Talk:The Last Airbender (film): Difference between revisions
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
{{Television|class=Start|importance=Low|avatar=yes|avatar-importance=Mid}} |
{{Television|class=Start|importance=Low|avatar=yes|avatar-importance=Mid}} |
||
}} |
}} |
||
== Dragon == |
|||
Who is the dragon in the trailer, and who provides his voice? Is this a major character and should it be listed as such? [[Special:Contributions/75.89.129.153|75.89.129.153]] ([[User talk:75.89.129.153|talk]]) 20:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Sources dump from the AfD == |
== Sources dump from the AfD == |
Revision as of 20:03, 1 May 2010
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 10, 2009. |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Dragon
Who is the dragon in the trailer, and who provides his voice? Is this a major character and should it be listed as such? 75.89.129.153 (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Sources dump from the AfD
Slash Film, First Showing, Film School Rejects, Mania.com, Entertainment Weekly, Variety, All Headline News, Movie Web, Empire Online, Ain't It Cool, Collider, io9.com, M. Night fans, Coming Soon
- Steve (talk · contribs) originally compiled all of this[1]. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 00:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Fresh Start
I think we should merge this article into a bigger one with the sources we've got. So, I going to make some edit on it.
World Cinema Writer (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
There were some good edits in the mass revert I recently did, but there were way too many problems to keep it as it was. -Dylan0513 (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not really; just indiscrimance, outdated filming info and a cut-and-pasted character description. Alientraveller (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Lest we forget, but World Cinema Writer probably will, IMDB is not a reliable source. Alientraveller (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Let's focus on the content and not the contributor. I support the current revision, and I agree with AT that we should not cite IMDb in Wikipedia articles. Dylan, what edits do you think we can incorporate into this revision? —Erik (talk • contrib) 11:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Lest we forget, but World Cinema Writer probably will, IMDB is not a reliable source. Alientraveller (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I reverted WCW's restoration of his draft. I agree with a lot of the edits, and I think we should all discuss what items are worth including. Here are some to discuss:
- Unnecessary to have a hatnote to Avatar (film) at this point; there will not be any confusion from this point on
- Infobox edits use too many captions and uses flag icons unnecessarily
- Lead section is too long and not a true summary of the article body, but we can work on summarizing details
- "Premise" section is uncited
- "Company credits" has no precedent, and IMDb should not be cited anyway
- ComingSoon.net and Avatar Wikia are not valid ELs per WP:ELNO
- Feel free to share your thoughts. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Now some IP reverted back to WCW's version. There is no reason to completely revert back to a lousy version of the article because it gives the whole controversy a section when it is already there. Alientraveller (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I reverted WCW's restoration of his draft. I agree with a lot of the edits, and I think we should all discuss what items are worth including. Here are some to discuss:
← Please don't follow a blind revert after an explained revert with script-assisted formatting. The script assistance is useful but cannot be easily separated from the blind revert. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I am confused by NuclearWarfare's edits. He restored a lengthy lead section and marked it as too long. He replaced a cited "Premise" section with an uncited one, then marked that section uncited. He also restored an inappropriate non-free image that illustrates nothing in particular. Can someone please explain? —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I noted your revert, and somehow missed the discussion here. I have partially undone your revert to include some of the useful information that I could find. When I hit "Show preview" for this edit, I saw that Erik had asked about several issues, so here we go:
- "You restored a lengthy lead section and marked it as too long" - The removal of the information in the lead deleted a lot of useful information and made it too short. Better to have a long one and cut it from there rather than "stubbifying" it and building up from there.
- "You removed spacing from {{Infobox Film}} so the fields don't line up as easily" - This has actually been common practice for a while now, though I can't think of the exact policy location right now.
- "You replaced a cited "Premise" section with an uncited one." - I readded the reference. This way also explains a bit about the TV Series, which we know this is based on (and which is now cited).
- "You restored an inappropriate non-free image" - The image could conceivably be used, but you are probably right on this one. Removed.
- "let's discuss each item at Talk:The Last Airbender#Fresh Start." - Sure! I was a bit hasty and made quite a few errors, but I'm always willing to discuss. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I trimmed the lead back, but mentioned the director. As far as I'm concerned the article is too short to warrant a proper lead summary. All your revert did was go back to WCW's lousy edition and then you tried manually cleaning it. Alientraveller (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Having a short article is no reason to merit not include a proper lead; source-able information is much better than aesthetics. I have cut the lead about in half from WCW's version; that should be good. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I did more further trimming, some unnecessary links and so on. Would it be a good idea to merge Premise with the lead? Alientraveller (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Your edits were great, thanks. As for your question: interestingly, no. Even though it seems like a waste of time to just duplicate the material like that, the lead should attempt to summarize the entire article, and anything mentioned there should probably also be mentioned later on (per WP:LEAD). NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yet this article is a small one about an upcoming film we know a little about. Surely WP:LEAD applies to a large comprehensive article requiring an epitome? Alientraveller (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- The main part about the extended lead is to "summarize...an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." That would apply to all articles, really. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like a solid revision now! I guess we had two different ways of cleaning up... one side expanding from a skeletal version and the other trimming down from a bloated version. Have we found the middle of the road here? Anything else that needs to be covered? I'm not attached to this film, but I'm happy to collaborate with style and content. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have no real problems with the article now; I hope Alientraveller is the same :) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like a solid revision now! I guess we had two different ways of cleaning up... one side expanding from a skeletal version and the other trimming down from a bloated version. Have we found the middle of the road here? Anything else that needs to be covered? I'm not attached to this film, but I'm happy to collaborate with style and content. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- The main part about the extended lead is to "summarize...an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." That would apply to all articles, really. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yet this article is a small one about an upcoming film we know a little about. Surely WP:LEAD applies to a large comprehensive article requiring an epitome? Alientraveller (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Your edits were great, thanks. As for your question: interestingly, no. Even though it seems like a waste of time to just duplicate the material like that, the lead should attempt to summarize the entire article, and anything mentioned there should probably also be mentioned later on (per WP:LEAD). NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I did more further trimming, some unnecessary links and so on. Would it be a good idea to merge Premise with the lead? Alientraveller (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Having a short article is no reason to merit not include a proper lead; source-able information is much better than aesthetics. I have cut the lead about in half from WCW's version; that should be good. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing's perfect, everything can be improved. ;) Alientraveller (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- [citation needed] Are you implying that my work is not perfect!? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like we're good then. Also, does this article qualify as a 'Future' or 'Start' class article? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
We have a new party in ChaosMaster16 (talk · contribs). Look, reverting back to an old lead with unnecessary praise for the cartoon, cites and and old casting section is not how we do things, ok? Alientraveller (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that there should not be praise for the cartoon, and the "Cast" section serves as a good place for all information related to casting. The quote from the cast member is not at all helpful, either. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have made a comprimise: I deleted my "praise" for the series and moved casting to the cast section. I also deleted the quote box. Also, if you choose to edit the article, please just keep the cast section with the details about the cast and the alternate names. I will try on making the lead sound more professional and use less opinions.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
Budget?
I seem to recall reading that a budget for the film was mentioned somewhere but I can't recall where I read it. Since I've seen it in other film boxes I think we should add it here. Skyrocket 16:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- This (from Sermitsiaq) says "an estimated $250 million"? That sounds pretty outrageous. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, The Hollywood Reporter reported the same figure. Guess we can include it...? I'm still kind of shocked at the size of the investment. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, uh wow. To quote Michael Bay, "I don't even know how you spend that much money!" But anyway, implemented. Alientraveller (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Should not edit and comment simultaneously. The link doesn't work mate. Alientraveller (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strange, it works for me. I incorporated it. See screenshot. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- D'oh! $250 million for the whole trilogy... now that makes sense. Um, so how do we reconcile this? —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe we could just say "estimated for film trilogy" for now. Skyrocket (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think I covered it in this edit. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe we could just say "estimated for film trilogy" for now. Skyrocket (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- D'oh! $250 million for the whole trilogy... now that makes sense. Um, so how do we reconcile this? —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strange, it works for me. I incorporated it. See screenshot. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Should not edit and comment simultaneously. The link doesn't work mate. Alientraveller (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, uh wow. To quote Michael Bay, "I don't even know how you spend that much money!" But anyway, implemented. Alientraveller (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, The Hollywood Reporter reported the same figure. Guess we can include it...? I'm still kind of shocked at the size of the investment. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Distributed By?
Is it Paramount, MTV or Nick Films that will be distributing this film? I'm assuming Paramount but I don't think I've seen that for sure anywhere.Skyrocket (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Paramount distributes its own films. Alientraveller (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- All three companies will have a say in marketing, distributing, and prodicing The Last Airbender. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
Lead Section
I am pretty sure the edit now encompasses the whole article. Mabey just add a sentence or two in it, but we don't need to say the stars two times in the lead and two times in the article, one time in the lead and two times in the article is fine. What do you guys think? Please respond BEFORE editing.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
- Nevermind, I reverted it back to the other way.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
Linking Jessica Andres
In the cast section, should there be an red link to Jessica Andres or should it be bolded, as in Jessica Andres? ChaosMaster16 has been changing it to bold in his last three edits, and I don't really want to start/continue the edit war. Garyzx (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- WP:REDLINK. Alientraveller (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- QUOTE: Avoiding creation of certain types of red links
Do not create red links to articles that will never be created, including articles that do not comply with Wikipedia's naming conventions. Note that the illustrative red link created at the beginning of this article is an example of this type of normally-unwanted link. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
Trailer
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/04/28/the-last-airbender-teaser-trailer-attached-to-transformers-2/
Not sure where to put this or even if it belongs in the article. -Dylan0513 (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Cast
In the introduction it says that the film will be headed by M. Night Shyamalan and then goes on to state some of the people who will star in the film (incorrectly - it says dev patel will play three charecters). Should some of the charecters be listed in the intro when the cast list is just below? Beazermyst (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Everything is fine. The introduction is how it is supposed to be. Thank you for your comment though.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
- That's rude. Why don't you tell them why it's fine as is? -Dylan0513 (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- What about Dev Patel playing 3 or 4 charecters of which I think two are girls (in the intro)? Beazermyst (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- The sentence lists the actors, then the characters they are playing, and then says respectively at the end. The sentence does make sense, but if more people find it too confusing it should be changed. -Dylan0513 (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh I see it now. Yes, I found it confusing thinking he played the four. It makes sense but is there a better way to word it? Beazermyst (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, excuse me and my noobyness. I have looked around and seen that 'respectivly' is the standard on wikipedia. But does respectivly still work with a list of so many names? (not that 4 is a lot) But lots of names and trying to count through the list with a lot of names can get confusing. Beazermyst (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. Suggest an alternate way of saying it and if people agree it'll get changed. -Dylan0513 (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- The sentence lists the actors, then the characters they are playing, and then says respectively at the end. The sentence does make sense, but if more people find it too confusing it should be changed. -Dylan0513 (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- What about Dev Patel playing 3 or 4 charecters of which I think two are girls (in the intro)? Beazermyst (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's rude. Why don't you tell them why it's fine as is? -Dylan0513 (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- I get why some people might find it confusing as its all cluttered up but I think its fine I understood it the first time The Movie Master 1 (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Casting rewrite?
I will take over the making of a Racebending page and it's use in Yellowface and The Last Airbender from here on out. I'm an unbiased, source driven editor who is also one of the first supporters and regular member of the Wikipedia NYC (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City) group. If fan edit wars continue to exist on said articles (such as rampant deleting and editing) I will communicate this problem to the rest of Wikipedia NYC and the Wikimedia Foundation on Wikipedia Day NYC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC). And none of us want that do we? -- Sidepocket (talk January 20, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC).
- We will all appreciate your contributions, but do realize that editing the content is open to anyone and not exclusive to one editor. -Dylan0513 (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, unbiased are we? One look at your livejournal page says otherwise. One more post like the one above threatening editors and providing false information on top of it will get you reported. -Dylan0513 (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for judging my editing ability to edit and create Wikipedia articles by my off sites rather than my actual Wikipedia edits and articles. Very professional and in no way are you exorcising your non-existent E-Penis.
I have brought up the issues of this article in it's current form to my friends at Wikipedia NYC and they have alarm about this article because in it's current state it is too anti-casting biased and wrong. To summaries what I said before on this talk: "The problem with this view is that it's actually distorting the facts. For instance, the current Wikipedia page in question makes it sound like that the protest was an event that happened in the past when in fact it's on going and getting more and more publicity. Also, I do agree that the article should be written from a neutral point of view and thus like other movies there should be a section in the page with the controversy with both positive and negative arguments balancing them. The fact that a movie has not come out before has not stopped films on Wikipedia in the past having such pages and with the absent of such a section the page is unbalanced, inefficient and less accurate on the whole. I vote that this needs to be reformatted with a controversy section not only to make it fully accurate but for consistency with all other pages on Wikipedia that have controversy sections."
My edit is going to be a simple one that will expand the page and yet keep it at a fact by fact level. I never state anything on Wikipedia without sorcing it from an qualified external source and I don't post any information that leans either way. Ergo, I post facts, not opinions.
If we can stop this grudge match and actually work on this article making it accurate to the actual conflict going on then we don't have to be filed under the "Scum and Villany" section of other academic proffesionals hit list as an example of power abuse with in the community. -- Sidepocket (talk January 21, 2010
- I just ignored everything you said based on your incredibly rude first sentence. I will report you next time, you aren't following the policies. -Dylan0513 (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough since you already insulted me with my credentials here for making neutral articles on Wikipedia based on my personal sites. I'm going to work on some edits to make this article as close to neutral as possible. No hard feelings, lets see is these edits will work, end of discussion. -- Sidepocket (talk January 21, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC).
- I'm fine with that approach, but realize this is a team effort. I'd prefer you discuss any changes here first, but doesn't look like you'll be able to make any edits now anyway, XD. -Dylan0513 (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
""The casting of white actors in Asian roles triggered negative fan reaction marked by accusations of racism ...""
this sentence implies that the roles ARE Asian, which I believe is a point of contention ... air and water benders are not from a mainland area ... I could see an argument that fire and earth benders are Asian, but it's not definitive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.191.221 (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is definitive. The characters were all based on various Asian and Inuit races and cultures and the creators have even called their series an Asian fantasy in an interview. The following link provides a detailed list of evidence that should solve this supposed debate once and for all: [2]
- Personally, I think the controversy deserves its own section, but I know Wikipedia is not my personal soapbox and I'm glad the issue got mentioned at all even if it feels like it was downplayed.
- The Dancing Dragons (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Characters being based on Asian races doesn't make them Asian. I'm in favor of a change. -Dylan0513 (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. The Swamp Benders were based on the people of the Mississippi Delta and the Sun Warriors on Central Americans. "Asian" is too narrow a term.:Skyrocket (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Characters being based on Asian races doesn't make them Asian. I'm in favor of a change. -Dylan0513 (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Then explain this?
- Mike DiMartino: We knew that Nickelodeon was looking for a [particular fantasy] kind of show, so we kind of took that directive and set about creating our own mythology. And we wanted to base it in Asian rather than European background, and use the elements; to use martial arts as kind of the basis for the magic in the show. Even though we don't call it "magic," it is the supernatural element of the show.
- Taken from this interview:
- [3]
- In case you missed it, he said: "And we wanted to base it in Asian rather than European background"
- Swamp Benders only showed up for a couple episodes, Sun Warriors only appeared in one. The vast majority of characters in ATLA are based on Asian and Inuit cultures even if there is the occasional reference to other ones. I don't get why this is so hard to understand.
The Dancing Dragons (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- All you did was repeat yourself. I agree, the Avatar universe is based in Asian culture. But it's impossible for the characters to be Asian as the Avatar world is not Asia. I see no support to leave it like it is currently on the page. -Dylan0513 (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I can follow your logic Dylan. Here, let me try. As the ______ world is not Europe, its impossible for the characters to be of European ancestry... Yeah I don't think that style of thinking works for any fictional work.
- Avatar is fictional, but the different nations are very influenced by real life Asian cultures. Watch the show, and you will see no English writing in the avatar world. Interviews with the creators make it clear that it is based off Asian culture. The fact that they did not use Asian actors is a problem because there is visible and documented exclusion of Asians in Hollywood. It needs to be included in this article, if not expanded. Temporal88 (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't need to be expanded. This article is about a movie. It's not someone's sociology paper. When the casting first happened there was some anger on the part of some fans. As usual with the internet, it all turned in general grumbling after a quick firestorm. That's really all there is to that.Skyrocket (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- No it doesn't need to be expanded, the article itself is very short, criticism should be a small part of the article if included (the movie isn't out yet) and this is one criticism. And I completely disagree. The Avatar world is based on Asian culture, but the characters are not Asian. It's just impossible. Being Asian means your ancestors are from Asia, Aang's ancestors, for example, are from the Air Nomads, so his race is Air Nomad. -Dylan0513 (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- While I understand that the editors involved in the creation and upkeep of this article all have their own opinions on the casting of the animated series' characters in The Last Airbender, I'd like to respectfully point out that people's personal opinions on the controversy are equally relevant but should not dictate what is included within the article or the appropriate weight of that information. Wikipedia's policy on presenting information with a neutral point of view means showing an "unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article." Whether or not an editor agrees with the idea that Caucasian actors being cast to portray characters conceived in a world undeniably inspired by Asian culture is racist (though whether they would be considered Asian appears to be of dispute as the world they live in is fictional, and fictional information shouldn't be presented in an in-universe style on Wikipedia), does not mean that (a) the controversy is not significant enough to include in the article (because that clearly isn't the case: [4][5][6][7]) and (b) that both sides of the argument cannot be neutrally summarized in a way that use reliable sources to present the controversy without relying on words that peacock either opinion.
- I think that both creating a section on criticism and dictating that criticism need be a small portion of the article (Memoirs of a Geisha, 21, Valkyrie, A Mighty Heart) are somewhat presumptuous at this point as the film isn't in theaters yet. -Hooliganb (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- The problem with this view is that it's actually distorting the facts. For instance, the current Wikipedia page in question makes it sound like that the protest was an event that happened in the past when in fact it's on going and getting more and more publicity. Also, I do agree that the article should be written from a neutral point of view and thus like other movies there should be a section in the page with the controversy with both positive and negative arguments balancing them. The fact that a movie has not come out before has not stopped films on Wikipedia in the past having such pages and with the absent of such a section the page is unbalanced, inefficient and less accurate on the whole. I vote that this needs to be reformatted with a controversy section not only to make it fully accurate but for consistency with all other pages on Wikipedia that have controversy sections. -Sidepocket (talk) 15:06, November 15th 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 08:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC).
I do agree with Sidepocket's assessment that the section regarding casting is being distorted. There is no entry about the many fans who are still having problems with this film. When it is already in post production and there are still calls for a boycott.
Changed the entry from a "mostly white" cast to an "all white cast". Originally the main cast members were all white. It was changed after McCartney was replaced with Dev Patel.
For some reason the Robert Ebert information regarding casting was posted before the Rathbone interview. Chronologically the Robert Ebert comment on the casting happened long after the interview.
I have now placed it at the end of the Casting section.
I vote for a longer critique of the casting practices. Nemogbr (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The article currently states: "Shyamalan originally offered the roles of Aang to Tae Kwon Do-trained Texan Noah Ringer; Sokka to Jackson Rathbone (Twilight); Katara to Nicola Peltz (Deck the Halls); and Zuko to Jesse McCartney.[6] The casting of mostly white actors in the Asian influenced Avatar universe triggered negative fan reaction marked by accusations of racism and white-washing, a letter-writing campaign, and a protest outside of a Philadelphia casting call for movie extras."
This is correct. Changing it to all white makes the statement factually inaccurate. If you wish to change it to say they were protesting the main cast initially being all white you can. Also quotes should be avoided. Integrate your information into the article without quotes. -Dylan0513 (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
@Dylan:
I can see you post information in the ATLA wiki. It still has not sunk in that the Avatar world is made up of the East Asian and Inuit heritage? The way you skew the Last Airbender article is akin to someone claiming that "Lord of the Rings" is not of European mythos.
The original main casting was for all white caucasian actors. The protests started when they were announced. Are you denying that fact?
Paramount started with the non-white extras afterwards and that made more fans incensed.
The quotes have been there for awhile now and you only changed them when I placed them in chronological order.
There is a longer entry regarding the systemic racism in the casting with the Last Airbender wiki and in the yellowface article. There is also a shorter article called racebending. Nemogbr (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not too sure why you just went into that speech, I'm addressing the policy that I think exists saying not to quote information, but to integrate it. I realized that the Rathborne quote was there for a while so I took it out. If you want to add that information, integrate it, don't quote it, and make sure it adds to the article. To the 2nd thing, changing mostly to all makes it wrong. It just does. I said if you want to make it say "The original casting of all white actors in the 4 main roles" then go ahead. I could contest and say find me a source that they were protesting the casting of the 4 main roles specifically, and that's probably why it's the general statement it currently is. -Dylan0513 (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
From what I can see, you are clearly biased towards the film makers' position. You do not care for the neutrality of the article and have a different agenda that is not conducive to supporting the fans. Dismissing the casting controversy as merely minor and deleting data, is an obfuscation, of the facts.
You are doing a disservice to the creators of the Avatar the Last Airbender and the fans. Nemogbr (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- For the record I'm as big of a fan as Avatar as you can be. I also am trying to protect the neutrality of the article by fighting against any expansion of the controversy references. -Dylan0513 (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
@Dylan Tell me how you're protecting the neutrality of the article when you refuse to allow the other side of the argument to exist. Yes, you may think it's okay to have the main cast to be mainly Caucasian because it's fantasy. And there are others who will disagree with you. And one of those would be Roger Ebert (a quote stating he thought it was clearly wrong which you so intently removed). Added with the protests, last time I checked, that's something you call a controversy.--98.207.58.247 (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
For a fan, you do not even ackowledge the racebending of the film. The fans know and should be given all the details. Wikipedia is only one source, but it is first stop for people. You are attempting to obfuscate the matter.
I have now reposted along with the dates; to provide a timeline of events. As you can see the protests over the white washing and racebending started, from the casting of the main lead characters.
They were casting non-whites, only as background long before Dev Patel replaced McCartney.
I also provided data regarding removal of the Chinese calligraphy in the film. Nemogbr (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I have added a link to the yellowface entry for last airbender. It contains chronology and links. Nemogbr (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
06 January 2010
- (cur) (prev) 14:19, 6 January 2010 Nemogbr (talk | contribs) (15,152 bytes) (→Casting: Reverted back to previous version, primary reason of casting conflict along with link to a screen capture of casting call. Caucasian or any other ethnicity.) (undo) (cur) (prev) 22:01, 5 January 2010 Dylan0513 (talk | contribs) (14,663 bytes) (1) Source for that. 2) Source that that call specially led to the casting of the white actors.) (undo)
- (cur) (prev) 08:34, 5 January 2010 128.54.163.247 (talk) (14,770 bytes) (Adding primary reason of casting conflict.) (undo)
- (cur) (prev) 02:40, 5 January 2010 Dylan0513 (talk | contribs) (14,663 bytes) (It was decided that minor characters not be in the "cast"" section. Also, that source does not prove that statement.) (undo)
Primary reason for casting conflict was Caucasian or any other Ethnicity. If the casting ad stated All Ethnicities, there would not have been conflict, although having all the main cast picked were all white caucasian actors, would make people suspicious. I posted as reference a screen capture of the original casting ad.
Having a film with all Asian origins for the Chinese martial arts, Oriental architecture, Japanese, Chinese and Inuit hairstyles, Oriental foods and then having an all white main cast does show prejudice on the part of the film makers.
Then removal of the "I need to shave my hair and get a TAN" from Rathbone simply camouflages the issue. THere were many sites where that insensitive statement was published. Not including it in the Casting section does not show neutrality. Nemogbr (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- You're talking to yourself here. We're reverting stuff you do to maintain NPOV, and other issues with the article. -Dylan0513 (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think Dylan can be considered "biased towards the filmmakers view." Because that makes it sound like the filmmakers publicly announced, "YEAH WHITE PEOPLE RULE!" which... would then be controversial! lol. --Jason Garrick (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Controversy: Roger Ebert and Frank Marshall
The additions of Roger Ebert and Frank Marshall have the appropriate links and pertain to the casting controversy. Dylan0513 would prefer not to include the details and ignore the fans.
Passing it off as a blip in the system, when many fans of the show are calling for a boycott, is deception.
As for the controversial material? Roger Ebert has the clout for his assessments to stick.
Ebert's movie reviews are syndicated to more than 200 newspapers in the United States and worldwide.In late 2007, Forbes Magazine named Ebert "the most powerful pundit in America," edging out Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs and Geraldo Rivera.
Nemogbr (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Let's talk like civilized people and go by Wikipedia's policies. Here are the problems I have with your additions: 1) As I've stated several times and below in a different section, I don't think quotes are the best way to integrate information into an article. Summarize the quote into a sentence and source it. 2) And the main problem people have is adding more information about controversy when it doesn't warrant it. I think the Ebert quote is fine if it's summarized and doesn't overdo the controversy part, but the Ebert and the Marshall is too much. We have to remember this article is about the entire movie, which is a huge topic. The controversy is a very small part of the movie and should warrant 1 small paragraph tops, especially when the movie hasn't even come out yet. -Dylan0513 (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Each one had, at most, two sentences from each person.
- The controversy is not a "very small part". The fact that the film has not been released, yet a significant portion of the fans are planning a boycott, through various blogs and a website, should be indication enough. Also a significant number of people discovered the controversy after the show had finished.
- By Wikipedia neutral policies, both statements from Frank Marshall and Robert Ebert should be shown.
- Frank Marshall defending the casting from April and later Robert Ebert supporting the accusation.
- Not allowing data concerning the controversy is deception.
- Nemogbr (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- This isn't an issue of NPOV as much as it is to not weigh any article too heavily on one aspect. You can exclude information if adding it would mean the article being tilted towards a certain section, but yes the info in there has to abide by NPOV. Even saying that I don't think either of those 2 sources add anything new to the article. -Dylan0513 (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
So far, the article has one citation from an actor in the movie. That is all. Rathbone hold no importance to the production. He is an employee of the studio. He was the one who started the yellowface debate.
The addition is from the film producer, Frank Marshall, who made the decisions for the movie. Roger Ebert is a movie reviewer who has his views syndicated in 200 newspapers.
Why do you keep deleting their views?
You do not think the film producer and the pundit who holds sway over a majority of the viewing public holds any importance? --Nemogbr (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Have created a new sub-section called Controversy. This indicates that there was a controversy over the casting. That there is an ongoing controversy and no matter what some people may "type" or promulgate otherwise, there will be an ongoing controversy.
This is not a Point Of View, this is the reality of the situation. Going into any fansite that mentioned the live action film indicates that the controversy is alive and well. --Nemogbr (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is a major change to the article, what part of discuss first don't you get?! 1 opinion is not a consensus, you will need a consensus to add a controversy section, or even to expand the controversy part of the casting section. -Dylan0513 (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
It is a major change in the article. So far, all you will allow is one actor defending the casting. No links on the detractors.
Why?
The fans already know of the systemic racism. Afraid others will learn of the controversy and make their own investigations? --Nemogbr (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oy, don't you get that I'm talking in terms of Wikipedia policies? I already said that I'd be fine with adding the ebert source except not as a quote. I'd prefer to wait for more opinions on it though. -Dylan0513 (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The quotes have been removed and added as part of the Controversy section. You are waiting for other opinions, but insist that it be removed in the meantime.
How can it become part of the discussion when you have deleted the entry? --Nemogbr (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
11:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Those entries were posted on that page before I removed the quotation marks. You removed the entry completely.
Before you started deleting every mention of the controversy, the consensus was to leave it in the article. --Nemogbr (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- There was no consensus, we're the only two talking! And prior to this discussion, the consensus was not to include a controversy section or else it would be in there. I haven't heard one good wikipedia-policy argument for expanding the controversy mention from you, all you're referring to is the fandom: that's not a factor here. -Dylan0513 (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Put me down as thinking there's no need for a controversy section. This is supposed to be about a movie. Not a place for people to grind their sociological axes. A loud minority does not make something inclusion worthy. -Skyrocket (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
There were two quotes added. One from Roger Ebert and another from Frank Marshall. Both are more important than Rathbone's statement.
If we look at the film 21, there was a controversy section and it presented the views of the critics and the film makers.
The entry for Last Airbender does not. It is not informative and simply becomes advertisement for the movie. --Nemogbr (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
[8] how's this for a respectable source?--Silvercell2 (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)silvercell2
Good link, thank you.
Not sure how some here would think of the source. They would believe it too biased. Already found it difficult to have FRank MArshall, the producer and Roger Ebert, film pundit, accepted.
Henry Jenkins even if he is the Provost's Professor of Communications, Journalism, and Cinematic Art at the University of Southern California....might not be credible or important enough. --Nemogbr (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
That's a blog, I'm pretty sure it's not a credible source. -Dylan0513 (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- As I stated, even if the person is the Provost's Professor of Communications, Journalism, and Cinematic Art at the University of Southern California. Even if he has also written a few books:
- Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (Hardcover)
- Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Media Consumers in a Digital Age
- Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century (John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Reports on Digital Media and Learning)
- Hop on Pop: The Politics and Pleasures of Popular Culture
An interview with an actor for MTV, seems to hold more credibility. --Nemogbr (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Interviews have more credibility than blog posts, yes. Even if it was credible, one person's opinion isn't enough to expand anything. -Dylan0513 (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- That blog holds a couple of interviews in video --Oconel (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Change in element symbols
The element symbols (Air, Water, Earth, and Fire) are different from that of the show. Both articles, the movie and the show, do not cover this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.177.47 (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
What you are stating is incorrect. Al the symbols are taken from the show. I don't have it here right now. But I can find a source if necessary. Randysem (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
you go do that, the symbols have been changed.[9] look at the symbols for each element. [10] why, they're exactly the same!--Silvercell2 (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)silvercell2
You're confusing the nation's symbols with the elemental symbols. The symbols shown on the movie banners are the nation ones.76.114.198.95 (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Poorly written summery
The plot summery is poorly written, I propose a total rewrite that includes proper grammar/spelling/capitalization/et cetera. 68.8.152.183 (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
$100-130 million budget
I have removed all references to the film having a $100-130 million budget. The Hollywood Reporter article only mentions $250 million for the entire trilogy but not the $100-130 million figure. I could not find a citation anywhere. If a reliable source can be found, feel free to readd it. - kollision (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Quotes
Isn't there a policy saying to avoid quotes in an article if possible? I really think the Rathborne quote and the recently added Ebert quote should be incorporated without just quoting the source. -Dylan0513 (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Controversy Section
Ok, new section because we need to figure this out now that the article has been locked. The Ebert and Marshall quotes are not something that is of that much dispute. What is of dispute is the possible controversy section. I think we already reached a consensus AGAINST a controversy section here: [11]. And because of that I think a consensus in favor of expansion will be needed in order for it to happen. As for my arguments against a controversy section, they are also stated in the previous talk section by several editors: the movie has not even hit theaters yet and even if it had the controversy is a very small part of the movie and it can be covered in the cast section. -Dylan0513 (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
You did not want the Ebert and Marshall quotes, so I started the new section under controversy, which you then deleted.
If you use google and look for the last airbender controversy, there are 141,000 results. Any website that runs an article pertaining to the film, always end up with dissenting voices from pro-casters and the anti-casters. From the imdb page, Variety articles, youtube and even the websites.
It is not a "very small" part of the movie, as you want to assert. --Nemogbr (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- The Ebert and Marshall quotes are a separate issue: they aren't that big of a deal and can be worked out separately. Look, you don't understand what you're talking about. If you want a controversy section, you should be throwing 10 sources at me, not mentioning google results. You should be citing other movie articles with controversy sections that we can use as precedent, not talking about other sites that aren't wikipedia. You have no argument right now. -Dylan0513 (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- My opionion on this issue is: Just give it up. Who REALLY cares about this? No one has even heard of the movie, wait until it comes out and put it under the CASTING SECTION!ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
"Not big of a deal" to the point that Frank Marshall had to defend the film to the fans of the series? Asian American rights groups contacting Paramount about their actions is not a big deal?
Within the last year there have been two films with controversy attached: 21 and Tropic Thunder. Dragonball Evolution also mentions it, however briefly. The quotes were added to the "Casting" section. You deleted it and then said you wanted it added to a "Controversy" section. When I created that section, you deleted it.
Data is not created in a vacuum, they have citations and links. Those other sites affect what is entered in wikipedia. Meanwhile, you advocate censoring the data entered. --Nemogbr (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, you still don't get I'm ignoring everything you say not related to wikipedia. 21 and Tropic Thunder have controversy sections? Ok, 21 is a good example, Tropic Thunder isn't about casting. Now, the next step would be did 21 have a controversy section before the movie came out? And was the article then considered a good article?
- I never said I wanted a controversy section. I don't. I deleted the Marshall and Ebert quotes because they were just that: quotes. Another editor may have deleted them for other reasons. Either way, it should be discussed here first before adding them. -Dylan0513 (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's funny that you chose to delete these quotes, yet there are all types of quotes scattered all over the page. If you want to be biased, at least be consistent about it.--98.207.58.247 (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have posted about those quotes above, but no one has responded yet. And when I deleted the Rathborne quote someone reverted it back. -Dylan0513 (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's funny that you chose to delete these quotes, yet there are all types of quotes scattered all over the page. If you want to be biased, at least be consistent about it.--98.207.58.247 (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me? "ignoring everything you say not related to wikipedia". What does that mean? We cannot have data in wikipedia articles without providing citations from other sites.
When you deleted the Ebert and MArshall quotes, you typed that they should be part of a controversy section. That's why I created said section.
Deleting the Rathbone statement would leave the page as a simple advert for the film. Ebert and Marshall both have citations and both hold more importance than Rathbone's statement.
As it stands, it looks like it was a minor complaint and that Rathbone was the only one who defended the film. --Nemogbr (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure I didn't say that, but if I did then I misspoke. I do not think there should be a controversy section and as it stands there is no support for one.
- So let's get to discussing the Ebert and Marshall quotes. I personally would be fine if they were integrated into the casting section not in quote form. If you do that I'll go through the rest of the article and put the quotes into non-quote form. -Dylan0513 (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
They are now integrated and not in quote form. --Nemogbr (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I took out the Rathborne quote and integrated the Marshall and Ebert sources better. I think it works really well this way. -Dylan0513 (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It reads like a person saying "yes you did" and another saying "no we didn't".
Basically, no useful information on the matter. The reader will have to go elsewhere to do more research.
Now it reads just like an advert for the film.
The film called Extraordinary Measures was the same. I added more reviews. --Nemogbr (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- You don't need to spell out what the complaints are, we know it's about the casting because of the sentence before. Anything more than the way it is now makes it redundant. -Dylan0513 (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
For those making a controversy discussion without discussing it - you will be reported. The vandalism in this article is getting extreme. -Dylan0513 (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- When I see something about white washing Airbender on CNN then we can put a controversy section, but it's not gotten the publicity you think it has gotten. INternet publicity? Are you kidding me? A little quote that Roger Ebert said in an internet interview is not a big deal. A PRESS CONFERENCE is a big deal. A spot on entertainment tonight is a big deal. Writing a letter to paramount is not a big deal. Unfortunately racebending did not get the support it needed to make a big impact. And for the record I do believe it's absolutely ridiculous that they white washed the movie but we're talking about the article. I think no more then 4 sentences at most are needed in regards to the protest. Let's take James Cameron's Avatar for example. There is actually a protest against it because it didn't include any gay characters in the film! No where in that article did I see any record of it. It's because it's not needed. Whether you want to admit it or not, this is not an article about racebending. It's an article about the movie, and the production involved with it. There is already a couple of sentences about negative reaction about the last airbender. And unless your a complete idiot, everyone has the kindergarden ability to google search, "controvery the last airbender". and several links come up. I liked one of the comments up above, saying this isn't your sociology paper. lol. As "mean" as that might sound it's pretty true. You're letting your views about the casting blind your ability to edit the article properly and thoroughly per wikipedia's rules. --Jason Garrick (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- All films will receive reviews and some more than others. The recent film Extraordinary Measures was the same. There were several entries lauding the film, which were deemed not in keeping with a neutral point of view. The more critical of the reviews have now been included and it is now neutral.
The first was that the movie made Pompe Disease known to people. The rest were critical in that the film did not indicate the costs of the treatment, to the Americans suffering from the disease and that the movie let Big Pharma off the hook.
The last points were not part of the film and may be accused of bias against American healthcare, except that those entries were germane to the subject matter of the film.
Just as The Last Airbender controversy is becoming more known amongst Asia Pacific American groups. --Nemogbr (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, according to what?? I haven't heard ANYTHING about racebending anywhere and I am subbed to most every news source on youtube and follow over 100 accounts on twitter and I've not heard once about racebending in about 8 months... And even then it was only a subtle mention. --65.51.214.37 (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Test Screening Reviews
The film has not been released, but we have test screening reviews available. I thought to include it until more information comes to light. --Nemogbr (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- They are not notable and will not be included in the article. -Dylan0513 (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- How about you check the talk page before editing again?!?! Jeez. -Dylan0513 (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Is it because the reviews were not so flattering. Perhaps people might go see the film because of the fight scenes with Jade Quon?
On February 3rd 2010, the producers had a test screening of the film, in Phoenix, Arizona.[1] There were two highly divergent views.
- For the positive, was the reviewer who thought highly of Noah Ringer as Aang and as they hadn’t gotten around to doing a face replacement yet, found it fun to watch Ringer’s stunt double, identified as a woman with a shaved head, (Jade Quon), performing the fight scenes. The best thing in the movie was Shaun Toub as Uncle Iroh and Dev Patel was also good casting. Unfortunately, Jackson Rathbone is accused of over acting.
- For the negative review, found that the film had some of the most wooden acting. The lead child actor was the main culprit and he seemed amateurish compared to some of the others, his two friends (Peltz and Rathbone) weren't much better. Coming across unscathed were Cliff Curtis and Dev Patel.
aintitcool.com is not a fan website. It is informative with various reviews. --Nemogbr (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Reviews of a movie's early cut are not notable at all. Especially when the reviews come from random people. This will NOT be in the article and it has NOTHING to do with whether the reviews are positive or negative, it's because they are not notable. You need to stop spamming this article and realize that people are reverting you because you aren't abiding by wikipedia's basic policies. -Dylan0513 (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Dylan, I don't think it's spam at all. People come to wikipedia to learn about things, like this movie. And, the screening reviews are encylcopedic, at least until the film is released and the real reviews come out.BrittanyLovesNuts (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Dylan. Reviews for a rough cut don't belong here. When the movie is released reviews from actual film critics and audience reaction as a whole will be worth nothing. A review of a rough cut by some guy who calls himself "Sharkfarts" doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Skyrocket (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Dylan, I don't think it's spam at all. People come to wikipedia to learn about things, like this movie. And, the screening reviews are encylcopedic, at least until the film is released and the real reviews come out.BrittanyLovesNuts (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Trustworthiness:Vendor reliability:Privacy:Child safety:
- Test screening reviews can only come from "random" people. A noted reporter is not going to place his name with any pre-screening review. They would never get invited again. Admittedly wikipedia has a problem with blogs and so-called fansites, but a big enough blog possess a mighty impact. Rotten Tomatoes come to mind.
Several Vbloggers were invited to the Avatar premier in London and their subscribers would have watched their review avidly. Two had over 70,000 subscribers between them and the rest had a minimum 30,000 each. All video, nothing in print. They were not professional film critics.
The amateur reviews can be kept till the film is released and then replaced with reviews from people like Roger Ebert. --Nemogbr (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- According to what policy?!?! You're making up your own rules! -Dylan0513 (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's called citation needed. It's quite common in most pages in Wikipedia or we can place this in the section.
This article needs additional citations for verification. (February 2010) |
--Nemogbr (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Reviews for a roughcut do NOT belong here because the movie has not completed production yet. --Jason Garrick (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Nemogbr, You seem to have misunderstood the "Citation Needed" warning. Citation Needed does not mean you can put in an unreliable source until a reliable one becomes available. Citation Needed is a notice to editors and readers that there are no sources for the following information, literaly there is no citation. This warns potential readers that the information they are reading may not be accurate and suggests to any interested editors that they could find a reliable source for the information. Citation Needed is certainly not meant for what you suggest, keeping up the amateur reviews (read: unreliable sources) only to replace them later. I Feel Tired (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't that the reputation of wikipedia? One of the strengths, in comparison to other websites, is that it has the "citation needed" tags.
Blogs do not use it and neither do newspapers or television news. When I read the entries, I always take them with a pinch of salt and then look at the reference links.
Apart from science blogs, I can understand why blogs have a bad reputation due to their ability to be biased, but at the same time we are supposed to only use "reliable sources". What happens when that so-called reliable source took the information from a blog?
Below is a good example: regarding Keith Olbermann http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oGni9J2SeQ
In our case, we ended up with two amateur reviewers of the film. They cannot post their information in any other way. A reporter would be blacklisted and a youtuber(unreliable source) would suffer the same. --Nemogbr (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Racebending.com
This link should be kept because there's a whole section regarding the yellowfacing controversy surrounding the cast of the film. It is notable and readers will find it a helpful link. BrittanyLovesNuts (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would support that view. fansites may be biased, but they can also be informative. This question only comes about when some editors do not like the information provided. Other wikipedia pages have these fansites and blogs and they are kept intact. --Nemogbr (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- WP:ELNO is clear: "one should avoid links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)" --NeilN talk to me 03:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.
The number one rule is that it should be a unique resource beyond what the article would contain. Racebending.com would serve the unique purpose. --Nemogbr (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- No it would not. -Dylan0513 (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
@Dylan:
Please give an answer like an adult, rather than an eight year old, in a school playground. --Nemogbr (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you're going to be rude, you're going to be reported. You should have been long ago. First of all, the article already mentions the controversy. Second of all, where are you getting that exception from? Racebending.com is still not a notable source not matter what. -Dylan0513 (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Answering a point by typing "IT would not" does not help in making improvements in this article. You have already edited it to a bare minimum due to your POV that those who need information will have to go elsewhere. --Nemogbr (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, that is definitely not the number one rule. If it was, every article would be overrun with links to special interest groups and/or commercial sites claiming to have unique content. --NeilN talk to me 03:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the idea is that sites are vetted for commercial content. If the preponderance of the content are commercial, then they should not be included.
racebending.com was a site for the fans and have now become more inclined towards criticising Hollywood casting practices.
AS it stands the page is very much biased towards the film makers, rather than concerns of some of the fans. Other films like U-571 (film) ended up with controversy sections as the largest part of the article. It was inevitable with all the complaints in the media available.
One way to prevent that is to ensure readers have access to other sites regarding the controversy or people will keep finding that article as too skewed towards Paramount. --Nemogbr (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- You're letting your extreme passion for the racebending movement blind your judgment about the necessary points needed for the article. Anyone with a brain can google search, "controversy the last airbender". And what up with the name calling Nemo? C'mon. It's not needed. Also, racebending.com is obviously very biased. I have an idea. Maybe we can link a part in the casting section to yellowface and then on the yellow face picture provide a link to racebending.com? What do u guys think? And not for anything but the submarine movie you mention is based on true historical events, not on a childrens marketed cartoon show... --Jason Garrick (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Again, that's not how WP:ELNO reads, "one should avoid links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." To use a different example, every major corporation has websites that are critical of it. We don't add links to these websites in their article nor do we consider the article biased or skewed towards the corporation. --NeilN talk to me 16:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Okay thanks Neil. That did help enlighten the situation and now I have been informed so I take back what I said earlier. If we are not supposed to post blogs, then would shouldn't. --Jason Garrick (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Would Henry Jenkins be considered an authority? There's an article and interviews about Racebending here Oconel (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)oconel
Sequel
Has anyone looked more into the casting or the sequel film? The article states something about Night writing a script to the second film while in pre-production of the first. The first has finished filming and is pretty much finished with post-production on it's way to premiering! Wouldn't he be done with the script by now and filming or casting for the second film? When does that pre-production start? (They mentioned one for the sequal to Percy Jackson and the Lightning Theif already) Just curious if anyone knew anything about that since this IS a planned trilogy with an already-laid out story unlike other 3-part films that sometimes are just an addition to the previous film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.211.12 (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but...
Is it alright if I add a link to the Racebending.com (the main protest site for the movie) to the article's main link sections? Zobango (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- No - the external links section should be only used for links that have a direct connection to the film. A fan protest site does not meet those qualifications. You should take a look at the external link guidelines. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- There should be a section on the page on how some fans are mad about many characters being portrayed by white actors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.108.194 (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
At most, wouldn't there merely be mention that there was controversy over it? There is, so there's nothing more needed to be added. We don't need 2 controversies on Wikipedia (1: over the link. 2: over racism specifically towards whites) based on the controversy of the film that's already been mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.141.176.86 (talk • contribs) 16:07, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
Reverts
I've noticed that there have been a lot of reverts lately and it seems that everyone has different reason for undoing everyone else's changes. I feel that maybe everyone that is heavily involved in editing this page (User:Dylan0513, User:ChaosMaster16, User:TheRealFennShysa, and User:Nemogbr all spring to mind) should take a bit of time off to discuss here what you guys feel like we should be doing with this page and maybe the direction we should be taking it in, and then maybe we can come to some sort of comprimise. Besides I think that we're close to violating WP:3RR and I dont want this page to become locked... again. So how about we talk this out everybody? I Feel Tired (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I am reverting the casting section back to the way it was because recent changes (specially adding quotes) haven't been discussed. And I've had a quotes topic here for weeks waiting for replies! People need to stop randomly changing the article and discuss before they do so. -Dylan0513 (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- First, I reverted back to the way the article was BEFORE this was started. When we find a solution, no matter if I agree with it, or you agree with it, we will change it. Do not majorly edit something once a dispute like this is taking place. Second, WP:QUOTE does not state anything against quotes. In fact, it states that quotes can be used when properly sourced. The quotes added on this article are properly sourced, and feel free to re-check the sources if you want to improve them exc. The way the article is written now does not take sides against the so called "racebending" or anything. I personally think its neutral, and please feel free to point out anything that is contriversial so we can work together to make it neutral. Quotes, taken from interviews, exc. are a great way to improve any work of writing as it takes exactly from the person who sad it and relates it to the information you are trying to get accross.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
- That's all I friggin wanted. Thank you. -Dylan0513 (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm okay with the way it is written. For and against the casting with enough information for people to search if needed. --Nemogbr (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
If it's a major problem with editing, can we put a lock on the article? --Jason Garrick (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
What about people who don't know about this little plan? This site IS meant for the general public to edit, add and subtract certain information based on their best knowledge. Those kind of things we'd only need to change if it violates a rule or if it's just vandalism, but if it's actual information shouldn't someone investigate it if they want to take it off to see if it's worth keeping? Also, there has been a Japanese trailer, second theatrical trailer AND another TV spot reveailed but none of these are added to the list of promotions after the currently listed trailers! JeffPalmer on YouTube seems to be laying out more information than Wikipedia right now and he's one person merely making updates in VIDEOS! He, himself, is not a reliable source but he seems to be laying out information that is backed up! And some of the things he provides ARE facts (such as actually SHOWING the trailers and clips, toys of Appa and Momo that have not been mentioned on Wikipedia.) I'm not saying to use him as a source. I'm just saying if that one guy can gain all that information, Wikipedia should! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.141.176.86 (talk • contribs) 16:16, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a news source. -Dylan0513 (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- C-Class film articles
- C-Class American cinema articles
- American cinema task force articles
- WikiProject Film articles
- Start-Class television articles
- Low-importance television articles
- Start-Class Avatar: The Last Airbender articles
- Mid-importance Avatar: The Last Airbender articles
- Avatar: The Last Airbender task force articles
- WikiProject Television articles