologist, but is not conclusive. 200.168.20.164 (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I just watched the film again last night, and it never mentions what his PhD is in. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotun26 (talk • contribs)

Seems that he is an anthropologist, see the ref in the article. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In his original screenplay Cameron calls Norm a "xenoanthropologist". Cinosaur (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Armond White's review

The Critical reception section should present negative reviews of the film as well. And I will be expanding that section, with not only positive reviews. Unlike Cosmic Latte, I am not seeing why any part of Armond White's review should not be specifically mentioned. I am not the one who originally put White's review there, but censoring his review is silly. We should censor him because he is not a well-respected critic? Exactly why should we censor him because of this? He comes from a well-respected, reliable source, where his reviews are read all the time by many; whether he is well-respected or not hardly ever matters in those cases. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Censoring the negative reviews violates WP:NPOV and gives a false impression that no one disliked it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

My tightening (call it "censoring" if you wish, but that's not the idea) is based on WP:NPOV itself--in particular, on it's WP:DUE section. Cited statements in the Armond White article indicate that he is viewed as a "critical clown", "a contrarian with political and personal axes to grind", and "a troll". White evidently does not represent a majority, or even a significant minority, view. NPOV does not mean that every position under the sun needs to be explained in detail; and while it's probably reasonable to note that not every single reviewer under the sun likes the film (and to provide an example of a dissident reviewer), it seems like an assignment of undue weight to grant anything but minimal space to a critic whose approach is so unusual that it's dismissed as "trolling" and the like by his fellow critics (including Roger Ebert). So, while it's fine for the article to summarize some dissident's (e.g., White's) views, it doesn't seem right to let the article turn into one naysayer's podium. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. This change is perfectly reasonable, IMO. There's nothing wrong with indicating that somebody holds a contrary view. But when that particular person is known as "a contrarian for the sake of being contrary", one has to doubt that his contrary review is even particularly interesting (let alone significant) in the first place--i.e., one must wonder if the review says more about White as a person (and he already has his own article for that) than about Avatar as a film. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree about including reviews by Armond White. "Troll" is the keyword I've read about his persona; he is not a genuinely authoritative figure when it comes to reviewing films. Basically, no mainstream critic hated the film. The closest are lukewarm reviews from Village Voice and Salon, either of which I have no problem being used. Erik (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it for us to decide that he is a "troll"? Whether other critics like him is irrelevant, I would think. He meets WP:RS and unless he is factually wrong, or not considered a professional reviewer, then it isn't our place to decide his reviews are without merit. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And now that we have other reviews there essentially echoing part of what White thinks of the film, such as The Christian Post, mentioning a bit of what he thought is even more justified. This is not a matter of WP:UNDUE; we only presented a bit of what he thought, not some big quote or paragraph. How is mentioning that bit of what he thinks harming Wikipedia? We already mention how he feels about the film. Why not go the extra length and mention a specific, quoted bit of it? Flyer22 (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Other critics (apparently along with the general public, at least in connection to Ebert) have already decided this for us. As a matter of comparison, if some "scientist" were to declare that humans evolved from unicorns, while the scientific community were to regard this fellow as a delusional quack, he would not get a prominent position (and most likely would get no position whatsoever) in the Human evolution article. The fact that movie critics don't take White seriously is, I would think, just as relevant to this article as the scientific consensus would be to the human evolution one. Anyway, the section seems to have evolved (no pun intended) in the past several hours and to have reached a fairly balanced and informative state. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. As for White's "reliability" as a source, that would seem to be something of a grey area. Yes, White is a reliable source about what White thinks, but what White thinks does not seem to be a reliable representation of Avatar's "Critical reception". White meets WP:N, so perhaps he can have an honorary seat up on the stage; but allowing him to take the microphone could be excessive and distracting. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh c'omn now, Cosmic Latte. You cannot compare this matter to scientists declaring that humans evolved from unicorns. Why? Because scientists would never state such an absurd thing. White is not that damn delusional; he is likely not delusional at all. All the man did on this matter was call the film a "simple-minded anti-industrial critique" and the "corniest movie ever made about the white man’s need to lose his identity and assuage racial, political, sexual and historical guilt." He should be censored for that, and because many critics consider him a joke? I disagree. Plenty of non-conservatives consider The Christian Post and other very conservative people a joke as well, and yet we have included a bit of what they have stated of the film. So far, we have two for White's specific "voice" being heard in this article, and two against. I am okay with letting the Reception section stay as it is now (in fact, I do not feel that I have to expand the Reception section anymore), but I find it silly to censor White's thoughts. He did not have a prominent spot in this article when his thoughts were specified, and he does not now. I simply am not seeing the problem with letting the man call the film corny. Flyer22 (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much further this thread can be stretched within reason, and don't really want to extend it much further, but just a note on the "unicorn" example: I know that nobody would actually propose that; that was just an off-the-cuff comparison. But somebody might as well have proposed it anyway, because there have been enough... "out-there" ideas, which have found their way into articles, that WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE came into being in the first place. The point is, in the world of film critics, White is out-there. I'm not suggesting that his views should be "censored" because they're "conservative", but rather that they should be minimized because they're on the WP:FRINGEs of film criticism. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There really is no need to keep stressing our points; we clearly disagree on this matter. But I will again state that there is nothing at all wrong with including the bit of White's views that we did. And I did not state that his views are conservative. I essentially stated that plenty of people consider the views of The Christian Post and other very conservative people to be "out there" as well, and yet we have included their thoughts in the Reception section. To go with your line of thinking, White should always be censored here at Wikipedia; I disagree with that, for the reasons I already stated above. His views were already minimized before your censorship. And in this case, they mimic others' views in that same paragraph. But, yeah, I have already made my thoughts about this known. It is not something that I particularly need to get into a long debate about/significantly fight for. If I see his views being censored all over Wikipedia, that is another matter. I am not for censorship, unless what we are censoring is big "fringe" or truly helps the article, and neither is Wikipedia, per WP:CENSOR. Flyer22 (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

He kind of seems racist from what I can gather. --Mike Allen 04:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

While suggesting that the class clown (or the "critical clown" as it may be) should calm down doesn't meet my definition of "censorship", I admit that the wording was vague and somewhat uninformative. I've tried to remedy that problem (and, I hope, to reach a sort of compromise) in a small series of edits ([23][24][25]) that may help the White clause lead up better to the Christian Post clause. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would still prefer his exact words be there, but I had already compromised with you. I did not revert you on this matter again, and instead discussed it here at the talk page...where I stated that I am okay with letting it stay that way. I, of course, still disagree with not letting a bit of White's specific words stand, and believe that the wider Wikipedia community would also be against not letting a bit of his specific words stand, but I have already accepted your compromise. This does not mean the editor who originally added that information will, however, or others. This compromise should not be confused as consensus.

On a side note, why do you keep adding a comma to this part of the Reception section? The comma does not belong there, since it is not a sentence fragment. If it were a sentence fragment, then the comma would belong there, per WP:Logical quotation. Flyer22 (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The only reference in WP:LQ to sentence fragments is, "When quoting a sentence fragment that ends in a period..." The line in question is not a sentence fragment that ends in a period (although it is a fragment, i.e., is not the entirety, of the original line), so I don't see how that part of LQ is relevant. My edits were based on the whole idea of LQ, which is that one should "place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." Take, for example, the line I just quoted. In WP:LQ, the word "not" is followed by a period, so when I quote that line, I include the period after "not". In the film review, the statement from which our line is drawn is, "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 (watch the "Avatar" video game trailer here)." The article's quotation of this line stops at the word "mention", and since there is no comma following "mention" in the original text, there should not be a comma within the article's quotation of that text. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that line does not stop at "mention." I was going by what is in the article. And in the article, it ends at "mention" and is presented as a whole sentence. People are presenting some sentence fragments as whole sentences, and some whole sentences as sentence fragments. Either way, commas are sometimes not a part of quoted material when we state "he said" or "she said." We are sometimes the ones to add the commas right before the "he said" or "she said" parts; if they are conveying a complete sentence, Wikipedia says that we should put the commas within the quotes (like is usually done). In this particular case, however, I am not sure. The "(watch the 'Avatar' video game trailer here)" part is in parentheses. The complete sentence, what the reviewer is saying, is conveyed without that. Maybe the WP:Logical quotation section should be expanded to clarify. It has been interpreted differently by different people more than once, as also seen at Talk:The Twilight Saga: New Moon#WP:Logical quotation. I will bring in editor Finell in on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not just White's critical review. All around the world Avatar got several harsh critics. Mostly due to its purported poor artistic merits, and its concentration on technological grounds only. There should be a Criticism section for this movie, dedicated to criticism of the movie per se as well as its political agenda.Tom Peleg (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotun26 (talk • contribs)

Critical Reception

I have no problems with the quote from the New York Press that the film has anti american and anti militaristic themes. But the larger drawn out quote from Michelle Malkin is propaganda of the lowest kind. Avatar is apparently "anti-Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld", please. A graduate from a community college english program who maintains a blog and then became notable for being a talking head on conservative news programs is not, in my opinion, a reliable source for anything. Are there any protests to me removing this drivel? Regardless of whether you think she is a reliable source the criticism from that perspective is already covered adequately in my opinion. Freikorp (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I am okay with you cutting it down or summarizing it, but I would say not to remove it. I would prefer that she not be censored, for the same reasons I stated above about Armond White. But you have stressed my point about what I was stating above there -- there are some people who view very conservative people as "out there" as well, and yet we have included the views of very conservative people in the Reception section. Why should White be censored, but not them? Flyer22 (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Malkin provides undue weight and is not an academic of film or any of its themes. She should be excluded in favor of authoritative opinions like historians who have studied imperialism and the like. Erik (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Valid points. But what about The Christian Post? They are not film critics in the traditional sense, and I doubt that most of them are historians (though that may depend on how "historian" is defined in that case). Flyer22 (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't care for The Christian Post, either, nor Armond White. Like I said in the Armond White discussion, no mainstream critic truly disliked the film. The two mainstream tepid reviews, Village Voice and Salon, are better to include. Erik (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree; negative views outside the mainstream of criticism should be condensed into one or two sentences, containing the points addressed, so that undue weight is not carried by voices that seek to inject excessive amounts of politics into the film, such as Michelle Malkin. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree that non-mainstream critics' views of the film should be limited to one or two sentences, though two or three sentences is usually all it takes to relay a film critic's thoughts of a film. Wikipedia has not made a call on condensing non-mainstream critics' views. A film critic is a film critic. What is mainstream and what is not mainstream has already been called subjective in a recent past discussion (currently seen above, which Erik was also involved in), about Metacritic and even Rotten Tomatoes (though I disagreed with most of those thoughts). Some of these mainstream critics are people the general public does not even know about. Flyer22 (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>The Malkin article seems to be a review of various opinions by political conservatives about the politics of the movie, rather than professional movie critics. This may be better characterized as the reception of the movie by conservatives, not film critics, which may be the way to present it in the article, although one has to be careful of WP:NOR when it comes to characterizing someone as belonging to a particular political group.

AniRaptor, Re "voices that seek to inject excessive amounts of politics into the film" - Have you seen the last paragraph of Themes and inspirations? It looks like the filmmaker included his own politics when he made the film.

The film also contains implicit criticism of America's conduct in the War on Terror and the impersonal nature of mechanized warfare in general, as acknowledged by Cameron.[48] Although Cameron had said this was not the main point of Avatar, he did add that Americans had a "moral responsibility" to understand the impact of their country's recent military campaigns and those killed during them.[48] In reference to the use of the term "shock and awe" in the film, Cameron stated, "We know what it feels like to launch the missiles. We don't know what it feels like for them to land on our home soil, not in America. I think there's a moral responsibility to understand that."[48] Cameron additionally noted how mechanized warfare, allows one "the ability to do warfare at a distance, at a remove, which seems to make it morally easier to deal with, but its not".[48]

48. Hoyle, Ben (2009-12-11). "War on Terror backdrop to James Cameron's Avatar". The Australian. News Limited. Retrieved 2009-12-24. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

--Bob K31416 (talk) 05:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Erik about which reviews would be sensible to include for the sake of balance. While it might be fine to note the rather obvious and predictable fact that American conservatives have issues with a film that "has a flat-out Green and anti-war message"[26], it doesn't seem right to give these commentators much space under the heading "Critical reception". While they may be critical of the film, they are not "film critics" in the sense that the subsection name strongly implies. I'd suggest either condensing their reaction into a single sentence or, perhaps, giving them a sub-subsection heading of their own. Side note: As for all this talk of "censorship", people can't just say whatever they feel like saying, whenever and wherever they feel like saying it. While Wikipedia may be WP:NOTCENSORED (i.e., not bowdlerized), it also is WP:NOTFREESPEECH (i.e., WP:NOTANARCHY). The selection and presentation of encyclopedic material has to be done with some discretion, and discretion is not "censorship" simply because it is restrictive. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Armond White, it is censorship (as far as I am concerned). And Armond White's take on the film gets to stay, especially since we went through the debate of censoring him (although Roger Ebert does not even seem to truly disrespect the guy as a film critic, judging by what I read in/through White's article). The Christian Post's take on the film should stay as well. We are talking about a Wikipedia Reception section. No where does Wikipedia say that the reception of films should be limited only to film critics. Everyone is a film critic, really. Not that we should include everyone's opinion of the film. Some conservatives having felt a certain way about this film should be noted in the Reception section. And their reactions to the film have already been condensed to a single sentence, the same as White's; it was like that when they were first included. There does not need to be a subsection for their views, considering how little we mention them in the Reception section. There was never any WP:UNDUE on this matter. White's review was already condensed; the only difference is that a bit of his specific words were mentioned. That is not any more WP:UNDUE than having the censored version here. None of these guidelines and policies state that we should censor comments. Minimizing a particular point of view, as to not give undue weight? Sure. But not censoring them. White's review is the one that got censored. And while I have agreed to compromise on that, I do not agree with that action and do not get the point of it. Giving these particular reviews their own subsection within the Reception section (which is where it should go if we were to give them a subsection) would be WP:UNDUE; the only way that would be justified is if many conservatives objected to this film, for whatever reason, and this objection was an actual controversy and covered by independent reliable sources.

Yes, we should include the "tepid" reviews. But the Armond White review and The Christian Post's thoughts about the film should stay.

On a side note, I want to say Happy Holidays to you all; Merry Christmas to those of you who celebrate it. We are like a little Avatar family, and I enjoy working with you guys (every registered editor here who has been significantly helping to improve this article, either mainly on the talk page or through editing) even when I sometimes disagree with either one of you. Flyer22 (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Well, you and I obviously disagree on what constitutes "censorship", and probably will continue to disagree no matter how many times we restate our views. In any case, I won't single-handedly shorten the section any further; I strongly agree with Erik's approach, but I'm glad that this discussion is occurring on the talk page and hasn't erupted into an edit war--especially today. And, speaking of today, I'll now reply to the side note as well...

Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas to you too, Flyer22. If I've overstated any of my points, it's because yours have challenged me to think, and to re-examine my own positions. I respect your work on here, and I'm glad you've taken such an active interest in the article. Best wishes, Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Cosmic Latte. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Reviews need to be limited to film critics, who are authorities about the film, and academics of subject matter covered by the film. For example, films like 300 and Apocalypto would benefit from the opinions of historians and anthropologists. Malkin's opinion is purposely politicizing and has no place here. As for Armond White and The Christian Post, these are vehemently negative reviews that are the tiny minority of the overall critical reception. So undue weight very much applies. That is why White and the Post should be replaced by Village Voice and Salon. Avatar was critically acclaimed, and the virulent opinions should not be included for the sake of including. Cosmic Latte said it well. Erik (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that reviews need to be limited to film critics and academics of subject matter covered by the film. When there is a big controversy about a film, for example, the reception section is not just limited to film critics and academics covered by the film. White and The Christian Post are not about some big controversy, but they should still be included. Their being "vehemently negative reviews that are the tiny minority" does not mean that they should not be represented. This is where WP:NPOV applies. There is nothing WP:UNDUE about including a bit of their thoughts. Even when a film is critically acclaimed, we still present the minority view -- those who disliked the film. White and The Christian Post should not be replaced by Village Voice and Salon. Village Voice and Salon should be added in front of them. Collectonian made it clear in one quick statement above, in the section about Armond White, about not giving the impression that no one disliked this film. There are "non-mainstream" critics who also disliked this film, and certainly pass as reliable sources. There is no ban here on their inclusion in reception sections either, and it has already been stated by more than one editor that "mainstream" is subjective. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no "big controversy" about this film! Did you even read WP:NPOV? WP:UNDUE is a section under it, and it says, "The views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." You just contradicted this policy. We do not include the completely opposite viewpoints just for the sake of inclusion. WP:UNDUE addresses this: "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." The film is clearly critically acclaimed, and even the positive reviews don't exactly give the film an A+ grade, like A. O. Scott's review. We will not have White, the Post, Village Voice, and Salon. That degrades the critical acclaim of this film further. The tepid reviews that are mainstream (as opposed to White and the Post) can explain the film's weaker points just fine. Erik (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not have to read WP:NPOV; I have read it plenty of times already (since 2007). I contradicted the policy? I do not believe so. But do you remember what you stated above, at #Mainstream critics in association with Metacritic? You stated, "...per WP:RS, [we] are supposed to include 'all majority and significant-minority views.'" We include the "completely opposite viewpoints" for neutrality, not for the sake of inclusion. For example, we would include Roger Ebert even if he were one of the few film critics to dislike this film and be on the "very opposite end." You may not consider White and The Christian Post a significant minority, but that is an opinion. Enough people care about White's reviews that he has created significant "controversy" around himself. And many people read The Christian Post; Christianity is one of the biggest religions, after all, and most Americans are Christian. I am reaching for this: "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."

The view expressing the dislike of the film's political themes should be presented. You keep stressing that the film is critically acclaimed, as if that means we should not present any negative views of the film. There is nothing wrong with including White, The Christian Post, Village Voice, and Salon. It does not degrade the film's critical acclaim whatsoever. The film's critical acclaim cannot be degraded. Additionally, the Reception section does not state that everyone liked this film, and acting as though everyone did is silly and dishonest. 84% of critics at Rotten Tomatoes (currently) like the film, not 90% or 100%. The critics there who do not like this film count as well. One or two of them could easily be included as a substitution for White, if they are reliable sources and also address the political criticism. I do not see why you keep stressing "mainstream," considering what has already been stated about that.

I am for working matters like this out on the talk page first, seeing as opinions about this vary, instead of stating what we will and will not include as if I can officially speak for everyone. Flyer22 (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You contradicted the policy. With WP:NPOV saying, "The views of tiny minorities should not be included at all," you said, "Their being 'vehemently negative reviews that are the tiny minority' does not mean that they should not be represented." Contradiction. It is clear that the film has received critical acclaim, and White and the Post are not part of the group from Rotten Tomatoes' Top Critics nor Metacritic that is cited for these reception sections. Their inclusion disrupts the balance of critical reception in this article because their opinions are played up as real opposition when they are just the tiny minority. That's why I think Village Voice and Salon are better cited to demonstrate the film's weaknesses. Please let me know what you think about a proposed "Social commentary" section below; this would allow classic film reviews in the "Critical reception" section and more non-review commentary in the "Social commentary" section, so we can summarize the thoughts on imperialism and so forth. Erik (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You see it as a contradiction, but I do not. I was quoting you when I called them a tiny minority. I have already made it clear that I do not believe they are a tiny minority. Even if they were, I personally do not believe they should not be represented; that was my point on the "tiny minority" bit. White and The Christian Post not being a part of the group from Rotten Tomatoes' Top Critics or Metacritic does not matter. Their inclusion does not disrupt the balance of the Critical Reception section; their opinions are "real opposition." Who is to say what "real opposition" is in this case? That is not our judgment call. And, yes, I will comment below on your proposal. Flyer22 (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to the whole Avatar family here on wiki. Regarding the reception section, I believe we can take the opportunity to consolidate the vast range of critique surrounding this film, and properly consolidate it in a way that is representative of that reception as a whole. If conservative voices (film critics, pundits, whatever) have made a point of criticizing the film, let it be known. If environmentalists appreciate the film, let it be known. If President Obama had stated that he enjoyed the film, we would probably be putting that in here, even though he certainly isn't a mainstream critic. We should present as many points of view as possible, but give the most space to criticism that comes from established voices, and almost no space to those who are simply spewing politics, pro- or anti-imperialist/america/etc. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, AniRaptor2001. Thank you for the change in attitude about this. Flyer22 (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of the rewrite that I propose below? I think we need to make the distinction between Avatar being good as a film among films and as social commentary. The article I link below can help make that distinction. Erik (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

← (edit conflict) I propose a rewrite of some elements of the article. This is what I propose: Moving "Themes and inspirations" out of "Production" and into its own section, perhaps as "Social commentary". If desired, White and the Post can be placed there because it is desired, but this article seems like a good place to begin critical interpretation outside of the classic film reviews which widely acclaim the film. Village Voice and Salon can be added as classic film reviews. In the "Social commentary" section, we can have non-film critics' commentary there. Erik (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems reasonable, as the movie's themes and inspirations are clearly at the root of a substantial portion of the criticism, outside of the film's production values. Is there any precedent for this in film articles? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I am partially against it. I feel that the Themes and inspirations section should stay in the Production section. If we are to have a Social commentary section, part of what Cameron states about the social stuff can be included there, but I would rather not have the entire Themes and inspirations section there. Besides that, it could essentially become a second reception section. Plenty of critical reviews have something to state about the social aspects of the film. And I, of course, do not see why White and The Christian Post should be excluded from the Reception section. An alternative could be to create a Social commentary section within the Reception section, and place some critical social commentary about the film there, including White and The Christian Post. Would you be okay with that? Flyer22 (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my jumping in, but personally, I'm fine with either Erik's suggestion or Flyer22's "alternative" proposal. I just don't like seeing folks who aren't established as "film critics" being lumped together with those who are; but insofar as either suggestion could achieve some de-lumping, I'm perfectly fine with it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL, you're not jumping in, Cosmic Latte. You were already a part of this discussion, and your opinions are clearly welcomed. White is an established film critic, though established with ridicule, but I already know how you feel about him (LOL). Thanks for trying to compromise further on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Cosmic is certainly right, we shouldn't include voices outside mainstream criticism without clearly indicating who they are, i.e.: conservative blogger, liberal think tank, political pundit, etc. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

When it is a "non-mainstream" critic from a reliable source, such as the various ones found at Rotten Tomatoes, I doubt we can appropriately categorize them, other than stating what publication they are from...unless they categorize themselves as liberal or conservative, etc. For example, one editor in the Mainstream critics in association with Metacritic section above feels that Time Out New York is non-mainstream. But I state that we would not title them as "non-mainstream." We would just state "[So and so] of Time Out New York stated..." Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I am letting you all know that I will be seeing the Avatar film tonight. Because of this, I will properly be able to help out with the plot section if needed. Since I am getting ready now, and will be leaving soon after that, I will not be commenting here for a few hours; I may not be back here until even later. Talk with you guys then. Flyer22 (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just got back from seeing this film, and "whoa." The film is simply awesome. Wait, it's not really "simple," but you get what I mean. I would go into further detail about my feelings regarding it, but this is not a forum. In basic Wikipedia terms, I feel better equipped to edit this article now, especially the Storyline section....and still without bias. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Amazing, isn't it :) There's a lot going on, and the plot section does need to be a little bit long to get everything in. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, sorry I haven't been here a while, just taking my vacation. Considering the plot section, I think that the length is good for now. Now ya'll know what I meant by length ;)-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

I find the criticism too American-centric, but that's just my opinion. The film has an amazingly deep message that appeals to the human spirit, and different people will have different reactions to it. Therefore Conservatives are not likely to understand the message as well, because all they can do is dismiss it as pro-Green and anti-American. But this completely misses the big picture that the film is attempting to portray. I found a connection with environmentalism, the Amazon rainforest...and the faliure of the Copenhagen Conference (considering it was released on the last day). At the end of the film, Jake opens his eyes to his own kind. He "wakes up" to his actions and to humanity's conscience, all the while the humans are telling him to wake up. Therefore he is stranded forlorn, in the middle of two worlds. At the end of the film, Jake "sees" what is going on. This is also a self-reference in the fact that his avatar dies in one world where his body is still intact in the human one. The film is not about American imperialists against Native Americans. To think so misses the point as well as the bigger picture. It as about humanity against itself. The criticism is separated by ideology, just as humanity itself is. Political, religious and historical barriers. The film invites a person to examine those barriers, and find that they are not worthwhile and in fact, detrimental to our own existence. Just some uncensored food for thought. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Reactions by Cameron's Peers

Spielberg, Michael Moor, Richard Kelly, Duncan Jones, Bryan Singer etc.... should be included somewhere. --Harac (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I cited some info from this site into the article under reception. DrNegative (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotun26 (talk • contribs)

Reception by Hindus (Christians and other publics)

Hello. This is my maiden stint at Wiki, so please be (somewhat) lenient to me and guide me towards improvement.

• Suggestion: That a section entitled something like "Controversies over its title and philosophy" or "Reception by Hindus and other religious groups" be included either after "Awards and nominations" under "Release", or by itself.

• Rationale: There have been some religious discussions around the movie before and after its release. A US-based Hindu group expressed public concern with the movie's title as misappropriated from Hindu theology. A NYT Op-Ed columnist called the movie "a Gospel According to James" promoting anti-Christian pantheistic views. The Hindustan Times called "Avatar" a misnomer for the movie but reported its message as in line with the Bhagavad Gita, Hindu's most sacred book. There might be some more feedback on the movie to come from various religious groups, so it seems that an addition of such a section is not unwarranted.

• Draft:

Prior to the movie's release, a US-based Hindu statesman Rajan Zed voiced public concern over the alleged misuse of the term 'Avatar' as the movie's title, arguing that the term is held sacred in Hinduism and asking J.Cameron for a disclaimer. [27], [28] The concern was supported by Nevada Clergy Association [29] and a Hindu leader in Trinidad and Tobago Satnarayan Maharaj. [30] However, other Hindu followers in US found the movie elucidating on the actual meaning of 'Avatar' rather than sacrilegious. [31]

Hindustan Times, the second most-widely read English newspaper in India called 'Avatar' a "downright misnomer" for the movie, but reported that its message is culturally similar to that of the Bhagavad Gita, a sacred book of Hinduism. [32]

In his New York Times Op-Ed article Ross Douthat called the movie “the Gospel According to James” of “Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism” incompatible with Christianity. [33] Other Christian critics warned 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." [34], emphasized the movie's thematic elements deemed objectionable to Christians [35] and suggested that Christians see and interpret the movie as a reminder of Jesus Christ as "the True Avatar". [36]

Cinosaur (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need for a new section since this can easily be accommodated by the pre-existing critical reception section - 'critical reception' embraces a whole body of opinion that stretches beyond simply how good the movie is or isn't. I have concerns that many of the sources that you provide above such as "Hindu Blog" would not satisfy the 'notability' criteria that is required for opinion pieces, but The New York Times certainly qualifies. Betty Logan (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It qualifies, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be included. We have a lot of differing opinions on the movie already for sources far more credible than an op-ed piece. Just because someone, somewhere publishes an opinion on the movie that hasn't been explored here, that doesn't mean we have to include it in the article. Unless someone notable wrote the op-ed piece, I don't see any reason to include it.Trusilver 15:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia tries to avoid using dedicated sections to list "controversies" because it tends to undermine NPOV and the general flow/structure of the article itself. It would be better to list this info under "Critical Reaction" if of course it has a reliable source to back it. This way the statement(s) would share their view with the positive opinions as well. Welcome to Wikipedia by the way. DrNegative (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for comments. May I answer them piecemeal?

• Regarding including the facts into the Critical reception section -- agreed, that was my initial thought too. However, upon reading the section I saw that it focused exclusively on opinions of either professional film critics or peer writers/directors. I therefore wonder if including facts on public reception of the movie there won't be at odds with the existing smooth and clearly defined contents?

Besides, the proposed section is mainly about its religious reception rather than professional/artistic one. Wouldn't it be like comparing apples and oranges there?

An option could be to have a subsection 'Public reception' under 'Release' and put these facts there, but admittedly I don't see these facts as qualifying for such a broad title unless we decide to add more data on the movie's reception by other publics.

• To Betty Logan: Thanks for pointing out that Hindu-blog might not be notable. I have taken it out. The only reason I included it in the first place was to balance reports on Hindu opposition to the movie title with favorable Hindu views expressed there, for better objectivity. I have also found more mainstream mass-media references for reports on Hindu demands for a disclaimer and have included them in the draft. Please have a look. However, the rest seems notable enough to me: Houston Chronicle, Hindustan Times, and NYT.

• To Trusilver: As for NYT Op-Ed credibility, it is written by Ross Douthat, a NYT's conservative mouthpiece. I thought he was notable enough, and represented a large stratum of conservative Christianity-oriented public in US.

• To Dr.Negative: Thanks for welcome. Agreed on 'Controversy' as too controversial. Cinosaur (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

General Plot section issues

I accept that my edits had faults, though I do believe that the plot section does need some major revamping. I understand that it shouldn't be too "in-universe", but right now it is a collection of two sentence paragraphs that don't make any sense together. One thing that should be considered is that this movie is 2 1/2 hours long and the plot isn't simple, so the section may reach a little over the 699 word limit if it is to read well, which is after all the ultimate goal- (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

See the two sections above about the plot. I didn't read all of your edits as I don't wish to be spoiled on the plot, however from the first few sentences, I saw nothing that added to the summary that met guidelines, only excessive wordiness (stating "the protagonist" which is not necessary, for example) and extraneous details). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I understand that my edits had faults, but rather than undoing my edits and taking the plot section back to square 1, perhaps you could have improved on them, for instance by taking out the word "protagonist". Also, I understand that you don't want to be spoiled on the plot, though we are trying to improve this section, and since it is the plot section, their may be a few "spoilers"-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

It was overall just too long, and I made a reasonable choice to revert based on a quick skim of the edits. Bringing it just under 700 just because we can really isn't needed. The plot was just trimmed today by an editor over quite a few edits...why not let it stand a bit, or suggest specific things you feel are lacking in terms of information missing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute, so you haven't even seen this movie and are actively avoiding information about its plot ("spoilers")? Then why the heck are you, of all people, highly active in writing the plot synopsis? No offense, but shouldn't someone who actually knows what they're talking about do that? 74.128.201.242 (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to see the movie, not read the synopsis. I do not have to have seen the movie to express a view on the length of the plot section, which I know plenty about as an experienced editor in film articles. Sorry, but I have yet to see any film of this length and type that could not be properly summarized in under 700 words in a way that non-fans couldn't get the basic guist of it. A nine page book series can be properly summarized in less words than that, so why can't this film? Because people are stuck on including minor details that while relevant for someone wanting to get into in-depth philosophical discussions of the film may find relevant, are not necessary to get the basic understanding of the plot. And FYI, I have not written a single word in the article, beyond correcting the date formats and doing some mild reverting in responses to edits. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, if it makes sense for the plot summary to not have spoilers then I'm confused about what sort of audience the plot section is meant for. If it's primarily for people who haven't seen the film and don't want "spoilers," then yeah it makes sense for it to read more like what the back of a movie's DVD case would tell you. But I've always thought that these articles were supposed to contain thoughtful analysis of a movie for encyclopedic purposes, not just a "preview" of one for potential moviegoers. This is an encyclopedia, not some ticket sales site. I feel like I should be able to come to this article and get a good plot explanation that includes a brief analysis of the point of it all, and that's just not gonna happen without spoilers.74.128.201.242 (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was primarily for people who haven't seen the film, nor did I saw it was for anyone who doesn't want spoilers. Obviously the plot will have spoilers. Where did you get anywhere in my reply that I wanted spoilers removed?? Wikipedia contains spoilers, plain and simple. The plot section should be a summary of the film with the major plot points from beginning to end. That's it. It is not written purely for fans, but anyone interested in reading the plot of the film for a purpose of giving the article context as a whole. The plot section should not, however, contain every nuance, minute scene, etc. It is not a substitute for seeing the film, but a summary of the major points. See WP:MOSFILM, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF for the relevant guidelines. And no, it is NOT supposed to contain a "thoughtful analysis" unless said analysis comes from reliable sources, and that doesn't go in the plot section. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay at this point I think we're arguing in favor of the same thing in different words, and mistaking the other person for being in disagreement. I too don't want the plot to have minute details; by "thoughtful analysis" I just mean the "big picture." The stuff I was saying we should add about the neural network is a "big picture" thing because it is the sole source of conflict in this movie. 74.128.201.242 (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright guys, I think that one thing we can all agree on is that this article's plot section is at the moment in terrible condition. Right now I am working on a new plot section, which you guys may improve on (though not undo), since this is taking me a while. One question, should I leave in the first 2 paragraphs, because I see that some of the info is covered in the topic section. Also, read Flyer22's comment at the bottom. I think out of any of this it has the most relevance to whats going on-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Alright I understand. I think that the information in the first two paragraphs could be trimmed down or could be scattered throughout the article, which would therefore leave more room for plot information. It would also leave more room for sentences that could make paragraphs such as this read better: "Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang) orders Jake to gain the trust of the Na'vi so as to get them to abandon Hometree, which covers a large unobtanium deposit. As part of his Omaticaya initiation, Jake tames a flying creature known as a Banshee."-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

You're right, many of the paragraphs contain seemingly unrelated plot points. If someone could group sentences better and add transitions, the plot description would improve a lot. 74.128.201.242 (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The plot should be a start to finish summary. If it is out of order, by all means correct it, please. Quick scanning the first two paragraphs, yes, some of that should be cut down and moved to appropriate mention as they occur (and the height and all is really excessive detail). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt that some of the sentences in there are trivial details that could be removed outright alongside the stuff I'm recommending that we add, but again, the article looks like it's locked for me so I can't do that trimming or any rearranging for cohesion myself.74.128.201.242 (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

-Also, there are featured movie articles which have excelled 699 words in their plot sections (though did not reach the over 1000 words of my faulty edit). 300 for example.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

300's plot was shorter when it was passed for FA. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would rather keep the plot discussion in one section, but I will state that I was surprised that editor Tovojolo trimmed the Plot section; Tovojolo has been the main one adding to the plot these past few days. And with all the complaints about the plot section leaving out important or complicated detail, I am beginning to think more and more that this is not a plot that can be adequately conveyed in just 700 words. Flyer22 (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This may not be a very good example as it's only a GA. But Titanic is another long film, and its plot is at 2,114. --Mike Allen 07:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL, and Collectonian recently put tags on that article; it likely needs some cleanup, seeing as I usually trust Collectonian's judgment on Wikipedia matters (even when I sometimes disagree with those judgments). Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

On my 2nd reedit of the plot section, I feel that I am making the same mistakes as last time. Could you guys tell me specifically what I did wrong so that I may not make the same mistakes?-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 05:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Alright, since my edit has lasted for at least 5 minutes, I am assuming that everyone has decided to not undo. Could you guys tell me how else the plot section could be improved?-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Well, certain factoids that are included such as "by disabling the bulldozer's camera systems" and "As part of his Omaticaya initiation, Jake tames a flying creature known as a Banshee and is allowed to choose a mate" are highly specific in nature and contribute nothing to the "big picture" understanding of the plot. Trimming out all those can shorten the summary greatly. Yet at the same time, certain "big picture" things are missed entirely or misrepresented. For instance, there's the failure to explain things in the context of the underlying nature of Pandora (the treeroots), and as a result there's statements like "They attempt to transplant (Augustine's) soul into her avatar with the help of the Tree of Souls, but she dies from her wounds." that are outright wrong due to the lack of that context (in that case, it wasn't about souls at all, and she didn't just die; her brain's information was successfully assimilated into the treeroots/Eywa). The article needs more explaination of why a main character did something major (ex. Jack's preference for his life as the avatar because it gives him legs is what made him get so involved in that alternate life), whereas the more minor things the characters do which are currently laundry-listed off (ex. disabling camera systems) need to just be left out to save space. In general, the article needs to be less about going scene-by-scene and describing the mundane details of each, and more about describing how things fit in, and pulling all the facts together to make one unified message. 74.128.201.242 (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the feedback. I was just unsure about the length (you know that issue), but yeah sure I'll definitely add more details. I've seen the movie twice (so far), so I remember quite a lot of detail. I'm just glad that my edits aren't undone. By the way, you should consider getting an account so then you could contribute to this article as well, because you sound like you have valuable things to say-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, I had a feeling that's why the article was locked for me. I made an account once; I'll dig up its password. 74.128.201.242 (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Length of Plot section

I appreciate everyone's concern about the length of the plot section, though I do believe if everyone saw the movie, they themselves would appreciate that this plot is long and complex (since after all, the movie is 2 1/2 hours long). While there are still some unnecessary details which need to be weeded out (which I have been working on for the past few hours), most of the content in the section is relevant and is hard to shorten without losing important plot facts. As Mike Allen mentioned above, the plot section for Titanic was over 2,000 words and is currently rated a GA.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Other films having longer plot sections are not a valid excuse to shove in extra words. Sorry, but even without seeing it the film is not that complex. It is only "complex" when people feel the need to explain every nuance of the fictional world, which is not necessary. Please sto claiming Titanic's is 2000+ words. It isn't. Its just under 1300 words, which is still way too long and in serious need of cutting down - its being GA is irrelevant, as GA does not include compliance with WP:MOSFILM (and note that it failed its FAC due to the plot and other issues). However, if you want to look at GA examples, Category 6: Day of Destruction is a THREE hour movie, with multiple story lines going on. It is summarized in under 600 words. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The movie Category 6: Day of Destruction is about a hurricane destroying a city, which in itself is very simple and could be summarized in 600 words. This movie, on the other hand, covers multiple topics, including Jake Sully's saga through Pandora, the "treeroot" system, Col. Quaritch's desire to destroy the na'vi etc., all of which are important to the plot and should be included in this article. Also, if articles such as 300 or Titanic have +600 word plot sections but are still graded as FA or GA, then why are we having this discussion in the first place? Are we arguing for the sake of arguing or for the actual improvement of the article?-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

One - other articles having problems is not an excuse to do the same here. And no, the treeroot system and all that does NOT need extensive explanation. Titanic is flagged for plot clean up now, and 300's is just above the 700 mark, and nothing like what y'all are continuing to try to do here. We are not talking about those articles, we are talking about this one. This film does NOT warrant going past the 700 word mark. Its that simple. Its obvious you loved the film, but the plot section does not need every nuance for someone to get a basic understanding of the plot. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm just trying to improve this article because:

• When I first viewed the plot section of this article, it was in a terrible condition
• I generally try to help improve Wikipedia when such sections are in such conditions

My opinion about the movie have nothing to do with it. Yes, I may have seen it twice because I think it was a good movie, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that this article is C-grade and I think we would all like to raise it to at least B-grade. I doubt that the length of the plot section would effect this article as much as the length of more important sections, such as "Reception", since after all that is more important (plus, for the last time, those movies that I have mentioned have been rated past B-grade, even with plot sections above the 600 words you continue to preach about [yes, that is a relevant point by the way]). Still, a plot section that is well-written and not over 1000 words is needed, which I have been trying to work on all morning. The problem is, this is a complicated plot, and I think I would know more since I have seen the movie twice. I would appreciate it if you could help me write this article instead of criticizing my every dang edit, because in the end, it is slowing down progress and annoying many people. Thanks- (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Actually, 300 is now at 631 words, without the loss of any major plot points. Yes, the length of the plot does affect the article just as much as any other section. A well-written plot section shouldn't need more than 700 words in 99% of the cases, and this is not one fo the exceptions. You consider it a complicated plot, but that doesn't make it such nor does it mean that every nuance needs to be explained. I'm not criticizing your every edit, nor is anyone else. We are attempting to discuss the on-going issues with the excessive amounts of plot being added to the article in general. It isn't anything personal, nor does it mean that anyone here is less interested in seeing it improved. You improve it your way, others are free to improve it in other ways, which includes pointing out issues and discussing them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is, you have been arguing with me all morning rather than providing contribution to this plot section at all. Your point about people contributing would be valid had you of edited this article in a productive way rather than, as they say, trolling on this talk page. Now tell me, are you arguing with me to embetter this article about Avatar, or are you arguing with me for the sake of being right? From you tone of voice, it seems like the latter.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

I am arguing to improve the article, as someone who is concerned about the state of all film article as a member of the Films project and one of its coordinators who takes interest in such matters when they are called to the project's attention. If I were arguing with you for the sake of "being right" I'd say it has to be under 700 period and that's that. I've repeatedly read the arguments that the film is "too complex" without any concrete examples of what is so complex that it just must have more words. I've attempted to explain several times why I feel this one does not need to exceed the stated length guidelines. I've responded to the examples you gave (and corrected one even), noting that one failed its FAC for that reason and is now tagged for length. I've pointed to other examples of good plot summaries of longer films, which you rather rudely dismissed as a "simple" film despite its 3 hour length. Calling me a troll is neither a proper assumption of good faith nor a civil response to reasonable discussion. I am not the only one who has noted issues with the plot length and the excessive detail. Attacking me and claiming I'm not being "productive" by joining in the discussion is really not helpful to a resolution either. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my comments about you being a troll, but you must understand my frustration. I have been working hard to try to improve the plot section. It all started yesterday when you rather rudely undid my edits (which by the way took me a considerable amount of time to do) and took the section back to square 1. Yes, I understand that my edits had faults, but rather than undoing, which is the easy way out, you could have built upon my edits, like its supposed to be done, since I think though there was some excessive detail on some facts, there was some usable content in there. I understand that plot sections cannot be 1000 words long, but this plot, no matter who says it, is complicated (I would know since I saw the movie), so it has been quite hard to try and fit all of that information in there without passing the apparent 700 word mark. Since you are an editor who has had considerable experience (yes, I saw your page), perhaps you could give me the advice I've been looking for this entire time.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

I don't know where I got over 2,000 words for Titanic, I put it in MS Office Word just now and it says 1,245 words. I must have been half asleep last night. Anyways, from what I gather, having a looong plot can be considered a copyright violation. So that's one reason why it's strongly discouraged. --Mike Allen 20:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Vote?

Perhaps we should take a vote to reach WP:Consensus about this article's plot section? This back and forth is not solving anything, and plot section lengths are sometimes a case-by-case issue. It seems that the editors of the The Dark Knight (film) article have also reached consensus about the length of that film's plot section. Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

All those for the current length version of the plot section, vote Support, with a brief reason why and by listing your editor name or IP account, under the Support option; those against it, vote Oppose, with a brief reason why and by listing your editor name or IP account, under the Oppose option.

Support

• Support for the reasons I stated in the above plot sections on this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Length is never a valid reason to delete something. Too many articles are destroyed, and replaced by some brief token bit that no one finds interesting. If you don't want to read something, you can easily skip over it. Dream Focus 20:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support-ish: While the current length doesn't strike me as excessive (especially considering the film's own length), if it can be summarized more concisely, I see no problem with that either. The plot can always be found in the film itself, while an encyclopedia has the additional ability to treat the film as an object of (sourced) analysis and social interest. Also, nobody is suggesting that a vote tally can replace consensus. Votes just help to give everyone a sense of where others stand at the beginning of the consensus-reaching process, and to bring up specific points that need to be addressed. This is what jurors often do during deliberation, and it is what Wikipedians do all the time at WP:AFD, WP:RFA, WP:DRV, and so on. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support I would prefer we accept a slightly longer plot that lets us use more attractive prose, than an unappealing list of plot points. A lot does go on in this film, and if we're going to try to capture it at all, we should try to do it well. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support The plot of this movie is long and complex and is hard to contain in less than 700 words if it is to read well. Perhaps a 850 or 900 word limit would suit this.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC))
• Support. The length is fine, but needs to be as concise as possible. Also it would be great to include more about the film's greater significance that can be directly inferred from the film in and of itself. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose both the notion of a vote and the current length. Wikipedia is not a vote and simple stating "the length is fine" without any actual discussion on the content is pointless. The length is too long because it contains excessive detail that is not necessary to understanding the plot of the film. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Collectonian, I proposed a vote because voting has been done with other Wikipedia articles in order to help reach consensus, such as whether or not to merge the Anakin Skywalker article with the Darth Vader article (that topic has been debated several times). I understand what you mean when you say "Wikipedia not a vote," but voting is often used on Wikipedia. Additionally, I have seen actual discussion going on above about the length of this article's plot section, in different spots on this talk page, without any hint of consensus being reached. Flyer22 (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly advise everyone to move on from discussing the plot summary. Get it within the 400-700 word range and keep it there. The plot summary is the least important part of the article, but too many editors waste their time forever fine-tuning it. The point of the summary is to give readers context for the rest of the article. Of course there is a whole world to Avatar, like there is a whole world to be found in any epic novel. We don't reiterate that world all over again here; it can be visited directly. The summary will continue to change and change with its value never being strengthened. What needs to be done by all involved is to provide real-world context for this film. The most compelling point of a film article on Wikipedia is that it can tell the story about the story itself -- how it was made, how it was received, etc. Anyone can watch this film; very few people get the opportunity to read the background as drawn together by editors from sources not easily accessible or known. For example, Cinefex has major coverage about Avatar that could be incorporated into this article. Let the summary alone if not to keep the word count down; work on everything else. Erik (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

People are not going to stop discussing the Plot section, though, Erik. Because of that, we should work this out. Leaving it at 700 words is not going to stop the constant complaints this matter has caused; it is not just the IPs complaining about the Plot section leaving out important or complicated details, but also registered editors (some who are experienced editors here).

The rest of this article is already taken care of, though more can be added to some of those parts. It is already suitable for GA status, in my opinion (though more tweaking may be suggested during its GA nomination). I have been one of the least concerned about this article's plot section, except for when it comes to the matter of keeping it from getting really long. Flyer22 (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, the plot is now at 773 words after a trim from 900+. Personally I'm happy with anything under 1K as I acknowledge it's a long film, but I'd also support the argument that it should be under 700 words per policy. Sorry I missed out on the debate, was visiting my folks for Xmas. If folks aren't happy with my changes feel free to revert! Doniago (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we'd already gotten the Plot section under control. But thanks for your contributions, Doniago. I added back in the "Physically stronger and several feet taller than humans" part. But I'll likely alter the word "several." They are rather a few feet taller than humans. When I think of "several," I always think of "seven or more." From what I saw often stated in previous versions of the Plot section, the Na'Vi are nine feet tall. That equals only "a few" feet taller ("three or more") in my book.

Anyway, I hope you had fun. Flyer22 (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it was B-class. Unfortunately any summary I could provide would lack reliable sourcing and be longer than Wiki policy recommends. (grin) Doniago (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Smart and wise reply. Flyer22 (talk)

I meant to state earlier that I will go ahead and leave it as "several feet," judging by what Cameron states in the Themes and inspirations section. From those comments, the Na'vi are 12 feet tall. But Maybe Cameron did not make them that tall in the film. It's either 9 or 12; I am not sure. Flyer22 (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

We also have to consider that not all Na'vi are exactly 9 or exactly 12 feet tall; all humans are not 4, 6, or 7 feet tall, for example; "several feet taller" adequately explains the difference in height. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Pandora's neural treeroot architecture

It seems like the mechanism by which Pandora's lifeforms literally communicate with the planet the whole time is rather important and should be mentioned in the synopsis, no? It not only provides a plausible natural explanation that helps the plot make sense, but it also provides valuable context for explaining almost all of the actions of the Na'vi. 74.128.201.242 (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it a significant plot point? if not, the minute details are not really needed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, parts of the plot synopsis are rather inaccurate due to the leaving out of this crucial information given in the movie. For example, at the movie's end the main character's "soul" is not transplanted to his avatar, as the synopsis (as of 12/22) claims; rather, in a biological process the planet integrates his brain's information into its global neural network (made of electrical signals that pass through treeroots) and then transmits it back out from there. In other words, it's not the mystical supernatural sort of thing the synopsis would suggest; it's simply a type of biology not found on earth, and a major source of conflict in this film is that the scientists begin to understand this (and therefore understand the need to protect the planet's ecosystem) whereas the mercenaries do not.

Similarly, the entire point of the Na'vi wanting to preserve their "sacred sites" is not some primitive mysical thing like the drivel in the synopsis would suggest; it's because those sites are their link into the global neural net (which also links them to the knowledge of all their dead ancestors). This is all unknown to the Na'vi themselves, who don't understand how it all works, hence their entire culture and religion in the movie. Their diety "Eywa" is the global neural network itself. But the synopsis totally neglects to define Ewya, the Hometree, the Tree of Souls, or any of these things that it mentions for what they really are.

Yes, it's important; it's the sole source of motivation for nearly all of the characters. Someone who has watched this film and who took more away from it than some mystical superficial message needs to make corrections accordlingly, so that this plot can be summarized accurately and in all its fascinating glory. At the very least, someone should paraphrase what I've described here, because right now the article lacks all of this information, and provides a rather misleading view of Avatar's fictional universe.74.128.201.242 (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I'll also point out that the plot synopsis forgets to mention a pretty huge fact about Jake and the primary reason why he suddenly became enamoured with his life as the avatar. In addition to the whole "falling in love with Na'vi culture," there's also the obvious fact that he can actually physically move around as an avatar and isn't a depressed wheelchair-bound marine like in real life. This comparison is a pretty constant theme in the movie. It deserves a line, but right now the synopsis doesn't even mentioned that he's handicapped. I'd add a blurb about this myself if the article wasn't locked. 74.128.201.242 (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. That should certainly be in the article. Dream Focus 18:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Its purely WP:OR. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian, I think that Dream Focus was talking about mentioning that Jake is handicapped should be included in the Plot section. I did not read all of what the IP stated, though; I do not want to be spoiled on anything significant. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It may be possible to discuss the environment using secondary sources. See this and this. We shouldn't be going on and on about such in-universe detail just by watching the film, though. Erik (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, not on and on; just suggesting a sentence or two. Totally leaving it out of the plot synopsis is like making the Batman movie article and neglecting to make it clear that Batman is not, in fact, an actual bat but is really a man in a batsuit, and then carefully sidestepping the topic during the whole synopsis to make it misleadingly seem like he actually is a bat. This stuff about what Pandora really "is" sets up the entire setting of the movie and so you can't explain what the movie is about without it. These simple facts are not original research; it's in the friggin movie, lol. That's, again, like watching batman and then saying the fact that batman is actually a guy in a batsuit wasn't sufficiently addressed in the movie and is therefore orginal research. No, the movie makes these concepts abundantly clear. I'm starting to wonder if you guys discussing what should go in the synopsis have even seen the movie.[[74.128.201.242 (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Then we'll have to start getting used to the idea that the plot summary is going to be 1400 words long, if we're going to include everything. There's simply too much going on; the film is a fantastic piece of work, nothing is in there just for eye candy, it all plays a part in the story. I've tried to trim it down, but it's difficult. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't even a issue of length; the current synopsis spends as much space carefully stepping around these concepts as it would if it just said them. How much space does it really take to say "the Na'vi, a sentient race with biological parts that enable them to communicate with a sentient neural network of treeroots wrapping around their planet" or something, with a link to the article on what a neural network is? Then take out all the untrue stuff about souls and explain why the Navi and the scientists were really trying to protect the sacred trees/ecosystem, and you're left with an article that's just as long yet actually correct. What's so wrong with simply replacing untrue statements with true ones?74.128.201.242 (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. The current plot is plain wrong. There is no soul transfer or praying to Eywa which suddenly causes wildlife to attack the humans. This is just how the Navi interpret it. The film is very clear about Eywa being the intelligence emerging from the tree root-connections, which is shown to be able to communicate with animals. Augustine's memories are uploaded to the network, then Jake connects to Eywa to warn about the attack and suggest to use Augustine's memories to understand the danger. Even though Neytiri believes Eywa will not take sides, this information is apparently enough to convince it to cause the animals to attack the humans "to protect the balance of life". I think it's more important that the plot be correct, then let's worry about length.87.68.22.45 (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something. Augustine had a theory about the properties of the treeroot system as a neural network but that was only addressed in passing. When they tried to transfer Augustine into her avatar and failed, I don't remember any mention that she was assimilated into the treeroot system. I don't think the treeroot system is important enough to add to the Plot section. Rwalker (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The nuances of how it works is not necessary, its excessive detail. Its enough to say simple "the Na'vi, a sentient race that communicate with a sentient neural network of treeroots wrapping around their planet" without the lines and lines of details. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotun26 (talk • contribs)

Pandora's biological neural net: sentient or not ?

I guess everybody who sees Avatar agrees that Pandora has a biological neural net consisting of biolelectric signals flowing through the tree roots. It is also clear that the net has some hubs such as the "Tree of Souls" or the "Tree of Voices", which the Na'vi can access using their specifically evolved cerebral cortexes and the synaptic conduits that extend therefrom . In theory, the net could function just as giant worldwide web of bio-computers used for data storage and communication. However, there are hints in the movie that it is, furthermore, sentient. Specifically, when Jake taps into the "Tree of Souls" and informs it of the imminent human attack, the central bio-hub apparently responds by telepathically commanding the Pandoran fauna to attack the humans as a form of self-defense.

Shouldn't that be mentioned in greater detail in the plot section of the article as it is a critical point to understand the story ? 200.168.20.13 (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to include it you're welcome to edit the plot summary, though please bear in mind the guidelines at WP:FILMPLOT regarding length of plot summaries (technically I think we're currently already over-long). I didn't regard this as a "critical" point myself, and I believe it's already been discussed above in any case. Doniago (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotun26 (talk • contribs)

Sky appearance on Pandora

Could anyone please add a section with a detailed description of the appearance of the sky at daytime and at night as seen from an observer on Pandora's surface ? 200.168.20.80 (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This would be appropriate for the article Pandora (fictional moon), when and if Avatar becomes notable enough that aspects of its story merit their own articles. That said, Category:Fictional Planets contains a lot of fictional planets that are far less notable than Pandora. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The French-language wikipedia already has a rather detailed Pandora (fictional moon) article of its own. Besides, the appearance of the sky as seen from the moon is an important element to define an alien landscape and is featured prominently in the movie. 200.168.20.164 (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it does, and I would be happy to see more in-universe material in Wiki, but many editors see it as unnecessary fancruft. In the meantime, why not edit the page at the http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Pandora Avatar wikia]? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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,[37] 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)

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, men 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 Moabite sex-princess, the one who got skewered in fragante delicto along with her Israelite lover by the biblical zealous warriro Phinehas - reversed-roled by zealous warrior Jake Sully with spear in hand who coincidentally 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) 18:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Two important points missing from article

There are two significant criticisms of the film that are missing from the article. Before doing so, I will add the links here. They both comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability and thus there really isn't reason not to include them. I'm not sure we need a whole section - probably the critical reception space is fine:

a. Motion sickness - while not an issue for everyone, it has been an issue for some viewers and thus deserves a mention since the technology is still developing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/nov/26/avatar-james-cameron-3d

b. Issues concerning plot, themes, and representation:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100020488/james-camerons-avatar-is-a-stylish-film-marred-by-its-racist-subtext/

I'll wait a day for response - otherwise I'll add these links to critical reception. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both items a and b. Mostly, b: the entry as it stands now, seems as written by an admirer rather than as an encyclopedic entry. There should be a section devoted to criticism on the film: both on its artistic merits and its political agenda.Tom Peleg (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There may be something to what you say, but keep in mind WP:UNDUE for any tweaking to get to a neutral point of view, and note that a large majority of the reliable sources have positive opinions about the movie, and that is supported by the general public that votes by buying tickets to it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree that there is a large majority of "positive" reviews. There is a lot of negative voices against the movie, both due to what is generally accepted as "its poor plot" and its "lack of artistic sophistication"; and to it's controversial political agenda. The consensus is positive only on its technological merits. Majority of reviews agree the film is not a masterpiece but deserves a special note due to its technological merits only.

Second, the commercial success is irrelevant here, since we are talking about its critical reception per se. The facts about its commercial success are well emphasized (a thing which I think should be deferred not to the first three paragraphs, but later; since it has nothing to do with the movie--as a movie. But for that I do not care).Tom Peleg (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re "I do not agree that there is a large majority of "positive" reviews. " - Could you give a source that supports your position? My position is based on Rotten Tomatoes. I've seen that you have criticized Rotten Tomatoes elsewhere for being a compilation of only English speaking reviewers, but note that the film was made in English, although it is probably shown with translations in non-english speaking countries. Also, so far you haven't shown any source that tallies non-english language reviews that supports your opinion.

However, 84% positive reviews at Rotten Tomatoes means that there are 16% negative or neutral reviews and you might pursue you point in that regard, i.e. whether those reviews are appropriately represented in the article. Also, you might check the TV show At the Movies. I heard from someone that they rated Avatar at the lower part of the top ten list for 2009. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

a. - I haven't seen any article, including the one you mentioned, that said that anyone got motion sickness from viewing the movie. I think the quote from the end of the article at that link might apply here, "But overall it's a horrible piece of shit."

b. - I think a similar point is already made in the article by the Newitz discussion in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the section Critical reception.

So I don't think they should be added to the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel that the first article's content merits inclusion. I did add a mention from the second one following the Newitz quote in the Reception section, since this author pointed out specific issues with race and ethnicity in the film, while Newitz simply pointed out that the movie is a white fantasy. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The reception of the movie was very positive and race was a small part of the negative criticism and the race aspect is already represented in the section. So I deleted the recently added part about race per WP:UNDUE. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright then, but I'm concerned about the loss of the link to the commentary. How about consolidating the two voices into a single sentence discussing negative criticism of the race aspect? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I considered that but I didn't see a good way to do it without taking up too much space. Also, re the point about black actors that were the voices of the Na'vi, I don't think hardly anyone watching the movie would have realized that, so it seems to be a manufactured issue and not a real issue. Re Newitz, the discussion was specific about what "race fantasy" meant. Also Newitz's point is consistent with the connection of the film with Dances with Wolves. It seems like a good thing to keep alone without abridging. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of positive or negative film reviews but rather what has been reported about the film. "Motion sickness" is a polite term for "nauseous" and whenever a film involves 3-D and/or IMAX this is still a problem for some (but not all viewers). See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/dec/10/james-cameron-avatar-preview

http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/movies/AP/story/1403060.html

I'm not certain why this is deemed irrelevant since the new technology is so important to the discussions of this film. As for the second, there has been a discussion of noble savage as a theme of the film:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/01/is_blue_the_new_black_why_some.html

this is easily verified through a google search. I'm not certain how WP:UNDUEWEIGHT applies in this case since only one source has been given on the topic. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing to be careful about when writing a Wikipedia article about a film like Avatar, is that it is so popular and is thus given so much attention in the press, that there is a greater likelihood that there will be a small number of articles that raise false issues or issues not specific to the film. This is the case with motion sickness, nausea, etc. I haven't seen any article that reports a single case from viewing Avatar. If one is interested in the issue of motion sickness for 3-D films, one might consider working on the section 3-D_film#Criticisms at the article 3-D film. It's interesting that in even that article, it hasn't been given much attention. Perhaps you can change that situation.

Regarding the race issue, the link that you gave mentions Annalee Newitz's article about Avatar and race, which is already used in the Avatar article in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph in the Critical reception section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually all three articles mention that some people had this reaction (nausea) when viewing Avatar. As for the second point, I was perplexed by the WP:UNDUEWEIGHT issue since it is hardly addressed - and no mention is made of noble savage which has received quite a bit of coverage. I've worked on film articles for a number of years on the Wikipedia and thus am pretty familiar with how they are written. However, given Wikipedia:Consensus I'll leave it as is. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as an fyi, here is an article which is very specific on the issue of nausea. So it is out there. But again as I wrote above, I won't push inclusion in the article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1235154/Has-James-Cameron-Hollywoods-scariest-man-blown-200-million-biggest-movie-flop-ever.html

"More worryingly for Cameron, the 3D effects, which are supposed to mean that Avatar is the 'first film of the future', left several viewers feeling nauseous. 'I definitely would not eat before seeing the film,' one told me." -Classicfilms (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts and info. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Note on organization of talk topics above

If anyone is looking for a topic that they can't find, please note that I made some substantive organizational changes and turned a lot of headings into sub-headings to avoid redundancy and clutter. Jotun26 (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26

As I stated to AniRaptor2001 when AniRaptor2001 reformatted headings, I am not sure that changing the order of discussions in the way you did is for the best or not. I do not hugely object in this case, but I prefer that talk page sections are presented in the order they appeared on the talk page, unless it is a section that started at the top of the talk as opposed to the bottom.

It's not a policy...but is a guideline if you specifically alter an editor's comment (a registered user's or an IP's) in some significant kind of way. Guidelines on all this are at WP:TALK; it includes mention of the chronological order matter I was talking about. But what you did might be considered appropriate, per "When talk pages get too long" (also seen in the WP:TALK link). I just thought I should bring it up to you. Some editors object quite a great deal to drastic refactoring of talk pages, especially if their comments are altered. You did not significantly alter any comments, other than the subsection headings, of course, but I just wanted to note this to you. One now banned editor, Tyciol, often got into a lot of trouble for refactoring talk pages (as his talk page edit history shows). Flyer22 (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also advise you against altering editors' comments to where your comment is within theirs, like you did with one of my comments (though I changed it). That is not needed, and it can lead to people thinking you are a sockpuppet of that editor.

And maybe we should speed up the archive bot of this talk page, so that all this refactoring is not thought of as needed. Flyer22 (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Yes, I did not edit any of the contents of the sections, aside from a few headings. Mainly, I just aligned a few topics better with the existing organizational structure. I had forgotten about archiving (still new to this). Jotun26 (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26

Music from the Film

How is it that in the Avatar Trailer the score from "The Island" is played but there is no mention of it anywhere? The specific track name is "My name is Lincoln" by Steve Jablonski...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRdxXPV9GNQ (avatar trailer) http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,3317779,00.html (sample track) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.99.59 (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen that mentioned in any reliable source, probably because it is not unusual for movie trailers or advertisements in general. You might look for a reliable source that discusses Avatar's soundtrack that might mention that. Please keep in mind WP:NOR too. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Omega Code", "The Glass Hand" and "Soldier"

James Cameron had at least two other movies that he acknowledged hijacking: "Terminator" and "The Omega Code". The "Terminator" Was derived from two stories by Harlan Ellison: "The Glass Hand" and "Soldier". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.224.162 (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Appears like American military

I remember as a viewer of the film in the theater, I thought the soldiers were the American military, literally. I either didn't notice or didn't remember the description of them as mercenaries, which apparently was in the first 10 minutes of the film. I suspect that most people seeing the film had the same experience. Perhaps that should be put in, but I don't see how. As it is, it seems like the article has "sanitized" that aspect of the film. I'm very interested and open minded regarding other editors' thoughts and suggestions regarding this. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing that probably made this matter most confusing was what I perceived as the security details' continued use of their military-issued uniforms. I'm not sure if this is common practice among PMCs or not, but I suppose the argument could be made that since there are not other military around, they're free to do as they please, and Quartich would seem the type of personality to want to imagine himself as running his own little army. However the article does mention "mercenary" and "security contractor" quite a few times, while making sure to note that all marines are ex- or retired. I don't think it's far fetched to say that Cameron deliberately wanted the association with the american military to be very obvious, to the point of the viewer subtly forgetting that they were dealing with contractors and not soldiers. I imagine that some conservative voices must have picked up on this. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

To me it was quite clear that the military were civilian-operated, very much a Blackwater-like operation. The many allusions to the real-world Iraq operations (I think I even heard the words "war on terror") definitely are surprising in a normally very mainstream movie. The article does point at it, in a manner which avoids well possible edit wars. As far as the uniforms are concerned, most mercenaries (officers) are former regular military ; they retain their former uniforms and weapons, as their new hire generally does not provide any.--Environnement2100 (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing the "plot" section

"Controversy" over use of word "soul"

During the plot section it mentions twice how the "soul" of the human is "transplanted" into the Na'Vi. This is technically incorrect. The premise of the bio-neurological network is that data can be uploaded and downloaded into a huge mainframe. It would be more correct to say that the "mind" of the human has been "uploaded" into the Na'Vi body, similar to a USB file transfer

Cheers - jdoyle10 Jdoyle10 (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not really incorrect. The "soul" is the mind, unless you view "soul" as being more of a spirit form type of thing. I do not mind either way it is worded, but it is probably better left at "mind" for neutrality (since not everyone believes in "souls, in the physical spirit sense)...even though the Na’Vi seem to believe in spiritual form type of souls. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus as to whether or not the mind is to be identified with the soul. To make such a claim would be controversial. "Consciousness" or "mind" is much more acceptable, as none of these issues are raised with those terms. JEN9841 (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

How is it controversial to identify the mind with the soul, unless the person is thinking of "soul" in the physical spirit sense? I was essentially saying that the word "soul" can simply mean who the person is. People use the word "soul" differently. You seem to be identifying the word "soul" in the physical spirit sense. But the word "soul" is even used by non-religious people to mean who the person is, that person's personality. In other words, that person's mind. We are identifying the mind with the soul anyway by changing "soul" to "mind" or "consciousness," since, in either case, we would be using a substitute for "soul." I also have more to say in the Soul? section below. Flyer22 (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

To walk away from all controversial terms, why not use 'personhood' or 'personality' instead of 'soul' and 'mind'? Whatever one believes to be the essence of one's person, that's what got transfered, and 'personhood' or 'personality' covers that well. Cinosaur (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Cinosaur, I am not sure "personhood" or "personality" would go over well. "Personhood" is not a word that people use too often, and I can see vandals being obscene with that word (if you know what I mean). "Personality" is okay, but does not sound as strong as "mind"; it comes off a bit bland and detached compared to "mind," and I can see that being changed to "mind" really quick. I would rather keep our options at "mind," "soul," or "consciousness." As I stated in the Soul? section below, though, I prefer "soul"...because that is how the Na'vi see it. As a compromise, however, we could put the word soul in quotation marks. Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22, agreed on 'personhood' -- too academic for a vandal to pass up on. Even though I too personally prefer 'soul', but I agree that too many readers will deem it too religious. However 'mind' is too weak here, IMHO, as it is not the entire personality yet, but just a psychic part of it. But, without getting carried away by philosophy here -- what about 'inner being' or 'self' as viable options? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinosaur (talk • contribs) 00:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be awkward to use anything other than 'soul' since the process is being carried out by the Tree of Souls which is mentioned as the place where it happens in the previous sentence? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Cinosaur, I am not seeing how the word mind is too weak; that is a person's entire personality, is it not? But as for any other suggestions, I would have to agree with Bob that the word soul is best in this case (the same you prefer). And with it being in quotation marks, I feel that it lessens its religious aspects; it makes it clear that this is from the Na'vi point of view. However, what do you think of the word consciousness being used instead? Flyer22 (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22: As I said, 'soul' seems most preferable to me. As for consciousness (or mind, for that matter), I like to consider it a product or energy of the soul, because under certain conditions consciousness is either absent entirely (like in coma or deep sleep) or partially (partial paralysis or local anesthesia) while the soul (=personality) remains. I would say that when Jake was operating his Avatar, he was investing it remotely with his consciousness while remaining in his own body. However, when he went for his "birth-again" party, he the 'soul' as the owner of the body got shifted to his Na'vi shell and permanently disowned his human body, which consequently dropped dead. In this paradigm one can compare the soul to fire, and consciousness -- to its light, which illuminates both itself and everything around. Similarly, the soul by means of consciousness illuminates itself ("I") and things around beginning with the body and mind. Sorry for the philosophical digression. Cinosaur (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, what you have stated makes sense. You would be against consciousness being used because Jake was not conscious when he was being "reborn" into his Avatar body, right? I am still not quite sure why you object to mind being used, however, since it does not matter whether he was conscious or not; he is not brain dead, and his mind (as in personality) was still transplanted into the his Avatar body. Another editor, seen in the Soul? section below, though, has changed the word to consciousness. Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I see now that it was the final mention that was changed to consciousness (I did not look at the Plot section some hours ago, since I already knew "soul" was changed); the first mention is still left as "soul," which I think is a good compromise, since that part is without a doubt from the Na'vi point of view. Flyer22 (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Soul ?

The article states that the Na'vi unsuccessfully attempted to "transfer Grace's soul" into her avatar body and, later, succeeded to do the same procedure on Jake. However, as I understand it, it is not really a "soul transfer", but rather transferring Grace's/Jake's "minds" (memories, personality, etc.) into the avatar body using Pandora's biological neural net. The Na'vi might well interpret that as a "soul transfer" according to their own religious beliefs, but, since the article is being written from a human, rather than a Na'vi perspective, a more suitable scientific explanation of the procedure is warranted. 200.168.20.77 (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, IP. This has also been brought up above, with the #Editing the "plot" section topic, and also in actual editing of this article. Seems we should just go with "consciousness," like before. Flyer22 (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[this section now integrated with "Editing the Plot Section" Jotun26 (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26]

Now that I think about it more, "soul" should probably stay. That is how the Na'vi perceive the transfer. They even have a Tree of Souls. If we were talking about the Avatar transfer explanation given by the humans at the beginning of the film, that is a different story. Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what they transfer, the human body would not function normally without either of their 'soul's or 'mind's, so for the purposes of easy explanation, they probably meant what you said. Also, being part of the plot, it's just an opinion, but I'd prefer it to be from the Na'vi point of view as it really goes along with the story ;)Prove me (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no widely accpted definition of the word 'soul' and different cultures have come to use it as they find it convinient. I feel the word soul is approporiate here. And since the story is seen mostly in the eyes of the Na'vi I feel its more approprite to give the story from their perspective only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manyfacetsoflife (talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

James Cameron seemed to make a VERY concerted effort to show that the Na'vi concept of a deity was not supernatural but biological. Souls are supernatural and because of that the use of this particular rhetoric seems inconsistent with both the Na'vi culture and the intentions of the creators of the movie. I strongly recommend the use of the compromise term consciousness as it encompasses more than just the mind, but is decidedly less religious in nature than "souls". This shouldn't affect the plot summary very much at all.HawkShark (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Soul" does not only mean supernatural, as I and Manyfacetsoflife have stated. The Soul article even makes it clear that the word "soul" is sometimes synonymous with mind or consciousness. But like others, I still see the Na'vi as being spiritual beings. I do not see how that is not clear in the film, which even has a Tree of Souls. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Consciousness is better than soul, and it is also better than using "soul" in quotation marks as it is now, as using the quotes could be read by some as disparaging or sarcastic. This discussion has also been occurring above #Editing the "plot" section. Consciousness or mind is the best term; I will change it to consciousness. JEN9841 (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, while I think both mind and consciousness (at least within the scope of this article) could serve equally well for the general reader, I suppose it is possible one could argue that one is better than the other. For now, though, I have changed it to consciousness. JEN9841 (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that "consciousness" is better than "soul" in this case. I thought about people thinking that we are being disparaging or sarcastic with the word soul in quotation marks, but I figured that most would understand what we mean. I am okay with letting the word stay as consciousness. But in the future, JEN9841, I would prefer the consensus of discussions be clearer before changes are made to things that are being debated on the talk page. The consensus on this matter is not as clear. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Just some moments ago...I noticed that you only changed the final mention to consciousness (I did not look at the Plot section some hours ago, since I already knew "soul" was changed); the first mention is still left as "soul," which I think is a good compromise, since that part is without a doubt from the Na'vi point of view. Did you do that on purpose, or rather miss the first soul mention? Flyer22 (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I missed the first one. Leaving soul there as a compromise I think would be a good idea, but this is a tricky issue. The thing that I am concerned about is the fact that "soul" is written with the quotation marks. Do you think the quotes make it non-neutral? JEN9841 (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems perfectly fine to me to leave the first mention in quotation marks; it is saying that the Na'vi believe they are transferring the soul (as in the physical spirit sense) into the Avatar, while some humans (fictional characters or viewers) would not use the word soul in this case (at least not in the physical spirit sense). Flyer22 (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That works for me. We'll keep it the way it is with the first mention being "soul" and the second being consciousness, and fix any changes that deviate from it. JEN9841 (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just my input on this topic, however I will agree to consensus, but I believe the "soul" reference to be the best one to use in all instances. Being a work of fiction, we are bound to that work of fiction and whatever details the film gives us regardless of bias or personal beliefs. "Tree of souls" and the Navi viewpoint of the "soul" is all thats mentioned in the film that I'm aware of. We as editors are using "consciousness" in our own right, even though it is never spoken of in that manner in the entire film. We can only speculate what the humans would call this "transfer", but we do know what the Navi call it, and in my opinion that is what we as the editors should call it. Ok, I'm done. :) DrNegative (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Neolithic" versus "Paleolithic"

It is said that "Pandora is inhabited by the Na’vi, a paleolithic species of sapient humanoids with feline characteristics.[17] Physically stronger and taller than humans, the indigenes have sparkling blue skin and live in harmony with Nature, worshiping a mother goddess called Eywa."... I feel that "paleolthic" is incorrect and should be modified to "neolithic" or at the very least "proto-neolithic" as these beings made use of wild and domestic crops and domesticated animals; and foremost created tribes and chiefdoms as seen in the movie. Paleolithic beings were much less developed and formed as 'bands' or social groups, and not distinct communities. Dlbarabe (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Dlbarabe, the topic of "Paleolithic or neolithic?" is discussed below, in the Paleolithic or Neolithic ? section Flyer22 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[revised: now right below Jotun26 (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26].

Paleolithic or Neolithic ?

The article refers to the Na'vi as Paleolithic humanoids. However, even though there is e.g. no reference in the movie to Na'vi agriculture, the range of Na'vi tools and artifacts, as well as their full domestication of animals, seem to suggest that they are actually more advanced than paleolithic humans, possibly closer to neolithic or, even late neolithic societies on pre-historical Earth.

In fact, from a certain point of view, even though they don't fully understand it, the Na'vi do have full access to a potentially highly sophisticated biotechnology, namely Pandora's biological neural net, which can be tapped into using hubs such as the "Tree of Voices" and the "Tree of Souls". The Na'vi also take advantage of their sophisticated nervous system to establish neural synaptic connections with Pandoran animals and control them. Therefore, despite the seemingly primitive appearance of Na'vi society, they are in a way far more advanced than pre-historical humans. That point, coupled with their superior strength and reflexes, explain why the Na'vi remain a threat to the technologically far more sophisticated 22nd-century humans. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason for labeling them as a paleolithic society came down to whether or not they made use of organized agriculture, which is not apparent in the movie. In official sources, they are referred to as a neolithic-equivalent species, perhaps that should take precedence. Just because the Omaticaya clan did not use agriculture does not mean any others did not. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia articles are written from sourced information, we do not use original research. If you can find a source that specifically refers to the Na'vi as Neolithic or Paleolithic, then by all means include it. If the only source for the inclusion is your own opinion, it does not belong in the article. I actually wonder if the word "paleolithic" is even in the Entertainment Weekly article that's cited, I'm of half a mind to go by the library and take a look at it tonight. Trusilver 22:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Na'vi society is referred to as "neolithic" in the Pandorapedia [38]. Would that qualify as a source ? 161.24.19.112 (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Paleolithic and neolithic are terms referring to Earth cultural periods and I think they shouldn't be used for the cultural periods of other planets, except for example, by saying they are "like" the neolithic period on Earth. Also, info that is not in the movie but in a companion source should be so noted in a footnote, in my opinion. Perhaps material that has details related to the story but that aren't in the movie should be limited to a section in the article for that purpose and so noted? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe official materials all indicate the Na'vi to be "neolithic". Of course, as you point out Bob, the terms paelo and neolithic apply only to Earth's history; we could compromise by saying "neolithic-like" or something of that sort. Regarding where we should put "in-universe" material... I believe it depends on how much this film's influence expands, if more films are made, etc. more separate articles can be created, such as the one that already exists for characters and wildlife. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there are going to be sequels with this kind of popularity and the way the story ended. The only thing we didn't hear was the head of the mining expedition saying, "I'll be back." They could call it Avatars?

P.S. For my info, by "in-universe" do you mean details or material related to the story that are not in the movie? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not big on the sound of "neolithic-like". That sounds incredibly awkward and cumbersome. In my opinion, it's a lot of hand-wringing about nothing. The sources use the word "neolithic", so that is pretty much the beginning and the end of the story. I don't see any need to use any other word, definitely not for the purpose of signifying that neolithic on earth and elsewhere are different and need to be properly represented. I see it as a complete non-issue, but your mileage may vary. Trusilver 23:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Bob, I am indeed referring to that material by "in-universe". Trusilver, I agree that "neolithic-like" isn't the best choice, and going with just "neolithic" is understandable enough. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Neolithic would be general agriculture capability, which includes sedentary behavior, large scale tool making and trading. No such things are seen in the movie. You can see them drink from tree-leafs, not from pottery. You do not see them grow crop nor cattle. So neolithic is off, except maybe for the early pre-pottery neolithic. The Na'vi house and beds definitely are not handcrafted, so they would not even be mesolithic. Animal taming is the exception and would hint at neolithic behaviour, even though you hardly can call it taming. Sophisticated body jewellery too. So the Omaticaya could be in touch with a neolithic civilization, or maybe used to be part of it, but still retain their paleo general behavior.--Environnement2100 (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

On Earth, the use of Bow and arrow would put it in at least the Mesolithic, as would the absence of agriculture. "Stone age" might be accurate enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.52.71 (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Motive for creation of avatars

The plot section says, "Humans cannot breathe Pandora’s atmosphere for long without passing out and dying. In order to move about Pandora, human scientists have created human-Na’vi hybrids called avatars, which are controlled by genetically matched human operators." I'm not sure that avatars were created just to "move about" Pandora, especially considering we see plenty of humans "moving about" just fine with the use of gas masks (a much more cost-effective solution!). I think there may have been some discussion of the motive for the program in the movie, although it wasn't clear to me whether it was meant to be primarily scientific or militaristic in nature...perhaps it actually represented the confluence of two different objectives (one scientific, one militaristic). Jotun26 (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26

According to the backstory, the avatars were created to explore the possibility of using them as locally-adapted mine workers, but the benefits were apparently not great enough to benefit their expense, and the program was redirected into science pursuits (probably to see if any other aspect of Pandora could be exploited for profit). AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That clears it up for me; thanks. Nonetheless, I think this sentence should be revised in a way that reflects this complexity without filling up the synopsis with too many details. Jotun26 (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26

According to the motives mentioned in the film for the recruitment of Jake Sully, unskilled and untrained, for an avatar pilot, his brothers' avatar is 'ridiculously expensive', and it seems logical that would exclude mine working or transportation as a possible motive for a supersophisticated and expensive r&d programme. Also, Dr. Grace Augustine, the creator and leader of the Avatar programme is a botanist. It only seems rational that the purpose for the creation of Avatars is to make use of their neurological networking features and to serve as an interface in the interaction with the locals for the purposes of 'xenology' and 'xenobotanics'. I believe that the sentence as it is now is naive and undermines the credibility of the plot.Tutini (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems I was mistaken, if we look over at pandorapedia, the Avatars were in fact created to facilitate communications with the Na'vi. I can't for the life of me remember where it mentioned that they were originally proposed as mine workers, but it seemed a reliable source at the time. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the direction of this discussion that the part about the purpose of the avatars needs to be fixed. Go for it! --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made the change, though I'm also going to add a Pandorapedia reference, since the motive for the program's creation is never discussed, only its current objectives ("we're on the brink of war, and you're supposed to be finding a diplomatic solution!") AniRaptor2001 (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sentence editing

The plot section also says, "Jake and Augustine are disconnected from their avatars and detained for treason along with Norm. Trudy Chacón (Michelle Rodriguez), a security force pilot who is disgusted by the violence, breaks them out but Augustine is wounded by Quaritch." This should be at least two sentences, an "and" should be included before "breaks them out," and "Augustine is wounded" should not be preceded by "but." Perhaps instead: "...who is disgusted by the violence, and breaks them out. During their escape, Augustine is wounded by Quaritch's gunfire aimed at their fleeing ship." Jotun26 (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26

I agree with a rework of the part where the characters are imprisoned, and more detail regarding Trudy's motives. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

For some reason I thought I was locked out of editing the main article. This revision doesn't seem particularly controversial to me, so I went ahead and changed it. I'm still new to this Wiki-editing stuff =) Jotun26 (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26

Edit: For some reason I thought "Norm." was an abbreviation for a military rank that Trudy has, instead of thinking of the character Norm...hence I thought there was no disconnect between the two sentences, which is why I added the "and." I now realize this was a mistake...Jotun26 (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26

Trudy's multiple treasons

On that note ("Sentence editing," above), perhaps there should be some mention either here or earlier in the synopsis that Trudy already disobeyed orders earlier in the film when she refused to assist in the bombing of the Hometree. Admittedly, I don't understand how she managed to stay in with her superiors long enough to break the others out following this incident...perhaps she somehow concealed her abandonment of the mission. (Any insight, anyone? Is this a plot hole?) Jotun26 (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26

You seem to have identified a plot hole; though perhaps, since the mission was successful, her lack of participation went unnoticed? Doubtful, in any case. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. She said she didnt sign on to bomb a town, she signed on to guard and transport RDA personel, which is probably true. That leaves RDA with the choice of looking the other way when an employee made a questionable judgement in extreme circumstances, or sacking a badly needed helicoptor pilot. Its not like she shot anyone down to protect home tree.

Had she not ran before the attempted bombing campaign, she'd probably have been left at the base as part of the skeleton guard. --80.254.146.20 (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Article protection

This article was receiving 200,000 views per day last week, and now that it's been unprotected, vandalism is occurring regularly. Should it be re-protected until the hubbub cools down? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what semi-protection is for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - The previous level of protection should be restored. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support: I think the nom is asking for it to get semi-protected like before it expired. I so support this. Energy needs to go into the article so it can reach FA, not reverting annoying vandals. —Mike Allen 05:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support: The hit count remaining high and the fact that the film being as notable as it currently is, becomes a good target of vandals. DrNegative (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I put in the request for semi-protection and it was approved for one month by an admin. DrNegative (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that's better than a week that I usually get. LOL. —Mike Allen 06:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Do I even have to say I support? One of my recent edit history comments was/is clear on this matter, and this is a much viewed article (which IPs love to add trivia to or vandalize). Glad it has been protected for a month. Just looking at the revision history moments ago, I could not tell how long it had been protected for -- its expiration time stated the same exact time it was just "locked," LOL.

• As for FA status, you all feel that we should just skip nominating it for GA and go right to FA after more perfecting? Flyer22 (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

However you're supposed to do it, I guess. I just thought the ultimate goal was to reach FA, but if you have to go through GA to get there, then that's OK too. —Mike Allen 07:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I will support you whichever direction you choose to go. Its definitely GA material as it stands now in my opinion. DrNegative (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be watching the article come this time next month and if the level of activity is still abnormally high, I will be extending the semi-protection on a week by week basis. As for GA status... I think that it qualifies for GA status right now, the article is definitely more stable than it was a ten days or so ago when GA was last proposed. I don't know if I would jump headfirst into FA, but I think that FA is definitely in the future. Trusilver 19:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

similar movie Pocahontas (1995 film)

I have added similar movie Pocahontas (1995 film) to see also section. You may like to insert it into article text if you find any good ref comparing the stories. Raise lkblr (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Does not belong in the See also section; it is already mentioned in the Critical reception section. Flyer22 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Besides...since it is not directly related to this film, it would not belong in the See also section anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

To be added at the end of the "Critical Reception" section of the article.

{{editsemiprotected}}

Many science fiction fans have noted other close parallels with previous written works. Most notably, the plot point of the dragons bonding permanently with their riders is central in Anne McCaffrey's popular series of books about the dragon-riders of the planet Pern.

The movie's plot, dealing with conflict between colonizers and the natives has reminded a number of readers of Ursula LeGuin's "The Word for World is Forest," and Joan Slonczewski's "A Door Into Ocean." In the first, the conflict between the forest-dwelling natives and the colonizers becomes violent after the colonizers attack and destroy a tree-city (as in Avatar). The natives fight back and drive the earthlings off their planet. In the second, the natives have a scientifically based link to their environment (as in Avatar).

Dionwr (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

 Not done This is unsourced speculation--Jac16888^Talk 01:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent wording.

One line of the plot says They attempt to transplant her "soul" into her avatar and another line says The film ends with Jake's consciousness being transplanted into his Na'vi avatar. You should use the same word in both lines. 202.74.194.57 (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How about something like "They attempt to make the Avatar transference permanent" or something?202.74.194.57 (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Epic film?

Avatar doesn't seem to fit the description of an epic film that is provided by the wikilink. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"They typically entail high production values, a sweeping musical score (often by an acclaimed film composer), and an ensemble cast of bankable stars, placing them among the most expensive of films to produce." Avatar seems to the fit the description pretty good. Theleftorium 18:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Epic film" will work for me. Just an aside, I couldn't remember any of the music from the movie, so I googled and found this. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Music, budet and stuff are not the definition of the genre. Avatar is not more epic than any Dysney's full-lenght, such as Lion King.Garret Beaumain (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You might be right re animated films. Frankly, in going along with calling it an epic, I may have been wrongly influenced by this section of the article Epic film. I'm not sure. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservative/Religious Ire?

The Los Angeles Times and the Examiner (for some reason, Examiner is on the blacklist) have interesting articles and links about the widespread negative reaction to the film by conservatives and the religious. I currently see only two lines expressing this belief - perhaps it should be expanded to one paragraph? --haha169 (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's another LA times source and one from Fox news for discussion of the conservative perspective. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If it is decided to include more info on conservative/religious reception, wouldn't it be more logical as well as easier for readers if it is put separately in "Release" section under a subheading "Reception by religious groups" or something? Why clog "Critical reception" with obviously religious responses, which, even when coming from professional movie critics, may have nothing to do with the movie's critical evaluation as a movie? Cinosaur (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is not exclusively religious. And the religious are not exclusively slamming the film. But it has been mostly true that the negative reviews generally come from the politically conservative media who have qualms with the movie's messages. This is part of the movie, yes?--haha169 (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind WP:UNDUE and also that the movie is predominantly a piece of action-adventure entertainment. It's my impression that the political aspects are not nearly as important to most people as the entertainment from the action-adventure, special effects, etc. I think this is supported by a comment that was quoted in the article that was made by a Southern Baptist pastor critical of the film, "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." So, although the criticism on sociopolitical grounds is out there, we should give it the appropriate amount of space in the article, not too much, and not too little. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That was my argument from the beginning. I do not believe two lines is sufficiently enough to address an issue that found its way onto the mainstream media - as well as this being one of only two major factors that lead to a negative review (the other being cliche and predictable plot). In fact, I would use WP:UNDUE to argue the fact that there is a proportionally longer amount of text referring to positive reviews than negative. Noting the presence of these arguments would serve nicely to balance between the positives and the negatives. --haha169 (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

When considering WP:UNDUE and something making it to the mainstream media (LA Times, Fox, etc.) consider how much space that topic is given in the mainstream media compared to other topics about the movie in the mainstream media. Just an aside, in the Fox article I found a view re pro-military that I haven't seen in any other articles, "Director Cameron has thus made another film that is anti-corporate, but pro-military." --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This search was conducted at the time of my timestamp, so the order may have changed, but a Google news search of "Avatar critics" ([39]), the first result is: This week in political civility: Avatar bashed by conservative critics, along with 1,519 related articles, like this one from ABC which nicely sums up conservative arguments with multiple quotes. It seems quite major to me. --haha169 (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the google way is a try at quantifying it for comparison. I noticed that the search you made with keywords Avatar critics got 1701 hits when I just did it. I did a google search with keywords Avatar review and got 48,300,000 hits. Seems like the keyword "critic" may turn up more hits re criticizing comments, whereas the keyword "review" turns up more hits about the movie reviews in general. But it's not clear whether any of this is valid or gets us anywhere in deciding the percentage of negative criticism on sociopolitical grounds. For that, maybe take the Rotten Tomatoes percentages, and consider that the negative reviews on sociopolitical grounds are a subset of all the negative reviews, and this relation might suggest the percentage of negative criticism on sociopolitical grounds in general? Anyhow, so far I haven't seen evidence that percentage-wise the negative sociopolitical comments should get more attention in the article than they already have gotten. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair assessment. But I still think that there should be an addition, because the current way it is written is simply two quotes from places more obscure than LA Times, ABC, and FOX; and the fact that they aren't mentioned as a "conservative" argument, but simply a quote that lacks reasoning behind it that is followed by another quote. --haha169 (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're making a point that has been in my mind for awhile. That the negative criticism should not appear like it is coming from some fringe element. But on the other hand, the quotes are quite good in summarizing and expressing the feelings of the sociopolitical critics, in my opinion. Also, I think the negative comments should not be qualified by "conservative" any more than positive reviews by liberals should be characterized as coming from liberals. It doesn't seem like NPOV to do that because it prejudices the reader. One thing not mentioned yet is the pantheism aspect and I've had a discussion with Cinosaur and I have agreed on a sentence with him in a discussion here. I'm waiting for that editor to add it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. 03:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word "billion"

The US and the UK uses the short scale i.e. 1 billion = 1,000,000,000 whereas the majority of the world uses longscale i.e. 1 billion = 1,000,000,000,000. When using the term billion in terms of the worldwide gross I'm concerned that using short scale terminology violates WP:WORLDVIEW. The fact that's it's a UK backed US produced film is a valid point for using short scale for its domestic gross, but the majority of the worldwide gross accounts for long scale regions. To prevent potentially violating WP:WORLDVIEW I recommend not using the term "billion" and using its numerical equivalent i.e. 1,000,000,000 or 1000 million. At the moment we are using US and British terminology for information that mostly lies outside of those regions. Betty Logan (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

From WP:ORDINAL, "The named numbers, billion and trillion are understood to be short scale..." Also the numbers definitely should -not- be fully typed out. Doniago (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In short, we are speaking English - what national variety of English is long-scale now that British English is not? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that English is a second language in most countries so there will be many people from non English speaking countries who will misinterpret the semantics. Even in Britain the phrase causes confusion because while Britain offically uses short scale now, colloquially it still means a million million, especially to older generations. It seems the style guide is clear on this issue but it's unfortunate Wikipedia has opted to put itself in a position where its text can be easily misinterpreted when the ambiguity can easily be removed. Betty Logan (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Small correction

"Pandora, a fictional world in a distant planetary system"

I don't think that Alpha Centauri's, the closest planetary system there is, should be called "distant". Let's change it to "another" or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.181.225.250 (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

4.5 light years qualifies as "distant" in my book. DrNegative (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Then according to your book all planetary systems (other than our own) are distant, and so there is no need for the adjective at all. But I think the anon makes a valid point. In terms of planetary systems, this one would be close compared to all others, so I've adjusted the article. Ben (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your addition of Alpha Centauri worked well and it wasn't even discussed here. I agree with DrNegative. The planetary system is distant and it didn't say anything about in comparison to others, it's simply distant. If you would like to change it, please get consensus first. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You're not making any sense and you didn't give any rationale against the change. The word distant makes no sense in the previous version, let alone to say something "is simply distant", and I explained that above. If you disagree, explain why. Ben (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

26453814179326.24 Miles away = distant. The other planetary systems that you mentioned, assuming there are any in "this" work of fiction, are not even mentioned to contrast to your relative thinking of the term. DrNegative (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe you just gave me a number and told me that equals distant. What, pray tell, is the point at which something changes from being considered close and then to distant? When you realise that there is no answer to that question, then ask yourself what is the point in describing 'x' as 'y', if all 'x' satisfy 'y'? For example, do we bother to list in our apple article that all apples may be found on Earth? No? Why not? I'm sorry you got hung up on me mentioning other planetary systems, I only mentioned them in order to illustrate that question. Please don't get hung up on me mentioning apples now too. Now, finally, why is the "distant" version better than the version I suggested? You still haven't given a rationale. Ben (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you're thinking in terms of the language of logical rigor instead of the common use of the language. Also, if there were no adjective, "a planetary system" could include the solar system. If the adjective used was "another planetary system" some readers would not understand what the first planetary system was. "Distant planetary system" seems to work the best, in my opinion, and people in general would consider 4 light years distant, in comparison to distances that they are familiar with. And Alpha Centauri introduces a needless complication detail for some readers, which I don't think is appropriate for the lead, and I'm not sure that it was even mentioned in the movie. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As you took the liberty to illustrate your question, I only mentioned the number to illustrate my answer. In the end, it would be the mainstream view of the term that would fit best. Forgive me, I am no longer arguing over something so trivial. DrNegative (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(←) (ec) I am thinking in common use of the language, and the term "distant" is highly dependent on context. For example, I would say an atom is distant from another if one resides in this room and another next door, yet I would say two people are close if one is in this room and another is next door. We can go as "big" as you like: two countries are close if they are next to each other. In terms of planetary systems, a planetary system at AC would be the closest possible planetary system to us (next to us), so I wouldn't use the word distant, instead I would just specify the system and leave it at that. I do think your suggestion of 'another' would also be fine, but if you truly think this would confuse people, then simply mentioning AC is still my preference. Ben (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the ec, note AC added in my last message. Trying to write for a general audience when one is used to discussions with peers in a math/science discipline may sometimes be difficult. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record I do understand your logic Ben, I'm just trying to imply this term for the general reader. Take Star Wars for example, George Lucas says a galaxy "far, far away". But if that galaxy where Andromeda he was talking about for example, by your logic we shouldnt tell the reader that it was far away because it is the closest galaxy to the Milky Way, even though its many light years away. Thats all I was trying to imply. DrNegative (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob, personally I don't think mentioning AC is a needless complication, it's fairly well-known and there is a wikilink. Also, it avoids the issue of distance and it can't be picked on for being ambiguous. DrNegative, The Star Wars example is different since we're not told where the galaxy is. In this movie's case, we're told exactly what system the planet resides in, and it's the closest system not counting our own. Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also say 'distant' is a subjective word, and one that should be avoided. It could easily be re-written as "the closest planetary system to Earth", which actually makes more sense in the context of establishing a mining operation. Since the exact location is actually given, then the exact location should be used instead of a vague geographic term. Betty Logan (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem with 'distant' in this context. This adjective can be used both in describing relative remoteness of objects (A is distant and B is close), or by itself, as "far off or apart in space; not near at hand; remote or removed (often fol. by from): a distant place; a town three miles distant from here", which is incidentally its primary use according to Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. While some here prefer the former comparative reading, others read it as simply qualifying, which is its primary meaning. If you really want to be a perfectionist here, go for 'extrasolar planetary system': "Extrasolar - outside, or originating outside, the sun or the solar system" (WUD) However, IMO 'distant' is just as fine. And make no mistake about it -- 'Alpha Centauri' will get many more readers stuck than 'distant' Cinosaur (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well there isn't any problem with 'distant' but by the same token there isn't any problem with 'close' either, and there lies the problem. The scale you apply is entirely subjective, which I believe is the point Ben is making, and Wikipedia should endeavour not to use subjective terminology. Personally I can live with either but the objectors here are using subjective bias to over-rule someone who wants to make the location explicit which I don't agree with because it's not our place to re-interpret plot elements in the synopsis, just to relay them as accurately as possible. Betty Logan (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There does not appear to be a consensus for the change from "distant", so I have restored it. Please do not revert without consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And just out of curiosity, where did the notion that it was around Alpha Centauri come from? I don't remember that being mentioned in the film. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And BTW, Proxima Centauri is the closest star to the earth (other than the sun of course), and Alpha Centauri is two stars. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

http://news.discovery.com/space/avatars-pandora-could-be-a-reality.html ! Anyway, check out the video here: http://www.pandorapedia.com/doku.php I feel like this is something that was in the press releases, because I've been hearing that Polyphemus orbits aCen from the very beginning. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That link gives us a reliable third party source that Pandora is 5 light years away. This dispute should be wrapped up now, the exact distance should be incorporated into the text and the source included to validate the claim. That's how things are done on Wikipedia - through verifiable sourcing! Betty Logan (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Betty, Was Alpha Centauri mentioned in the film? There's all sorts of details that can be put in the lead, e.g. Alpha Centauri, but so far there isn't a consensus that it is a detail that should be there. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that neither Polyphemus nor aCen are mentioned in the film; Polyphemus is in the script, but its name is never stated by a character. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Pandora's specific location in the Alpha Centauri system is stated (among possibly other sources) in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBGDmin_38E from the official Avatar YouTube account (and was released a week before the film was). In addition, the significant reason for choosing Alpha Centauri is the very fact that it isn't "distant" when it comes to star systems. Its status as the most "nearby" star system serves to help suspend disbelief that travel there could occur in less than 150 years, as well as the fact that it's such a well known system among the public (specifically for the fact that it is near Earth). Removing the name of the specific system (of which the name takes up nearly identical screen space) and calling it "distant" is confusing and misleading. How is this supposed to make the article easier to read or understand? SlimX (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Re "the fact that it's such a well known system among the public" - Perhaps you think that the general public knows it because you have become familiar with it? I suspect that when Alpha Centauri appears in a news article it is usually explained what it is because the general public is not familiar it. Maybe Cameron didn't put Alpha Centauri in the script because he thought it is not a familiar name to most people. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I went looking for news articles in prominent newspapers, starting with The NY Times,[40] LA Times, [41] and found that when Alpha Centauri was mentioned it was explained. But then I found in the Boston Globe in an article about Avatar, "Set in the year 2154 on Pandora, a moon in the Alpha Centauri star system."[42] Looks a lot like the sentence in the article, if Alpha Centauri was there. So perhaps Alpha Centauri is OK. I think "distant" is OK too, but I'll be flexible on this if people strongly want Alpha Centauri. Also note that the Globe article didn't find a need to use "fictional Earth-like". --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I put the Globe sentence in the article with citation. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. Cheers, --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

References to New Zealand

Has anyone else noticed quite a few references to New Zealand within the film, no doubt due to the involvement of Weta Workshop? The forest in some parts resemble those found in New Zealand, although not quite so extreme obviously. Ferns and also the Home Tree bears a remarkable resemblence to NZ's Kauri Treet.

Also the two main characters share what looks like to me to be a Hongi, a traditional Maori greeting whereby noses are pressed together and a breath shared. In Maori folklore this shared breath changes the person from a visitor to a person of the land, and they become part of the land and responsible for its upkeep and protection. See Hongi on wiki for clairification, but this seems to fit very well with the overall themes of the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.233.80 (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can find reliable sources, any such edits would be original research. Woogee (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't those "reliable sources" be someone else's original research too?202.74.194.57 (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:RS. Woogee (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I lknow all about references and hence my thoughts appear in the discussion section and not the main article, i thought someone else may have heard it referenced? The things i'm talking about are present, i'm positive of that, but very subtle. unless you are a Kiwi you would miss them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.215.227 (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Then surely some NZ-based reliable source will have reported it? Woogee (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Home media section

I was reading Wikipedia guidelines here[43] and it seems they prefer to put info about deleted scenes in the Production section along with rationale as to why the scenes were deleted if I understand it correctly. Anyone else think we should move the info to Production and delete the Home media section? DrNegative (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I was reading the article earlier today and thinking roughly the same thing. To me, the inclusion of the "Home Media" section seems a little awkward. Trusilver 02:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead with it since no objections. DrNegative (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pandorapedia

(I thought I would copy a message of another editor and move my message from another section so as not to take the other section off topic. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC) )

http://news.discovery.com/space/avatars-pandora-could-be-a-reality.html ! Anyway, check out the video here: http://www.pandorapedia.com/doku.php I feel like this is something that was in the press releases, because I've been hearing that Polyphemus orbits aCen from the very beginning. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Good links! In the first one there was another link to an interview of Cameron which I thought was interesting. There were other videos on Avatar there too. Might be worth adding to External links if it isn't already there. Also, note that Pandorapedia is a wiki with this on its first page,

"Pandorapedia keeps on growing and we need your contributions to the site to help us out. Updated information of life on Pandora and other things related to Avatar. Please don't add any junk, spam, unrelated topics, etc."

But there was also this message there,

"ATTENTION PLEASE DO NOT ADD LINKS TO THIS PAGE BECAUSE THE PAGES CANNOT BE EDITED"

So I'm not sure what's going on over there. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The domain appears to be owned by fox, and the wiki looks to be official, but the source of the content is a mystery (I assume someone's transcribing info from the Activist's Guide book) AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Cameron mentioned the site favorably and seemed to be associated with it, in the video interview mentioned above. Maybe the film company tried to start a wiki but it got out of hand with vandalism etc. [never heard of that ever happening : ) ...] so they cut off public access to editing it. Just a guess. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Avatar (film)

Comments on a proper redirect are needed here. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 21:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have changed that redirect to point to this article, explaining my reasons at Talk:Avatar (film). I invite you to discuss the change on that talk page. See also the above requested move discussion. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 21:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Na'vi article should be redirected to Fictional universe in Avatar or not?

I feel that the Na'vi article should be redirected to the Fictional universe in Avatar article, to its Na'vi section. The Na'vi article is nothing but the same information found in the Fictional universe in Avatar article. If information about the Na'vi becomes too long, then it can have its own article. I would go ahead and redirect this myself, but it is currently being watched by an editor who might object. Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You probably want to follow the merge process, if you suspect opposition. See WP:MERGE for help with that. Talk:Na'vi and Talk:Fictional universe in Avatar are probably better places for such discussion. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 22:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought about taking this to the Talk:Fictional universe in Avatar page, but I felt that I would get more responses here. And Talk:Na'vi currently has no discussions, and I most certainly felt that I would not get many replies there...if any. Flyer22 (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I was about to ask if you were proposing a full out merge or a simple redirect. It looked like it was simply copy and pasted from the (Fictional universe in Avatar) article to me and this new one was created as a daughter of the daughter article. DrNegative (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I was speaking of a simple redirect; that is all it needs, in my view, for the same reasons stated by the both of us. Flyer22 (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What BFizz just said. I don't think you are going to see any meaningful opposition to the move, but it's not a bad idea just to cover all the bases anyway. Trusilver 23:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking of just redirecting it. I do not see what valid argument can be given for this article existing. Flyer22 (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I did invite the main editor currently looking after that article to weigh in here, though. Flyer22 (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Biased statements

The third paragraph of the entry reads: "Opening to critical acclaim and ...". This is biased. The film is regarded by many reviewers around the world as average and below. This entry should not be used as a commercial for the film. Tom Peleg (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics, which is an aggregate of the most notable film critics from all forms of media, Avatar has a 94% positive review. What exactly would you consider an appropriate threshold to call something "critically acclaimed?" 94% positive reviews sounds pretty damned critically acclaimed to me. Trusilver 17:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Tomatoes gathers only English speaking reviews, and thus is not universally representative. Moreover, there seems to be a consensus among reviewers that the movie has major faults, that it is an average movie, except to its technological merits. These technological merits are almost the sole aspect for the positive reviews (as stated by reviewers themselves). No reviewers I know of has declared the movie as being an artistic achievement. This should be represented in the entry. As it stands now, the entry feels like a commercial.Tom Peleg (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to be asinine, but isn't this the English wikipedia? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 22:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

T-meter critics give it: 83% only. Somewhat representative critical claim: "Breaks technological ground with stunning visuals, but disappoints on story and characters - which still do matter". I don't see that the entry represents this major line of criticism. Tom Peleg (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No, RT's top critics index gives it a 94%, that is the most notable film critics. The 83% is the standard aggregate, the one that anyone who is a published film critic can be in, regardless of whether or not they write for something like the "Lower Southeast BFE Kansas Village Herald" or any other such publication that a total of like eight people read. Regardless, even a 75% of those critics still sounds critically acclaimed to me, that's meaning 3/4ths of reviewers are positive about the movie. What part of the words "critical" and "acclaim" are there alternate definitions for that I'm unaware of? As for outside the country, cite a source and we will talk. Trusilver 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Tomatoes is local to US. Hence, it is not reliable for that matter. There might be other standards in and outside US.

2. Even if Tomatoes was universal, percentage average is not sufficient to say it is "critically acclaim". One has to go deeper. The term "critically acclaim", is not defined, neither represents, some average. We are not discussing here theories of art, but Tomatoes is not sufficient for the general term "critically accaimmed". The farthest you can go with it is by saying, instead of "critically acclaimed", that "Rotten Tomatoes gives it 94% in its top-critic rating", or something of the sort.

3. You did not answer the problem I mentioned before: there seems to be a consensus among reviewers that the movie has major faults, that it is an average movie, except to its technological merits. These technological merits are almost the sole aspect for the positive reviews (as stated by reviewers themselves). No reviewers I know of has declared the movie as being an artistic achievement. This should be represented in the entry. As it stands now, the entry feels like a commercial.Tom Peleg (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The use of Rotten Tomatoes is universally accepted on Wikipedia as a benchmark for film reviews. If you have a problem with this, I suggest you take your grievance to WP:FILM. But that aside, what you are essentially saying is that a film is not "critically acclaimed" if there is any problem anyone has with the film whatsoever, which is a profoundly ridiculous suggestion. That would make NO movie critically acclaimed. At least two top tier reviews have said something to the tune of "I felt like I did walking out of Star Wars." So... that's not a declaration of artistic achievement? I'd like to hear the opinions of others on this, because you are basically saying we need to recognize your rather questionable definition of what "critically acclaimed" means. So I will wait for others to chime in on this before any further discussion. Trusilver 20:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Comparison to Star Wars is certainly not a declaration of artistic achievement. There is a consensus that Star Wars was an important event in the history of cinema for several reasons; Mainly its being a precursor of the "block-busters" phenomena, and as a phenomena of popular culture. But it is far from consensus to claim it is regarded either as high art, or as even "good" art.Tom Peleg (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with what Trusilver has to say. The film has been acclaimed by Roger Ebert, a veteran film critic, Rotten Tomatoes, a website that consolidates various film critic's scores, Metacritic, the New York Times, and countless other national and international sources. For you to state that Avatar has not been "critically acclaimed" is completely ridiculous. Moreover, your lack of providing sufficient evidence to defend you opinion is what makes me not believe your argument. BalticPat22Patrick 21:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You can simply check the Tomatoes critics: there is a consensus that the movie lacks in important artistic aspects (like plot). The high grades are given almost solely to its technological merits. Claims for "critical acclaim" is thus misleading.Tom Peleg (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Trusilver. With a huge majority of critics giving it a positive review, you cant take away the consensus simply because of the opinions of a very small minority. The film itself is actually doing better worldwide than in the US on the matter of your bias towards a US review site. I would love to see a collection of "notable" sources from foriegn countries that says this move fails artisticly. DrNegative (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing between critical acclaim and the financial success of a film. These are pretty independent issues.Tom Peleg (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonetheless, Wikipedia film article policy recommends [44] that a film should receive its consensus from critics of that film's country of origin, in this case, the US - (Rotten Tomatoes, MetaCritic, etc.) With greater than 80% on RT, it becomes self-evident that the film is critically acclaimed because over 8 out of 10 notable critics gave the film a positive review.DrNegative (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom Peleg, in the Critical reception section, we clearly note the general consensus among the Rotten Tomatoes reviewers: "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."

We are not hiding anything; it is just that statement does not belong in the lead (intro). Flyer22 (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom has a valid point in that Rotten Tomatoes isn't universally representative, but then no source is. Being "universally representative" isn't a criteria for being a reliable source, it just has to be accepted as a valid source for a recognised body of opinion. If Tom can provide us with reliable sources for critique beyond the English language then that is the way to make it more neutral, not removing sources. Betty Logan (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a reliable source for what it is: not of being "critically acclaimed", rather of averaging the grades given to a film by some top critics in the US. Nothing more. Thus, it should be written as what it is, and not as the somewhat speculative term "critically acclaimed". Tom Peleg (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Critical acclaim" does sound like a biased statement, whatever the extent of such acclaim ; it is not necessary to making a good article, and the overwhelming box office figures probably tell more about what the movie is. If you have a look at Titanic (1997 film), which definitely is in the same league in terms of encyclopedic content, you can see that a) there is no mention of critical acclaim in the lead, and b) the amount grossed is plainly, and shortly, stated. The Critical Reception paragraph is quite enough for the reader who might want to read about it, including the tomatometer ; keeping "acclaim" in the lead does not carry useful info, and essentially fuels criticism towards the article.--Environnement2100 (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Update the total worldwide gross numbers in side panel and Reception subsection

I have noticed that the worldwide gross totals for Avatar have need been regularly updated; this is occurring in the tab at the side, and in the reception subsection. I am requesting a {{editsemiprotected}}, so the totals can be edited to the correct amount.

Specifically:

Gross revenue $1,331,140,000[3][4]

Should be changed to: $1,335,040,297 (according to "The Numbers", although BoxOfficeMojo has the above numbers.

Secondly:

After only 22 days of being released, Avatar has grossed $380 million in the United States and Canada and $782 million in other territories with a worldwide total of $1.162 billion.[3][4

change to:

After only 22 days of being released, Avatar has grossed $380 million in the United States and Canada and $782 million in other territories with a worldwide total of $1.331 or 1.335 billion.[3][4]

Avatar has been on release a different number of days domestically and internationally since its worldwide release was 2 days earlier than its US release. There is no point updating to The Numbers gross because it means changing the reference and Box Office Mojo will be updated soon and the gross in teh article will be updated when it does. Betty Logan (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I'm personally going to wait until Monday to update it, that's when Box Office Mojo will update. Like Betty said, there's no point (right now) to switch the refs from one site to another. Wait and see what BOM says. With that said, BOM sometimes is slow about releasing foreign figures, but with Avatar, they've been updating really fast. —Mike Allen 19:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirect?

Shouldn't this be at avatar while that hindu thing is redirected to off a disambiguation page? I think more people have seen Avatar than are Hindu now, and it's probably more influential on modern culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.183.26 (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There was a requested move less than a month at the Avatar page with no consensus to move. I doubt there has been any significant change.--76.69.170.30 (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Origins of the name Eywa

I was just thinking that Eywa sounds a lot like Yahweh (YHWH) backwards. Does anyone know if James Cameron did this on purpose? Perhaps it could be relevant to include in the article if so. Drewry (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we think. If you can source it it can go in. If you can't, it doesn't. Betty Logan (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Only #3-5 in per-screen average

It might be notable that Avatar is only third in domestic gross when it comes to per-screen average. As soon as The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus was released on December 25th, it totally hit Avatar out of the ballpark when it comes to per-screen average, grossing roughly 150% of Avatar's average (source: [45]), and in its second week Parnassus has been able to expand its grosses even further, staying at the top of per-screen average when Avatar has already dropped to #5.[46] I guess it goes to show Terry Gilliam's films only need proper promotion and release, and they'll easily be in the $100-160 million revenue range as were 12 Monkeys and The Brothers Grimm (provided their original budget is any bigger than Tideland, of course). --79.193.27.76 (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your links show Avatar in 3461 theaters and The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus in only 4 theaters. The 4 are in New York City and Los Angeles with millions of inhabitants per theater so it's a meaningless comparison for this article. The second in per theater gross is in 2 theaters, and the last two to "beat" Avatar in one of the weeks were both in 3 theaters. I don't think these extremely limited releases of unrelated films should be mentioned in an article about Avatar. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's exactly why I've been mentioning "proper release". Billions of people have access to Avatar, and yet it's dropping further and further, while Parnassus keeps rising even though access to it is so limited. Seems like the novelty of animated 3D is wearing off quite fast in spite of the millions burnt on hyping a 3D projection and polarized glasses technique that was around 15 years ago at places such as Universal Studios and other theme parks. --79.193.43.154 (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Avatar had the biggest 2nd weekend and biggest 3rd weekend ever according to http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/#weekends so it's a weird way to describe it. Every studio executive in the world would be thrilled to have a film with "the novelty wearing off quite fast" like that. I'll bet it also sets a 4th weekend record this weekend. With a tiny 4 theater opening there are many factors playing in and it may not mean much whether you increase by 2% in the second weekend like Parnassus. Let's see how it does in wide release. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Novelty of animated 3D is wearing of??? Yeah, that tends to happen to movies when they make 1.3 billion dollars in 4 weeks, with high chances of making much much more. And yeah, Primehunter, you guessed right, Avatar just got the highest 4th weekend in cinema history. On topic, no need to put that in, considering that the only reason "Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" has a high per screen average is due to its small number of theaters in heavily populated areas. Obviously a theater in North Dakota in Avatar's 4th week will have smaller viewings per screen.Dtnoip28 (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The numbers from the first weekend with wider release of Parnassus are in.[47] It made merely $1,550,236 in 552 theaters for an average of $2,808. It was the 4th weekend for Avatar which made $50,306,217 in 3,422 theaters with average $14,701. The former 4th weekend record was Titanic with $28,716,310.[48] PrimeHunter (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

GA nomination?

In my opinion, this article is GA status and is worthy of a GA nomination at its current state. Is there any reason why we shouldn't go ahead and move forward with it? Consensus? DrNegative (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support here. Trusilver 22:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Wait. It is of GA status, but there is still new information being added and is not yet completely stable. Box Office results are still coming in, new sections are added to this talk page everyday, and the Golden Globes/Oscars are generating more interest as the weeks wear on. Stability at this moment seems to be the only issue. --haha169 (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Box office results will be coming in for five more months still, and if we wait on the award nominations, then logic stands to wait for the rewards as well. I see no reason to do either if the article is capable of holding its own as GA as it is currently written. It is FAR more stable than it was the last time it was suggested that it go for GA. Trusilver 03:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see how its stability is any different than when I suggested it for GA, but I am for it (as you know, LOL). Flyer22 (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's seeing an average of 50 edits a day now, instead of 200 a day like it was when you last suggested it. Also, the changes now tend to be minor tweaks rather than the major substantive changes it was seeing two weeks ago, when the plot section would be completely rewritten every day. Trusilver 06:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• For: Per nom. Also, this article IS stable. I don't see much, if any, vandalism or reverts going on. All I see is editors adding new information and improving the article. No it's not "unstable". —Mike Allen 06:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead with the nomination. They have a huge

backlog so it could be several weeks before its reviewed, but its on the list nonetheless. DrNegative (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

By the time it gets a GA review, the article will be at FA status. LOL. :P —Mike Allen 07:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Nay: While it isn't bad, itseems to be largely popular only due to the common obsession with the movie. I feel that it's really only average. 167.128.58.153 (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversy Section Proposal

Not that I wish to give credence to such claims as I find them ludicrous but in order to respect and observe a lack of bias in the article, should it not make mention of some of the controversies that have cropped up lately with regards to the film and James Cameron, such as the claims of White Guilt and direct assertions of racism towards James Cameron? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 22:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In any case, use good judgement and keep in mind WP:UNDUE. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

We tend to avoid sections dedicated to controversies as a whole, see WP:STRUCTURE, if the sources are notable and reliable, try implementing them in a proper section within the article as a whole thats satifies WP:UNDUE as Bob stated. DrNegative (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems a wholly reasonable stance. With that in mind as it has primarily been an issue raised among bloggers and not really among the mainstream media, therefore it can be assumed that it has not reached a quite significant status, I will not create this section. If someone else wishes to or should this ever change in the future, feel free. Thanks. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 02:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The white guilt claim should probably be mentioned because a ton of critics have been picking up on it, it's provoked a notable degree of controversy, and it's a really obvious subtext besides. Cram it in under reception.--70.75.183.26 (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed category rename

It has been proposed to rename Category:Avatar (film) to Category:Avatar (2009 film). The discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 12#Category:Avatar (film). PrimeHunter (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

---

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)

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 don't see any problem as long as a hatnote is provided on the 2004 article. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 00:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NCF. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• Support. Personally, I've never even heard of the 2004 film, and after looking at the article, it seems to reference "Avatar Exile" as a name - not purely "Avatar." -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 00:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

• Comment: I don't really see any problem with keeping the current name or moving it.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

• Strong Support: Per nom. —Mike Allen 00:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per Eric's argument and WP:PROMINENCE. —Mike Allen 03:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• Not yet Of course it got plenty of hits; it's currently in theaters - and people do use us like IMDB. But that's presentism; in five years it may be down to the level of the 2004 film. Wait at least until it's not in current release. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Using the pageviews argument at anytime is flawed, but it especially shouldn't be used here. Of coarse this article will get far more views, the movie just came out less than 3 weeks ago and became the fastest movie to $1 billion worldwide. TJ Spyke 01:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Station1's flawed argument. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies to Avatar versus Avatar (2009 film); surely we are not discussing moving Avatar (2009 film) to Avatar and Avatar to Avatar (Hindu term). The film article is getting more attention than the article about the Hindu term because it is a blockbuster film currently. There is no point in moving Avatar (2009 film) to Avatar (film) -- both articles are disambiguated regardless. WP:NCF#Between films of the same name indicates zero criteria of popularity or importance when comparing the films that already have disambiguated titles because of a preexisting primary topic. People are already finding their way to this film article without issue; removing the release year does nothing helpful. Erik (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Please see Discussion section below. Station1 (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• 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)
• Oppose - According to guideline mentioned above: Wikipedia:NCF#Between_films_of_the_same_name. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

Shouldn't presume everyone is looking for the 2009 film. Bdelisle (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• Comment: What about simply changing Avatar (film) to redirect to Avatar (2009 film) and change the hatnote to Avatar (disambiguation)#Film (where Avatar (film) currently points)? This way naming conventions are followed, yet the obvious redirect is preserved. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 04:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)That isn't a natural redirect, letting the reader choose which article they wish to read from the disambiguation page makes more sense in my mind. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 05:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, that would be fine. Station1 (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with B Fizz on this. Since the vast majorty of readers are looking for this film article anyway, the minority would only be a hatnote away. DrNegative (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the current setup is much more encyclopaedic. This isn't the only film by this name, and isn't the only Avatar in film. There are several more that should actually be added. Better to leave it pointed to the disambiguation page than redirecting to a specific title. Canterbury Tail talk 15:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Comment: I have today created a disambiguation category at Category:Avatar and a category about the 2009 film at Category:Avatar (film). This does not express an opinion in or circumvent this requested article move. Avatar (2004 film) is unlikely to get a category and Cameron's film may get sequels so "Category:Avatar (film)" seemed like a reasonable name for a category (although I wonder whether a category was premature at this point). PrimeHunter (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

I think that's a fair observation to incorporate into the article. Betty Logan (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That is already noted in the Performance analysis section. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Performance analysis

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

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)

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)

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. [49], [50] His concern was supported by Nevada Clergy Association, [51] Rabbi Jonathan B.Freirich, a Jewish leader in Nevada and California [52] and Satnarayan Maharaj, a Hindu leader in Trinidad and Tobago. [53] However, some other Hindu followers in US considered the film as elucidating on the actual meaning of 'Avatar' rather than sacrilegious. [54] 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. [55]

Ross Douthat of New York Times called the film “the Gospel According to James” of “Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism” incompatible with Christianity. [56] 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", [57] emphasized the film's thematic elements deemed objectionable by Christians, [58] and suggested that Christian viewers interpret the film as a reminder of Jesus Christ as "the True Avatar". [59]

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, [60] with the use of 'Avatar', "one of the central themes of Hinduism", as the film's title and asked J.Cameron for a disclaimer. [61], [62], [63] 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. [64]

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 [65] — a view shared by some other Christian critics. [66], [67]

...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)

Trusilver, point well taken. See if you like the above on Hindu views. Cinosaur (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

...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)

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)

<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)

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)

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." [68]

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

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." [69]

What do you think? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

'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." [70]

What do you think? Cinosaur (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Cinosaur (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

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." [71]

"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)

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)

 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)

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. [72]
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 [73]
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, [74], 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". [75] 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." [76]. 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. [77]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[78] 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)

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)

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)

(←) 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)

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:

• "Hinduism offensive Avatar Cameron" -- 1,240,000
• "Hinduism offensive Avatar Cameron -Rajan -Zed" -- 117,000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinosaur (talk • contribs) 05:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• "Hinduism controversy Avatar Cameron" -- 216,000
• "Hinduism controversy Avatar Cameron -Rajan -Zed" -- 185,000
• "Hindus offensive Avatar Cameron" -- 167,000
• "Hindus offensive Avatar Cameron -Rajan -Zed" -- 140,000
• "Hindus concerned Avatar Cameron" -- 154,000
• "Hindus concerned Avatar Cameron -Rajan -Zed" -- 128,000
• "Hindus disclaimer Avatar Cameron" -- 62,800
• "Hindus disclaimer Avatar Cameron -Rajan -Zed" -- 57,800
• "Hindus offended Avatar Cameron -- 36,400
• "Hindus offended Avatar Cameron -Rajan -Zed" -- 33,800

What do we conclude then? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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". [79] 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." [80]. A Hindustan Times’review said that while 'Avatar' is "a downright misnomer" for the film, its message is consistent with the Bhagavad Gita. [81]

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)

WP:DEADHORSE --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

<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)

Yeah it seems your right. I need to stop coming back to beat the poor thing. ;) DrNegative (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. [82]

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

There is a way to speed up MiszaBot for specific talk pages. Flyer22 (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed it down to make it a little more manageable. Trusilver 08:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

God bless you. —Mike Allen 22:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

4 days may be too long. The talk page is rapidly becoming crowded again. --haha169 (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The wrong archive number was caused by an incorrect counter = 4 in [83]. 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 [84] but had another name some of the time. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

There is this tidbit from Entertainment Weekly, commenting on a sequel.[85] -FeralDruid (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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."[86] --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 03:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

May the Source be with you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

Are you suggesting a separate article, or expanding this article? Trusilver 19:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Read the "GA nomination?" category within the talk headers. Consensus was reached. DrNegative (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Doesn't matter, because it won't catch Titanic - its drop-offs are too large! Betty Logan (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.[87] All time domestic, Avatar is seventh, the Dark Knight is second.[88]

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)

IP, please read Wikipedia:No original research. DrNegative (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

• "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.[89]
• "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.[90]

Who knows? 158.70.145.156 (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

(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)

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)

The above comments were helpful. I made a corresponding edit to be in accord with source and added a wikilink to explain "domestically".[91] --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

<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)

How about this,

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Do you need a reminder to stay civil, per WP:CIVIL? Flyer22 (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Edited. Yuna-chan (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Nice thanks for that. On a side note... I might pickup that book. Jcobb86 (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

 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)

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)

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

Is Avatar an original story?

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

The movie premise does include almost _every_ Furry [Fandom] fiction Trope in existence... --203.14.156.193 (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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).

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)

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)

I'll just leave this here... --89.27.15.232 (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [92]. 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)

Is this the excerpt from your reference[93] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

P.S. Does the Russian Wikipedia have a policy that is similar to WP:NOR? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

That is just original research. Feel free to post it on a blog! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 15:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

Haha, wow. That is very interesting. --haha169 (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone added it to the article. But the question is, should it be in the article? —Mike Allen 04:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I did not say that it was not notable. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(←)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)

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)

Part of a new section/subarticle on cultural impact? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You're right. It was Paul Frommer. You're welcome to make the appropriate correction. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

See more on the Na'vi language development here, from Cameron's own mouth. Cinosaur (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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: [94] The flying dragon is in Avatar - see here: [95] The floating rocks are in Avatar - see here: [96] and here: [97] You can see more of his ideas here: [98] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [99] with "What the world is saying about Avatar". If you just simply google avatar+roger+dean [100] 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. [101] ArtistsUK also think Roger Deans should claim rights. [102] 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)

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)

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)

I quote Avatar-designer Dylan Cole [103]: "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. [104] Even wikipedia itsself has an entry on that: [105] 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. [106] [107] 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)

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)

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." Bolivian President Evo Morales praised Avatar for its "profound show of resistance to capitalism and the struggle for the defence of nature". 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." 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. 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." 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”.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What is "extremely" reputable? We only go by reliably sourced, reputable, and non-reliable. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I haven't seen anyone yet that seems opposed to splitting the article. Trusilver 20:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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." 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I concur. How do we move ahead, though? Cinosaur (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

Nope, and I have no idea how to proceed about it. What would you DrNegative suggest? Cinosaur (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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[108] - 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?[109] 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)

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)

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. Among Rotten Tomatoes's Top Critics, which consists of popular and notable critics from the top newspapers, websites, television and radio programs, the film holds an overall approval rating of 94%, based on a sample of 35 reviews. 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." 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.

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". 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". 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." 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. 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." 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." Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times felt the film has "powerful" visual accomplishments but "flat dialogue" and "obvious characterization". 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."

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?"

Plot similarities

In terms of similar plot, film critic Ty Burr of the Boston Globe called it "the same movie" as Dances with Wolves. 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. Other reviews have compared it to the films FernGully: The Last Rainforest and Pocahontas. 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. 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". 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.

Thematic reviews

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

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. 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." 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". 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. 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". 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." Bolivian President Evo Morales praised Avatar for its "profound show of resistance to capitalism and the struggle for the defence of nature". 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." 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. 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." 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”.

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".

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. 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. St. Louis Film Critics have nominated the film for two of its annual awards—Best Visual Effects and Most Original, Innovative or Creative Film, and the film won both awards. The film was a runner-up for the best Production Design award of the Los Angeles Film Critics Association annual awards. 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. 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, while Chicago Film Critics Association has nominated the film for its annual Best Cinematography and Best Original Score awards. The Las Vegas Film Critics Society has awarded the film with Best Art Direction award, and the Florida Film Critics Circle honored the film with Best Cinematography award. London Film Critics' Circle has nominated the film for its Film of the Year and Director of the Year annual awards. 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. The Online Film Critics Society has nominated the film for Best Director, Best Cinematography and Best Editing awards. 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. 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. 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.

Opinions, corrections?

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

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• I don't believe that shoehorning all of this material into one "reception" section is productive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have to confess ignorance. Could you clarify what you mean by "Avatar template"? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

Well, bugger, I've done it. If it gets deleted, whatever. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Link is here. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a good looking template. DrNegative (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. That's only my second constructed. ^.^ --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

Maybe. I'll think about it. Consensus? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Template has been nominated for deletion here. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I just thought it brought an interesting new angle to the story. Betty Logan (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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.

Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Same reason. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

...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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 lean 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, which reviewers traced to blue-colored Vishnu , and his avatars Rama and Krishna.

Please let me know if you have any further comments on the wording and references. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

I agree with this change because this is how the Na'vi viewed it. DrNegative (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

I'm for it. So we leave the Grace part as "soul" in quotation marks? Flyer22 (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

Yep.  Done Cinosaur (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

It would be a reliable source vs wikipedia editors' opinion. Hmmmm, which should we choose? --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

Criticism - the Vatican?

Should we include information about criticism from the Vatican, particularly about the environmental message[110][111], in the article? ~AH1^(TCU) 01:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Post-Avatar Depression

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)