Talk:The Last Airbender (film)

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Not really; just indiscrimance, outdated filming info and a cut-and-pasted character description.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)

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:

1. Unnecessary to have a hatnote to Avatar (film) at this point; there will not be any confusion from this point on
2. Infobox edits use too many captions and uses flag icons unnecessarily
3. Lead section is too long and not a true summary of the article body, but we can work on summarizing details
4. "Premise" section is uncited
5. "Company credits" has no precedent, and IMDb should not be cited anyway
6. 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)

← 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)

Nothing's perfect, everything can be improved. ;) Alientraveller (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

rewrite?

""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