Talk:Avatar (2009 film)

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,[1] 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, heroes 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 Midianite sex-princess, the one who got skewered in fragante delicto along with her Israelite lover by the biblical zealous warrior Phinehas - reversed-roled by zealous warrior Jake Sully with spear in hand. As in the original, the spy 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) 21:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone that liked this awful, corny, sad, ridiculous, derivative and boring Laser Floyd of a Hollywood movie ever read any novel by Ursula K. Le Guin...? "The Word for World is Forest", for example? Will you gringos ever get things right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.220.126 (talk) 04:30, 21 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)

The "mineral" is a plot device, used to provide a pretext human interest in the planet. This fact should be fairly obvious to any intelligent person. - Gwopy 00:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

Re "Even under current technologies any chemical compound (inorganic) could be synthesized from chemical elements." - The problem may not be synthesizing the compound, but rather constructing the crystal structure for the compound in a large enough size for the room temperature superconductor unobtanium. Today for example, just the element carbon alone is apparently difficult to put into a crystal structure in a way that can replace large gem quality diamonds, which are still obtained from diamond mining. Unobtainium may have a much more complicated crystal structure so that even in the 22nd century it cannot be synthesized.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

To indulge in theorizing even further, this might even have more to do with its isotopic composition. Compared to crystal structures, isotopes are even more difficult to synthesize in commercial amounts. Like the energetically promising Helium-3 is extremely rare on Earth but is relatively abundant on the Moon, which makes it more profitable to mine it on the Moon than to synthesize it on Earth. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 09:48, 24 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: [2] The flying dragon is in Avatar - see here: [3] The floating rocks are in Avatar - see here: [4] and here: [5] You can see more of his ideas here: [6] 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 [7] with "What the world is saying about Avatar". If you just simply google avatar+roger+dean [8] 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. [9] ArtistsUK also think Roger Deans should claim rights. [10] 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 [11]: "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. [12] Even wikipedia itsself has an entry on that: [13] 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. [14] [15] 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)

So what is going to happen in the people's encyclopedia? I think it would be good to put in a few phrases just to inform, that there is a discussion and deliver the sources, so people can judge themselves. There are sources pro and con, which would keep the entry unbiased as wikipedia should stay. (At the moment the chapter "Themes and inspirations" reads a bit like a fully positive pr-text as seems based just on Cameron-quotes. Not good for an encyclopedia in my opinion.) Who decides here and takes action? Max Farmer (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that the 4th paragraph of critical reception discusses similarity to previous work. So if a sentence about Roger Dean is included, that may be the appropriate place to put it. Max, you or someone else might consider trying something there. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Our friend Max has added the following over at Roger_Dean_(artist)#Film_project:

Some fans of Yes and Dean's work have noted that some of the backgrounds in James Cameron's Avatar, such as the floating mountains and the arch rock formations, may have been inspired by two album covers, An Evening of Yes Music Plus by Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe and Keys to Ascension by Yes .

While io9 is a reasonably reputable source, Signalnoise constitues one Canadian artist's opinion, and I'm not very pleased by the use of this very discussion as a source. From some googling, it seems that we've got:

• The Yesfans.com forum
• Stupidfuture, a blog
• Roger Dean's own website, which limits itself to calling the same google search I just did "revealing"
• io9 post, which cites comic book artist Connor Freff Cochran as having noted the similarities
• another io9 post, where they ask designer Dylan Cole about his perspective about the matter
• 10th slide of this Entertainment Weekly slideshow, where James Cameron voices his rather casual opinion
• Vanity Fair, suggesting that Avatar's production design "seems to have been strongly influenced by the trippy album cover art Roger Dean used to supply for Yes and other prog-rock bands"

The only sources suitable for use in Wikipedia are the last four, possibly the Roger Dean site, but it doesn't really say anything. I'd like to include this, but I'm not sure of the best way to. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:00, 24 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[16] - 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?[17] 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)

I agree, except for putting all the sociopolitical views into another article. Dividing the viewpoints like Cinosaur's proposal may not be acceptable to most (me included), but presenting more than one international review is clearly acceptable to some editors here (...me included). Flyer22 (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22, please feel free to edit the dummy according to your vision. This was the original idea to collectively iterate the proposed structure towards consensus. For a start, we can convert all geographical subheading to placeholders and move Peer reviews beneath Thematic reviews, as you suggested. Sorry, I meant to incorporate yours and others' suggestions myself - and still do - but got caught up on another front. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with all the headers, may are unnecessary imo, but I think we all agree that we need a more international presence in this article. Wikipedia is supposed to prevent a worldwide view on the topic, and the fact that the worldwide gross is more than double the domestic gross completely puts to rest the WP:UNDUE debate. I also staunchly believe that some semblance of socio-political aspects are included in the final revision of the critical reception section. --haha169 (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha169, do you support making Critical reception into a second level heading Reception as proposed? Cinosaur (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm for including more "international film reviews" in the critical reception; however I don't see the need for more sociopolitical analysis, especially if they are all over the place. By international reviews, they should be actual "film reviews" from reputable publications, again, not just an opinion column from a newspaper. I would welcome foreign language film reviews (for example, excellent Portuguese film magazines such as Escrever Cinema and Spanish publications such as La Fuga). I would definitely like to see more international reviews in the critical reception, but the quality of the film review should be considered.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should consider what is in a source, rather than where it comes from. For example, I added information from the Bolivian news agency ABI that appeared in the Huffington Post, to the sociopolitical paragraph. It is the second sentence in the 3rd paragraph of the Critical reception section. The reason for adding it wasn't because it was international, but because it was the other side of the issue mentioned in the 1st sentence of the paragraph, and hence it improved the article.

Here are the two sentences.

Armond White of the New York Press wrote that Cameron used villainous American characters to misrepresent facets of militarism, capitalism, and 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".

--Bob K31416 (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Amandaroyal deserves credit for initially bringing this item to the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times just posted an article that contributes to this debate http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/movies/20avatar.html?hp. I wasn't the only one who noticed what the Chinese were saying. --Amandaroyal (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that is a high-profile article that lists examples from notable reviewers from across the globe and with varying ideologies. That article is a wonderful starting point for such a paragraph. --haha169 (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting how some of the material in the Itzkoff NYT article parallels the article and talk page here. For example, "Critics have also said that “Avatar” copied story elements from the movies “Dances With Wolves,” “Pocahontas” and “Ferngully: The Last Rainforest”; the Poul Anderson novella “Call Me Joe”; and the “Noon Universe” book series by the Russian authors Arkady and Boris Strugatsky." One reason the last one about Strugatsky didn't make it to the article was because a reliable source couldn't be found and I'm not sure if that book series has ever been translated from Russian to English.

Also, I made a comment about Rorschach test here on Jan 3. Since then, Rorschach has popped up in the press at least a couple times. I didn't see it anywhere before I made the comment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that too on other issues and thought it was a coincidence. Now that you mention it as well, I'm thinking some journalists read our talk page discussions for the latest info. DrNegative (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw this article about a week ago and was going to make the suggestion to include. What do we think? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: maybe a quote from this article could serve as an appropriate lead into a new paragraph on cultural and religious themes in the movie? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: the Strugatsky novels, there has been a lot of controversy in Russia over Avatar. The authors themselves have apparently denied anything was copied, but a splinter communist party in Russia has been up in arms. Here is a translation from the Russian press on that subject http://worldmeets.us/KPRU000002.shtml (Komsomolskaya Pravda:'Communists Say Avatar Director 'Robbed' Soviet Science Fiction). And one from Russian TV station Russia Today http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-01-11/communists-ban-avatar.html?fullstory--Amandaroyal (talk) 01:29, 23 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 be leaning 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 some reviewers linked 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)

Having a footnote was also suggested by the opinion you got when you went to WP:NORN, and which was mentioned above. As before, I think that it is too much of a digression and isn't needed in the main text. Unfortunately, this discussion is approaching WP:DEADHORSE, at least from my perspective, since I don't think you have responded with anything new to my concern that it is too much of a digression for the main text. I probably won't be participating any more on this matter, but you are free to pursue getting a consensus with other editors. Please keep in mind that I am opposed to putting that material in the main text, and you shouldn't presume that I have changed my mind if I don't respond. This situation seems to be approaching another you had where there was a long discussion which ended in WP:DEADHORSE. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

A simple footnote would suffice here. It doesn't matter what the reader concludes because we covered what Cameron stated. Anything beyond that could lead to WP:SYNTH. DrNegative (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Bob. I presumed that you changed your mind not because you did not respond, but because you went ahead with a revision that you had earlier opposed to as OR. "Having a footnote" was indeed suggested by the NORN editor, but only as a personal preference, and we did not discuss it before you implemented it. "Too much of a digression" is exactly what the three editors above, besides myself, have explicitly differed with you on, so I am not sure what "new" you expect me to respond with to make this clear. So it seems that we do have a consensus of sorts. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

DrNegative -- could you please elaborate on how the above latest proposed inclusion "could lead to WP:SYNTH"? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a statement by Cameron in his choosing of the color for his characters in the film. The phrasing used after his comment are two sources of combined viewer reception to this choosing, implying that was what Cameron had in his mind when he was thinking of the deity(s), but we do not know exactly what he was thinking beyond what he actually stated. Synth (A+B/=D). DrNegative (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The way I worded it with the verb "linked" implies that the opinions are attributed to the viewers and them only, in accordance with WP:V. But maybe you can offer a better wording? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I did, a footnote "to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article." But thats just my opinion, your free to seek others. DrNegative (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

DrNegative, on a second thought over your comment I think it should say "some reviewers" to be on the safe side. As far as footnotes, looks like the entire choice between a footnote and a few words in the article hinges on whether it will be seen in the article as a useful explanation, and as such, an improvement of the article, or not. Since so far more editors here seem to favor this option, and since it complies, to the best of my knowledge, with all Wiki policies, including WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V, I will give it a try in the article and hopefully get more feedback there. Thanks and regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob K31416 -- You have not described and certainly have not proved by referring to any of policies and guidelines that my revision which you removed was a case of digression. In fact, you acted in defiance of expressed opinions of other editors as well. I am asking you to either prove your digression charge here in terms of WP:PG or, if you consider your further participation in this discussion unlikely, restore my revision in the article and let other editors agree or disagree with it. So far I have not given you a single reason to suspect me of disrespect towards you and your opinions, please do not give me one either. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob K31416 -- Assuming good faith on your part, I carefully thought over possible reasons for considering my revision a digression. I could not find any from the point of textual flow as such. But I found one reason which I will comply with and which supports using footnote over direct insertion -- as of now, the Themes and inspirations section is composed solely of Cameron's own statements or their paraphrases. So inserting even an otherwise RS and NOR explanation in the text will at this point be at odds with the style of the section. As long as the section remains Cameron's soliloquy, I will go along with that and will work on the footnote to make it more true to the sources instead.

As a side remark, if you came up with this argument yourself in the beginning, we would not have had this long discussion. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:10, 21 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 9#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)

Flyer22, you have just had to undo yet another "soul'-revision. I am sure you understand this is not the last one. I think the only way to stop it is to find and insert the exact quote from Mo'at explaining the meaning of the ritual. I do not have the movie's script at hand, but remember her saying something like "putting [Grace] through the eye of Eywa" or something and walk away from any easily contested terminology altogether. What do you think? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I missed this conversation earlier, while noticing the one below regarding prayer. They're similar, in that each is our own interpretation of the situation. I favored the use of Jake "praying" to Ewya, and would also favor the use of soul here, though I don't recall the term being used at all during the film. Mo'at commented on Grace having to "pass through the Eye of Ewya", and earlier Neytiri commenting on how their "energy must return to Ewya" (the scene during Jake's training, where they came upon a ritual burying of a deceased Na'vi). Maybe "energy" is the better word, here? (Though ultimately, a printed source is still better than editor speculation.) -FeralDruid (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We could insert one of those commonly used notes next to it that is invisible to the main article but would notify the editor of consensus. DrNegative (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just read this part in the original script and it does not use the word 'soul'. I believe the film does not either. Why not change the Grace's transferal part the same way we changes Jake's:

The clan attempts to transfer Grace from her dying body into her Na'vi avatar with the aid of the Mother Tree, but she dies from her injuries in the process.

Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I am okay with using the Ewya explanation as an alternative. As for "energy," that does not give the same feel as "soul." At least "consciousness" or "mind" just about does. And I would not really call any of what we have stated about the transfer "speculation." We know that Jake's mind/personality is being transplanted into his Avatar; it is just that some people would simply say "soul," but some others prefer not to use the word "soul." But then again, by "speculation," I suppose we mean whether or not "soul" in the physical spirit sense exists to the Na'vi...even though we are pretty sure it does (they even have a Tree of Souls, as we know).

DrNegative, your suggestion of a note is definitely a good suggestion as well. Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Cinosaur, your most recent suggestion is good, and I was thinking of basically the same thing. Go for it. Flyer22 (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I will leave it for DrNegative to put the invisible note. Cinosaur (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the invisible note is no longer needed...unless we start seeing people putting "soul" or "consciousness" again. Flyer22 (talk) 04:12, 21 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)

Who cares? There were people wearing shirts in the movie, too. Should we have a section discussing the thematic elements of shirt-wearing and the influence that shirts had on the movie? At some point have really have to limit the amount of sheer ridiculousness that goes into an article. Trusilver 08:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please try to avoid insulting earnest suggestions, as it often offends. Anyway, Bachell, there's a "themes and inspirations" section that seems to cover such things. If there was something else, can you remember the date when you saw it? --Kizor 12:09, 21 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)

You may have already read it, but in his edit summary, Thumperward (Chris Cunningham) said he did it to get the bot working again. I did not want to be rude and revert him, so I waited...trusting that he knew what he was doing. Perhaps we should wait a little longer for Chris to comment further on this? Flyer22 (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Good to see that the archive bot has started back up again. Hopefully, it will archive all those de-archived discussions back in order. Flyer22 (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what confused me though because the bot hadn't stopped working. If you check the edit history it had done the archiving for that day already. Betty Logan (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to correct some things on this matter. It seems that the de-archived stuff has been archived out of order. Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember Mizabot archives discussions in the order of the final timestamp, not when the discussion began. Just making sure you are aware of this. DrNegative (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind either way; it is too complicated to revert what Chris did. He has archived some more, but still has not explained his reasons for having de-archived the talk page in the first place. Since the order for the de-archived discussions may still be okay, I will note what I clearly see has changed: It is apparent that he made the bot split the archives into way more archive pages than what we had before. For example, the Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 9#Editing the "plot" section was in Archive 2, but is now in Archive 9.

I would advise others against de-archiving like this again. Not only is it annoying, and archived discussions should typically not be touched, but it messes up the original number order. Messing up the original number order is an issue because a particular archive page may have been linked to; when the numbers are changed in this way, that link is of course not going to go to that archive page anymore. Flyer22 (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you need a reply from me then all you have to do is ping me. Now that I'm here, the rationale for the change was that previously the archive bot was set up to create absurdly long archives; not everyone is browsing from a device which copes admirably with megabyte-long pages, and looking through such pages is a chore even for those who don't have performance problems. This talk page is still pretty new, so I considered the possibility of breaking inbound links to the old archives to be an acceptable risk. As others said, the bot places discussions in the order of the last comment and not the first, to ensure that threads which were recently replied to are not archived before those which haven't had a response in a long time. I'm opposed to setting the archive time below 7 days because for users who don't sit at their computers all week this can mean missing out on threads entirely before they are archived; in time, discussion here will die down a bit and the bot should be chaged to archive after a month or two. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I figured you had seen this discussion, and either did not feel like explaining or you believed that you had made a mistake in de-archiving the talk page. It seemed unneeded for me to ask you to reply, but I thank you for the explanation. Flyer22 (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Banning in China

German major newspapers analyzed that the ban in China might be related to the fact that the film in China quickly became associated with lower class people thrown out of their houses in Chinese megacities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.144.98 (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, what happened to the talk page?

Anyway, very interesting development: http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/film-cinema/avatar-banned-by-chinese-sensors-because-plot-could-cause-civil-unrest-2021043.html AniRaptor2001 (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what that article is trying to say, but it seems to have its information mixed up. For one, it has already been released in China and got Cameron a good load of dough. There are better sources for this, like [18]--haha169 (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's two news links New York Times, Los Angeles Times. Yes, the information got mixed up.

It should be clarified that "most foreign films only get a 10-day run in China", from a quote in the Los Angeles Times. Also, the film is only been pulled from 1,600 2-D screens, and not the 900 3-D screens in China (which accounts for 64% of the gross-revenue for the film in that country).--Sevilledade (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

China denies the ban here.[19] They say the industry (not the government) chose to pull 2D because the majority of tickets sold were 3D anyway. DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

new section China 2-D ban moved here from article

China 2-D ban

On January 19, 2010, Hong Kong's Apple Daily reported that the state-run China Film Group had ordered cinemas across the country to stop showing the 2-D version of the film and only show the film in 3-D. Due to the lack of cinemas in China with 3-D technology, this effectively prevented the film’s general distribution in China. The Apple Daily also reported that the Central Publicity Department had issued an order to the media prohibiting it from hyping up Avatar.

Chinese bloggers argued the measures were due to parallels between the plight of the film's Na'vi creatures – who are forced to flee their homes – and the forced evictions in China, and so was banned over possible concerns that it could lead to civil unrest. The Apple Daily also reported that Avatar made almost £45m during the two weeks it played in China; the film becoming the top-grossing film in the nation's history led some to believe that the Chinese authorities were worried Avatar had seized the market share from domestic films; they cited that many of the vacant cinema slots will be replaced by a state-funded biopic, Confucius.

The above comments need to be addressed. Also, keep in mind this excerpt 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.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just tweak it, and re-add it. It is clearly notable enough to be mentioned, especially with China saying it is their industry that banned the film. WP:UNDUE cannot be thrown around every time something negative in regards to this film arises. And I would say, yes, it should go back as a subsection of the Box office section. It does not make as much sense to cover it in the Box office section without it being a subsection, and it certainly should not be covered in some alternative spot of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not really a "ban" though. It was interpeted that way until China said it was a misunderstanding and that they were letting it stay in 3D but wanted their in-house film to have a prominent spot on 2D. In my opinion, its not bad or good news. Its just not worthy of noting now in my opinion. DrNegative (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Pulling out 2-D for 3-D is a 2-D ban in my view, and I do not always believe someone when they say "it was just a misunderstanding." It is worthy of a mention, in my opinion, given all the media waves it has clearly made over there. Flyer22 (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the possibility of a deception and that may be the case here but I know it doesn't matter what I think, China's response is verifiable, regardless of truth. Also as this article has grown to a substantial size I also take into account of WP:EVERYTHING when it comes to these matters on being noteworthy. But if consensus leads to this section remaining, then I'll go with it. DrNegative (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Good points. Though I feel that China commenting on the matter only adds to its noteworthiness. I am also constantly thinking about the size of this article...when I see people add things to it that are trivial/not needed, despite being from a reliable source. But there is not much more to add to this article anyway (so far), and the small space given to this "banning" matter would be...well...small. Flyer22 (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• If China had a problem with a film, they'd ban it outright, and say so. Since they still allow it at the 3D showing areas, then it obviously isn't banned for political reasons. I agree, undue weight for crack conspiracy theories should not be in the article. Reasoning ability leads to common sense, which overrides anything the media spews out. Dream Focus 04:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So you feel that this information should not be included at all? Either way we look at it, the 2-D version of the film was banned ("pulled," whatever). China obviously felt the need to comment on it, due to all these reports, and some Chinese bloggers have even felt that the Chinese government did likely pull the film. There are conspiracy theories about 9/11 as well, all of which I find ludicrous, but we include those. Including or not including this information has nothing to do with common sense. And WP:UNDUE is about not giving undue weight to small matters/opinions or too much weight to one particular topic or viewpoint. I am not seeing how this matter is that small or how it was given undue weight with the little that was covered of it in the Box office section. Flyer22 (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, I disagree with your opinion that the Chinese authorities would "ban it outright and say so." Given that China has been criticized by several countries for its policy on restricting some free speech, a political disaster of the nature banning a popular film could cause is something they - and any government - could do without. It is far less politically heated to do exactly what they have done; remove it from 2D theatres - the bulk of theatres outside main cities - and only permit it to be shown in 3D. Most people won't be able to travel great distances to see it, so you get censorship "by the back door". I do think it will become apparent whether this is in fact censorship when the DVD launches - if that gets restricted as well, then we'll know for sure. As a current event though, I do believe it's worthy of inclusion because whether one thinks this is censorship or not, the fact remains - and can be verified - that its showing has been restricted by this new directive. Whisperwolf (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times source stated though the 900 3-D theatres are fewer than the 2-D theatres, they are more popular and has pulled in much more money than the 2-D screenings. It has also been stated that most foreign films only get 10-day runs in China, and Avatar has already played longer than most of these films. Why not mention "ban" on most foreign film releases in China? These points should be raised.--Sevilledade (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

However, it should be noted the above said section "China 2-D ban" is almost entirely written from the view points of the newspaper Apple Daily and bloggers, and it fails to address several points. These should be addressed before the content is being presented:

• "Most foreign films get a 10-day run before being pulled" in China, quoting David Wolf of Wolf Group Asia media consultancy, from the Los Angeles Times source [20]. He also mentioned Avatar has played in China's 2-D theatres far longer than most foreign releases [21].
• The film is being pulled to support domestic film, during holiday season. "The decision to pull "Avatar" had more to do with the upcoming Chinese New Year holiday" and "there is an unwritten rule in China that at certain times of the year, such as the Spring Festival or National Day in October, Chinese movies have to be given precedence at the theater" [22].
• It should be mentioned, only 1,600 2-D theatres are been pulled. Not the 900 3-D theatres, which has generated over 2/3 of the film's ticket sales in China ($50 million out of the total $76 million) [23].
• According to the ABC source [24], China's State Administration of Radio, Film and Televisio has talked to Reuters and responded "The box office performance of the 2D version has not been great, whereas it's been really hard to get tickets for the 3D version,"..."So it's normal to take the 2D version off the screens. There'll be no change for the 3D version." Citing a reason of "a commercial decision."

There are various speculations and possible reasons why the film is been pulled during this time (i.e. Chinese New Year being one of them). However, those two paragraphs has failed to address many of these points, including China's Film Bureau denying the ban.--Sevilledade (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The ABC cite notes that the Da Vinci Code film was prematurely pulled from theaters as well once it has overstayed China's hospitality. It seems to me that this is simply a routine domestic protectionism than any real censorship. --haha169 (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So, for one, "China 2-D ban" is a non-neutral heading to you, Sevilledade? If this information were re-included under a heading again, what would you propose for the title? Putting the word ban in quotation marks for neutrality seems the best option, to me, if this information were to be re-included under a heading. I cannot currently think of any heading that represents this topic better. "China debate," for example, would be horrible. Flyer22 (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

How about "China gives Avatar the Axe"? ;) DrNegative (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, looking at things positively, "China gives 3D-Avatar a boost"? :) On a serious note, "China limits Avatar to 3D" could be an option, since it reports the situation neutrally, and has the word "limits" which conveys the flavor of...you know...the way things are sometimes done in China. Cinosaur (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"China limits Avatar to 3D" is a good suggestion, Cinosaur. And I thank you two for making me smile with the funny suggestions. Flyer22 (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll sometimes try to skim as close as the forum policy will allow to get a smile out of ya, (since your Titanic is getting sunk all over again soon) ;).... and yes Cinosaur thats the most neutral and appropriate suggestion made about this title yet in my opinion. DrNegative (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, hey, hey...Titanic can make a come-back with its re-release (as long as Avatar does not pass it by much, and the Titanic re-release is indeed a theatrical one). PS...I meant to state this much earlier, but my Internet connection got temporarily lost and I was like, "Screw it. I'll reply tomorrow." (LOL.) Flyer22 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Since your Titanic is getting sunk all over again soon" -- Thanks for the heads-up, DrNegative, but please be more specific - which one of them this time? I've lost count. ;) But never mind -- in your and Bob's company I hope to move on to making Avatars soon. :) Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Cinosaur, I'm pretty sure that DrNegative meant the same one I said is a good suggestion. But if you were just teasing (which it seems so by that smiley face), never mind this comment. Flyer22 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22, I just misread DrNegative's comment as addressed to me. Profuse apologies. Cinosaur (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Common sense would be that if China had a problem with the movie, it wouldn't still be shown anywhere, or have been tolerated this long, if even at all. You don't just do a partial ban. If something is seen as dangerous or disruptive to your society, you block it entirely, don't leave it for millions to still access. Also China isn't a living entity. What government official or agency specifically made this decision? As for unfounded and ridiculous conspiracy theories, no, we do not mention them in the main article for things. Some people thought 9/11 was caused by space aliens, but we don't put that in the 9/11 article, because Wikipedia above all else bases its decision on common sense, not dancing around suggested guidelines to see if aliens can somehow fit in. Dream Focus 10:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The ban speculations were that letting the film play in 2-D was the "harm." A partial ban is not a stretch; countries have partially banned things before. And the 9/11 conspiracy theory issue? As I stated before, all of the conspiracy theories about that are ludicrous (to me), and yet we do note a bit of them in the main article; the rest is in the subarticle. There is nothing so far-out ridiculous about these Avatar China ban reports and conspiracy theories. Flyer22 (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's some more from an article mentioned above.

It’s not uncommon for China Film Group to protect domestic pictures. In 2006, "The Da Vinci Code" was unexpectedly pulled from theaters there after racking up $13 million in sales.

Foreign movies were also removed from theaters in the run-up to last year’s 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China. The sweep was believed to help promote the nationalistic epic, “The Founding of A Republic.”

Only 20 foreign movies per year are allowed to be shown in China's theaters. "Avatar," which opened worldwide in mid-December, was held in Chinese theaters until January because the 2009 quota had already been filled.

Pirated copies of “Avatar” are already available in Beijing’s bootleg DVD stores. [25]."

That doesn't sound like political censoring, but rather China's routine economic maneuvering, especially since the movie will probably be getting considerable distribution in China because of the pirated copies. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This guy posted from his blog[26] quotes two Chinese sources (in Chinese) that China has reversed the ban in response to the public and poor reciepts from their in-house film. I know the blog isn't a valid source but I would like to get a translation on the sources. DrNegative (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Box office Mojo data

The article currently says that Avatar is the 34th highest grosisng film of all time, adjusted for inflation, with its gross standing at $511,583,800 (actual gross at $504,868,451).

Clearly this is incorrect since common sense tells us that there has been no discernable inflation over the last month. This can actually be clarified on the site itself because BoxOfficeMojo allows you to set the year, and clearly states that the average ticket price for 2010 is currently the same as it is for 2009: $7.35 [27] By that logic Avatar has earned $511 million at 2009 ticket prices. Clearly impossible.

It is pretty obvious that BoxOfficeMojo has miscalculated the adjusted price so I adjusted its true position to 36th which is where it would place had BoxOfficeMojo used the correct value, but DrNegative believes that this clear error should be retained on the basis it is a reliable source: [28] My question is should clearly erroenous information be reatined when it is very obvious the amount has been miscalculated. Betty Logan (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Betty I believe this falls in the category of WP:SYNTHESIS. —Mike Allen 18:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is because we are just dealing with a single source here. If you set the adjuster to 2009 ticket prices Avatar has earned more then than it has done now. Unless ticket prices are falling that doesn't make any sense, and clearly isn't consistent with Box Office Mojo's formula where it says the ticket prices for 2009 and 2010 are the same. If the ticket prices are the same then the grosses should be the same. The gross for Avatar at 2009 and 2010 pirces stands at $511 million (the fact that they are the same is correct if the ticket prices are the same) but its 2009 gross should be its actual gross: 504 million. Something has obviously been entered incorrectly. Betty Logan (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Betty but your asking me to discredit a reliable source (accepted in policy) in lieu of your own thoughts or opinions. Your breaking a common pillar of Wikipedia by even making the notion of it. BOM does not make any note of what "part" of the year any particular film on the list was released in relation to the inflation adjustment, so why should we do it with this one? If we were to change it, should we cite your User page as the reference? DrNegative (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, cite my user page as a reference. I am a clearly more reliable than Box Office Mojo in this instance. Betty Logan (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"I am a clearly more reliable than Box Office Mojo in this instance." I am in awe that you were brave enough to say that on here. So sometimes Box Office Mojo is more reliable than you? Thanks, Ill make a note of that. DrNegative (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DrNegative, the crassness of suggesting your opinion (see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH) are more valid than a highly regarded source is so amazing that I honestly thought you were joking the first time I read through this. Trusilver 19:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Avatar isn't like the other films, since it was released in regular theaters for one price, and in 3D theaters at a higher price. You can't be accurate unless you add in both of those figures. Dream Focus 18:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

How about dispensing with mention of the adjusted gross altogether? As I've pointed out before:

No one as of yet has calculated a truly precise and definite referential adjusted gross for a film, since doing so would have to take into account most (or all) of the following:

• Box office gross on initial release
• Ticket price at time of release, or its relative price to other commodities in a given year, in relation to general inflation and gross domestic product. Related to that:
• economic conditions that may help or hurt the entertainment industry as a whole (theaters in 2008 lowered ticket prices to attract more viewers though the average ticket cost $7.00)
• Population at time of release—to be used to calculate:
• Per capita ticket purchase number
• Availability of movies (number of theaters and screens, number of prints)
• Competition of other media (television, internet, home video, film piracy)
• the total number of movies in the marketplace at a given time
• Screen quotas (no influence on U.S. box office)
• Price differences: matinee and evening tickets, roadshow tickets, or difference between rural and urban cinemas
• Length of release (number of weeks)

Most adjusted-gross lists, such as those on Box Office Report[29] and Box Office Mojo[30], simply multiply the number of tickets sold (usually including re-releases) with the current average movie ticket price.

The above can be found in our own article List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada. It is clear that any sort of adjusted-gross value is little more than an interesting curiosity, especially when it's simply tickets sold multiplied by average ticket prices. Tickets sold would probably be a more useful figure to include in the article.

Also, I believe Betty was using WP:SARCASM. Notice that she doesn't even have a userpage. ;) AniRaptor2001 (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that might be a better solution since the notability of the adjusted gross hasn't really been established. If Variety or NY Times run a story like "Avatar now the 10th most successful film of all time adjusted for inflation" then it can be incorporated into the article as their opinion (since there are so many different ways of calculating these things), but to just plonk it in as an unqualified 'fact' like we do with the proper gross seem to be ignoring the context slightly. Betty Logan (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'll notice while reading articles from the NY Times or Variety on this ranking, 99% of the time they cite the exact same list we are citing. DrNegative (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I know, but it certainly won't be making my column in the Wall Street Journal while its figures are wrong. Betty Logan (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Does Jake pray, or contact‚ or what?

There was a revision in the Plot section saying "Jake attempts to contact Eywa, via neural connection to the Tree of Souls, to intercede on behalf of the Na'vi in the coming battle". I first changed "attempts to contact" back to ”prays" as more faithful to the plot, but then, agreeing with another editor that the word "prays" may be taken by some as loaded and too religious, changed it to " Jake entreats Eywa" as more neutral yet conveying his mood of urgency and humble dependence better.

Besides, the proposed wording "Jake attempts to contact Eywa... to intercede on behalf of the Na'vi in the coming battle" is ambiguous as it may be read as either "contacting her to to make her intercede" or "contacting her for being able to intercede". Cinosaur (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The main antagonist referred to her as a "deity" in the film so I would think "prays" would be appropriate. However, if neutrality is the issue, why not just say "speak to"? Technically thats what he was doing. Just my opinion. DrNegative (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"Speaks to" is definitely more neutral, but too much so. Jake clearly came not for a chat with Eywa, but in order to humbly and helplessly ask for her intervention -- something that even Na'vi had not dared asking of her, as Neytiri pointed out to him. In my opinion, whatever verb we settle on should be the one that conveys not just the fact of Jake's one-way communication to Eywa, but also his earnest and urgent appeal to her. Synonyms are: "appeals", "petitions", "implores", "begs", "prays", "pleads with", "beseeches" will all do. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I'll have to go with prays since the true definition of it is "an active effort to communicate with a deity or spirit." DrNegative (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

'Prays' is my preference too, as was 'soul' elsewhere. But even my short stint editing Wiki taught me to be conscious of some editor's being allergic to religious terms or alleged religious agendas. ;) Shouldn't we for this reason alone settle for a non-religious synonym of 'prayer'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinosaur (talk • contribs) 00:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh I agree some other input would be great on this matter. It is consensus on a matter of preference being a "Plot" section really. DrNegative (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We, the observers, learn that Pandora holds some sort of vast neural network, and that some entity known as Eywa exists -- be it a deity, a computer, or a post-singularity consciousness (my personal opinion). But from the perspective of the Na'vi, and by extension Jake, Eywa is a deity. I don't think it's at all inconsistent to refer to his communication with Eywa as prayer. -FeralDruid (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done I have reverted it back to 'prays' then. Cinosaur (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Box office changes

I've made some changes to the layout of the box office section, I'll break them down here. I think it helps structure the film's performance much more chronologically and allows for a better understanding of its week-by-week performance, domestically and internationally.

Under "opening weekend", we have a paragraph discussing the domestic opening, and one for the international opening.

Under "further release", the discussion of each weekend is separated out into its own set of sentences. I feel that this reads better than a large chunk of text. The large amount of numerical values make it confusing to look at.

"Totals" consolidates all the figures that must be continuously updated, such as total gross (and how many days have elapsed since release). Overall box-office records also go here. I've placed the inflation-adjusted box office ranking here and noted that it's BOM's particular calculation.

Finally, since this film's box office performance is special (#2 and possibly #1 highest grossing), I've elevated the "Performance Analysis" to the same level as "Box Office" under "Release"

I hope you all agree with these changes, I believe it makes this part of the article a better, clearer read. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, IMO, some of the "paragraphs" (I don't think two and three sentences is a paragraph) could be merged to make at least a five sentence paragraph. Too much white space and unused room. Other than that, it reads good and chronological order is the way to go. :) —Mike Allen 01:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagreed with these changes, AniRaptor2001. There is no reason that a Wikipedia article's Box office section should be split into this many subsections, not even with this film, which is why I removed them. There is no reason that this article cannot summarize the numbers in the same way that The Dark Knight (film) article does. We should not document every weekend this film is in theaters. And no Wikipedia film article documents every weekend a film is/was in theaters; we would have a pretty long Box office section if we did. If we start seeing things like..."In the 7th week," "In the 8th week," etc., we should eliminate that. This article's Box office section (excluding the Performance analysis section) is close to the same length as The Dark Knight (film) article's box office section; I am not seeing how it is too long or had become "unwieldy," but it does not need to be much longer than that; having all those subsections is inviting it to be longer than that, for each section to be expanded upon. And the Performance analysis section is a part of the Box office section; it is about the film's box office performance, so I am not getting your reason for eliminating that as a subsection of the Box office section. Because this film's performance is special is one of the main reasons it should be a subsection of the Box office section.

And, Mike, I am all for you merging some of that stuff. Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw a need to separate the chronological account of the film's box office performance from discussion of the records it has attained, etc. I feel like that is still preserved, so I can agree with the way we've got it set up now (without subheadings). I also agree that it's not the best idea to keep adding weeks to the section, but weeks in which the film achieved significant goals should be preserved separately, IMO. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

DrNegative has reformatted the section, to cut down on small lone paragraphs, and I appreciate the change. But are you against this? Flyer22 (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, I think where we stand is a good solution. I wasn't completely happy with the subsections either, but it felt like the best solution at the time. I feel like there should definitely be a logical separation of topics within the section, and I think we've achieved that now: Domestic release, International release, long term performance, current status. I feel like I should've just put it like this in the first place! AniRaptor2001 (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Trudy as Na'vi's casualty

The Plot says:

As the security forces attack, the Na'vi retaliate but suffer heavy casualties, among them Tsu'Tey and Trudy.

However, the previous mention of Trudy in the Plot section was:

Trudy Chacón (Michelle Rodriguez), a security force pilot disgusted with Quaritch's senseless violence, breaks them out.

with no in-between mention of her switching allegiance to Na'vi, or staying, along with her copter, with the fugitives. It's kind of implied, but might need to be clearer. Also, the way it is worded makes her sound as one of the Na'vi tribe. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we could say "pro-Na'vi forces" or something...Jake and Norm also fight for the Na'vi but aren't Na'vi (technically even their avatars aren't, being hybrids and all). This seems a bit nitpicky to me personally though, and I think the current wording is clear enough for plot summary purposes. Also, Na'vi isn't a tribe, it's a species. Omaticaya would be the primary tribe in the film. Doniago (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this very minor, but perfectionism seems to be favored in the article. Maybe just plain "Na'vi forces" will do the job here. I will give it a try. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Other film and other media similarities

The section on noted similarities with other films is well done, but I do feel a few other films should also be noted - if, of course, sources can be found. Aside from Dances with Wolves which is spotted right away, there are major similarities to an earlier CG film, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, in the film's embrace of Gaia theory (spirit in the Earth). I also spotted more than a few similarities with Green Mansions, and the Na'vi's actions during the sequences where they transferred people's consciousnesses into the Avatars immediately reminded me of certain aspects of the aliens featured in the Half-Life 2 videogame series. Halo was also conjured by some of the ship designs and settings. A case can also be made that Cameron also drew on many aspects of his own Aliens movie, ranging from a character similar to Paul Reiser's in the earlier film -- a bureaucrat with an agenda - to the same sort of articulated robot things we saw Ripley use to beat up the queen alien. This thing is a huge hodge-podge. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC).

The plot description sounds very much like the Dune (DOS based computer game). Anyone else noticed this?

If material is properly sourced, it'll go in. There's zero need for further idle speculation on the talk page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Cameron may have followed a current formula for successful films that I heard about, where you have an action film with lots of familiar aspects but with something new. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of things that this film has possibly been compared to. I would not say that they all should be included in this article. At least not all by name. Flyer22 (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead sentence re "leftist"

In a recent round of editing, an editor made a number of changes which I felt were questionable, I reverted them, and the editor reverted back. I'll start here with discussing one of the changes in question which was in the Critical reception section the addition of the following lead sentence in the 3rd paragraph which has the subject of sociopolitical aspects of the film.

Limited disapproval of the film has been focused not on the technical production, but on some alleged underlying leftist political themes.

This sentence appears to be the editor's opinion, is not supported by a source, and doesn't represesent the paragraph and contains POV. The film has been criticized for various other sociopolitical reasons, as mentioned in the paragraph, and criticized for aspects of the plot and dialogue other than "leftist" aspects, as mentioned elsewhere. There remains a comment in the paragraph that was more positive re sociopolitical aspects of the film and the editor removed another comment by Evo Morales that was positive also. Also, if by "leftist political themes" the editor is referring, e.g., to the anti-war statements by Cameron, as quoted in the Themes and inspirations section, using the term "alleged" is misleading and a violation of WP:NPOV. It's a very poor POV, OR, and just plain wrong lead sentence that is also misleading regarding the content of the paragraph.

For these reasons, I have removed this new lead sentence again. The editor is requested to get consensus before adding this questionable lead sentence for the third time. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we have some diffs please Bob so we can compare. Betty Logan (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the first group of edits by Redthoreau [31]. Please see article's history for the activity that followed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion due to POV and weasel words. DrNegative (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree, although a lead into that section of the criticism (with the removal of the POV wording) might be a good idea, because at the moment it goes straight from praising the film's technical achievements into discussing a possible leftwing agenda. Betty Logan (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a lead sentence would be useful that would say what the paragraph is about, viz., critical reception of sociopolitical aspects of the film. I think it should be worded in a way to include as best as possible, and in general terms, the various aspects mentioned in the paragraph: militarism, capitalism, imperialism, ecological, propaganda, religion, and race. Perhaps we can work on that here. Any suggestions? Here's a quick try.

The film generated comments from some viewers regarding social and political issues.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Something along those lines would be ok. I'd replace 'generated' with 'attracted' because the film didn't actually make these people voice their opinions, I'd remove "some viewers" because it sounds too anonymous and since the film doesn't lay out an explicit political agenda then I'd use 'themes' instead of 'issues': The film also attracted comments regarding possible underlying social and political themes. Betty Logan (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That looks good to me. You can wait a bit for someone else to comment or you can put it in, as far as I'm concerned. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I already added it, without reading this discussion, but it is without the word "also" and the words "possible underlying." Cameron has already acknowledged that the film has underlying social and political themes. Thus, I am not seeing why we should put "possible underlying." Flyer22 (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it. It was long overdue and a nice clarification of that paragraph's topic.

You are right that Cameron has acknowledged some of the themes, but he hasn't acknowledged other "possible" themes such as pantheism and race, that are mentioned in the paragraph. Even so, you might be right that it is better without "possible", so it's OK with me as you have it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and it is clear that themes such as pantheism and race are the opinions of those reviewers. Flyer22 (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Evo Morales quote

The Evo Morales quote regarding the sociopolitical aspects of the film was moved by an editor[32] from the 3rd paragraph of the Critical reception section, which is the paragraph with sociopolitical aspects, to the paragraph of comments on the film by film writers and directors. Also, in the sociopolitical 3rd paragraph, the quote gave an opposing view to the Armond White quote. Thus the quote was better placed in its original position instead of the new position, where it had little if any purpose or appropriateness. For these reasons, I have moved the quote back for the second time. The editor is requested to get consensus before making this change for the 3rd time. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Recently the Evo Morales quote was moved by Aniraptor2001 within the paragraph[33] in order to group positive comments together. As I mentioned in the above message, the quote gave an opposing view to the Armond White quote and by following that quote, it is in a more relevant place. So I think the Evo Morales quote should be moved back to the position following the Armond White quote. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's better to have comments discussing the same point together - whether they are positive or negative - otherwise you end up with a situation where you break off from a point and come back to it later. The article starts to lose cohesion when you do that. AniRaptor isn't the only editor to move that bit though, so it's a good idea to get a canvass of opinion before it's moved again. Betty Logan (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't see the logic in putting Morales' quote with the film director quotes. I do believe the Morales and Cohen quotes should be grouped together, because they wax positive on the film's treatment of imperialism, much to the contrary of the other comments in that paragraph.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of putting the Morales quote after the White quote because they are discussing different sides of the same issue, and the reason Betty gave for having the White and Morales quotes together? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Should Cohen, Morales, and White all go together then, as they all discuss imperialism/capitalism? The other three are more varied, Moore seems to be talking about militarism specifically, Newitz is talking about white guilt, and Douthat is talking about pantheism. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

We can discuss the other quotes too, but let's get the Morales quote position settled first. Please look at my previous question again so that we can settle on whether we want to put the Morales quote after the White quote. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, I agree on the repositioning of the Morales quote. I've made the adjustment to the paragraph, have a look and tell me what you think.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Your adjustment is fine. Regarding your suggestion of moving the Cohen quote, where would you like to put it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said four spots above, I like the idea of quotes to be organized by which theme they treat, i.e. imperalism/capitalism, then militarism, then white guilt, then pantheism. Frankly, I think the paragraph looks pretty good the way it is right now. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you notice that the Cohen quote, which you mentioned in a previous comment, is currently at the end of the paragraph? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

AniRaptor2001, it does look good except for the pantheism quote (which I originally proposed) because this purely religious opinion is rather misplaced in the socio-political context here. There is a sizable body of notable but heretofore untapped cultural and religious reviews on the movie to warrant a short topical paragraph following this one, where the NYT pantheism quote will fit much better. This paragraph may include a recent comment from the Vatican, a critical Jewish outlook, a favorable cultural comment from the Hindus, and a balanced review from the Muslims. Should not take more than 6-7 lines. Opinions? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I see the Cohen quote in the middle of the paragraph? I would support the creation of a separate religious paragraph, but am starting to see a real need for a separate article dealing with Themes in Avatar, their interpretations and criticism. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Grace's memories as OR

An editor proposed to include the line:

It is unclear whether her memories have been fully or partially incorporated into the Tree.

in the Plot section after

The clan attempts to transfer Grace from her dying body into her Na'vi avatar with the aid of the Tree, but she succumbs to her injuries before the transfer completes.

I opposed the revision as more of an analysis or OR than faithful narration of the plot, and replaced it with a direct quote from Cameron's script:

Mo'an declares that "she is with Eywa now".

Here is the diff. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You have ignored the point of my edit summary response. The question of whether Grace's memories are accessible is later raised during the "prayer" sequence. And left unanswered. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not Grace's memories are accessible is, to my mind, immaterial to the plot summary, which is already longer than it should be per WP:FILMPLOT. Also, it's Mo'at, not Mo'an. Doniago (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Not immaterial. The intervention of Eywa, who we are told "does not take sides", hinges on whether she can access Grace's memories and see what humans have done to Earth. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's theory unless you have a source to back it up. Eywa's intervention could just as easily hinge on the mere fact that Jake asked Eywa to intervene. There's no conclusive information that I'm aware of either way. Doniago (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not speculation that Jake asks Ewya about Grace's memories. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but it is speculation that Eywa exists/has access to them/they make a difference. Doniago (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

My statement is about Grace's memories, not whether Ewya exists. The statement is

It is unclear whether her memories have been fully or partially incorporated into the Tree.

And this is part of the plot. Please note I said Tree, not Ewya. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's unclear then it's not appropriate for inclusion. The plot summary should discuss what -does- happen, not what may or may not have happened. There's no reason to include supposition. Doniago (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There is when the supposition is directly referenced in the film.--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[[Link titleLink title]]

Michael, I have not ignored your valid point, but as Doniago pointed out as well, it is better to stick to narrating the plot. In order to take care of your remark, we may consider inserting a word or two in the "prayer" section to make it say something like:

Jake prays to Eywa, via neural connection to the Tree of Souls, to try and access Augustine's memories about the "killed mother" Earth and to help stop humans from a similar destruction of Pandora.

or similar. What do you and others think? Doniago, thanks for info on the typo. Fixed. Cinosaur (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually Doniago did not say "it is better to stick to narrating the plot". But that is irrelevant, since the question of her memories' survival are part of the plot. The later amendation you propose is okay, but I think the word "succumbs" earlier is simplistically negative and misses the point entirely. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Which word would you use in place of 'succumbs'? And how does it miss the point? Cinosaur (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps say that her body succumbs, instead of she which implies personality or ego. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael, I think 'she succumbs' is sufficiently clear because 'succumbing' implies that she could not stay in her body any longer, if somebody wants to look at it this way. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it obviously is not "sufficiently clear"! --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, you seem to be the only user who has enough of a problem with this to bring it up on the talk page, which means that currently consensus is against you. If other users feel the same way, I'd welcome their input. If not, then I would maintain that no changes are needed/merited. Doniago (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Factually speaking, we know- 1) Grace's physical form dies from her wounds. 2) Her avatar doesn't receive her soul/consciousness/etc. We don't know whether Eywa actually exists in any sort of sentient manner, whether Eywa receives Grace's memories (or how many/whether they're intact), or whether receiving Grace's memories would make a difference in any case. Given that level of uncertainty, I'd call this supposition that isn't essential to the plot, especially when the plot is already running overly-long. Doniago (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We do know, however, that Grace said: "I’m with her Jake -- she’s real" before dying, which gave Jake a reason to both believe in Eywa's existence and to ask her to access Grace's memory. Doniago, what do you think about the rewrite proposed above? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I overlooked that (I suppose one could argue as to whether Grace would necessarily know what she was experiencing, -but-...). I like - "The clan attempts to transfer Grace from her dying body into her Na'vi avatar with the aid of the Tree, but she succumbs to her injuries before the transfer completes. Mo'an declares that "she is with Eywa now"." To me that indicates that she's obviously dead on a physical level while acknowledging the possibility that some portion of her remains. I don't really see the need to further expound on this...and on that note, I have to head off, sorry. I can take another look sometime tomorrow. Doniago (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that it's Mo'at, not Mo'an. LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I'm a horrible person. :( Doniago (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think "succumbs" fits this statement just fine. As she fades out from her POV, we do get the same "warp tunnel" looking scene that occurs whenever Jake transfers to his Avatar. Who knows what that implies though but one could guess it was a transfer to the Tree of souls since her Avatar laid there like a dead stick afterwards. These Plot sections are so hard to call it like you see it because everyone sees it their own way. Guess we will have to keep our thesaurus on the table for awhile. DrNegative (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"These Plot sections are so hard to call it like you see it because everyone sees it their own way" -- What about renaming them into Rorschach Blot section. :) Cinosaur (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly. :) DrNegative (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Marine Corps criticism

Interesting angle here from the Marine Corps Times: [34].

A military response to the film might be interesting to use in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty Logan (talk • contribs) 23:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I found an article in which Cameron responded to critics of his potrayal of the military in the film here.[35] DrNegative (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A Marketing subarticle for this film

With this article increasing in size, which will definitely happen with more information about its awards and nominations and a Home media section, I feel that a subarticle for the marketing information should be created. We can get a good amount of space back if the Marketing section is significantly cut down. Plus, a separate article about the marketing would allow for more information about that (trivial or whatever). Anyone up for going ahead and creating it? Flyer22 (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Has it been done for any other films? It's actually one of the shorter sections! AniRaptor2001 (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure. But either way, I feel that it does not matter in this case. This article is one of those "special cases." It is already quite big, and subarticles are suggested for that type of thing. I feel that the Marketing section should be significantly cut instead of any aspect of the Box office section, for example. I have looked at the Performance analysis subsection of the Box office section to see what can be cut, but everything in it seems important to note. If anything can be cut from that section, it is only a bit. But we can significantly cut the Marketing section in the same way that we have cut the the Music and soundtrack section. And a marketing article for this film can flourish with more detail about the marketing of it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we could wait and see how this article expands. We do have a List of awards and honors received by Avatar article to cover the awards and honors for this film. The only other section we know for a fact will be added to this article is the Home media section. We just need to see how that plays in size, and cut what we can in the meantime. I would say that this article should not be much bigger than the Changeling (film) article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"Current events" inserted into plot

I'm moving this here as a formality; I don't think it adds anything useful beyond rehashing the imperialist theme. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Historical and Current Events Depiction

It was concluded by some critics and viewers that the movie's plot bears unmistakable resemblance to the annihilation of the Red Indians and Australian Aboriginals by European immigrants; the 1948 Palestinian exodus sparked by founding the state of Israel; as well as Imperialism in general.. Furthermore, Colonel Miles Quaritch (the main antagonist) using the expressions "We will fight terror with terror" and "pre-emptive attack is our only hope" as pretexts while mobilizing his soldiers to justify attacking the natives via shock and awe was seen as a hint to the ongoing War on Terror

I agree, and it definitely does not belong in the "Plot" section to say the least. DrNegative (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Moved it under "Themes" to match the template.

Wait for consensus before making any changes. I know your new to Wikipedia but we talk it over here and get other input from other editors without retroactively changing the live article as we discuss it. DrNegative (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, even though you did attempt to address my point that I brought up, AniRaptor feels that it is WP:UNDUE from what I gather from his/her comment. DrNegative (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This does not belong in a Themes section of this article. We already have a Themes and inspirations section, where Cameron acknowledges the sociopolitical themes in this film. Not only that, but stuff like this is already covered in the Critical reception section. If it belongs anywhere in this article, it is there...along with other people's opinions about this film. Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor is persistently reverting and ignoring calls to discuss. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I have reported this editor (Theremes) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Going against WP:3RR is a big no-no, and this editor has certainly violated WP:3RR (with as many times as he or she was reverted by different editors here). You all are invited to weigh in on this matter there at the Administrators Incidents noticeboard. Sure, this editor is new, but that does not excuse this behavior. Flyer22 (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

He's been reported at the 3RR board as well. Interestingly enough, the links provided as "references" make no mention of "red Indians" or "aborigines", as the contested text claims. Also, the second paragraph is very close to a copyvio on one of the links. Either way, the whole thing reeks of WP:SYNTH frmo a new editor who thought that tossing a pile of links on as "references" (whether they really were or not) would be enough. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This editor needs to be blocked immediately. Shows complete disdain for consensus... Doc9871 (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And now he is - 36 hour block... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehee! 3RR? More like 8RR... Doc9871 (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I had removed my initial report; I was in the process of reporting him or her at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring instead, but it is complicated reporting there. Jeez. I had to gather up all kinds of diffs. And I was like, "There is no way I am going to provide all those damn diffs, but I will report this user." Good to see he or she is already blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well it looks like everything went downhill with an edit-war while I was away. Glad it has died down. I read most of the sources and several of them were user-submiited articles/journals it seemed. I had warned him with the 3RR template before I left, but he blanked his talk-page. DrNegative (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Deities Blues

Bob K31416 -- You seem to be having a thing about my revisions in this article. :) I think the revision of the Cameron's quote by AniRaptor2001, slightly tweaked by me:

Acknowledging that he "likes conceptually" the color's connection to the Hindu deities, Cameron said, "I just like blue. It's a good color."

is better than the one proposed by you:

Also, Cameron said that he just liked the color blue and its conceptual connection to Hindu deities.

because, unlike yours, ours attaches two entirely different footnotes to their appropriate locations in the sentence -- one to Cameron's whole statement and the other, with an explanatory note and a reference, to his mention of the blue color connected to Hindu deities. I believe that this revision makes it easier for readers to look up what they want, and appropriately concludes the topic on color with Cameron's own preference for it.

Besides, I changed the text in the footnote to a more faithful rendition of the reference: " A number of principal deities of Hinduism, particularly Vishnu and his most popular avatars such as Krishna and Rama, are traditionally depicted and described as dark-blue" I would like it to stay this way in the footnote. What are your objections to it? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The text is simpler and in accord with the source, as I said in my edit summary. The extra parts in the other version aren't needed. Also, the original version is smoother reading without the extra parts.

Regarding the footnotes, here are the two versions, the original version and then the other.

1) According to Hindu beliefs, the god Vishnu has appeared in human form colored blue.

2) A number of principal deities of Hinduism, particularly Vishnu and his most popular avatars such as Krishna and Rama, are traditionally depicted and described as dark-blue.

The original footnote (1) sticks with the subject of the paragraph, which is the look of the Na'vi, in this case the blue aspect of the look. Adding the specific names of the avatars is an unnecessary digression and also the term "avatar" may be a bit confusing because an avatar in the movie is a remotely controlled body that was manufactured and the paragraph isn't discussing the origin of the color of just the avatars in the movie, but the color of the Na'vi, which is also the color of the movie avatars. The original footnote (1) purposely used "human form" instead of "avatar" to avoid this. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob K31416, thanks for your detailed answer. Your point about avatar as possibly confusing is well taken. Agreed.

Regarding the text, I will wait for AniRaptor2001's comment --this is his original revision, after all. The main reason I liked his better is explained above.

Regarding simplicity, one can meaningfully argue that since the wikilink Hindu deities is already blue, even your version of the footnote is redundant. Just kidding. ;)

Speaking of the footnote, I agree that your version is simpler. But:

1. Cameron mentions Hindu deities in the plural, and therefore the explanatory footnote ought to address this plurality of blue Hindu deities -- something which my version does and yours does not. Readers deserve to have a way to know who these mysterious blue deities are -- at least in the footnote, if they care to read it at all;
2. the wikilinked article on Hindu deities is currently an unintelligible mess under a Cleanup Taskforce, and does not speak a word about who the blue deities are;
3. on the contrary, articles on Krishna and Rama have chromo-descriptions and images of both, which help illustrate the "conceptual connection";
4. these specific avatars are mentioned by the source quoted in the footnote -- hardly a digression. And finally
5. come on, Bob, it is just a footnote, which by definition is meant "to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article [and to be] used to present citations to reliable sources that support assertions in the main article." So if your version is not a digression, it should be in the article! :)

I find it curious that you first gave digression as an excuse for demoting my original revision to the footnote, and now you use the same excuse for disallowing me to provide RS even in the footnote.

May the blue deities be kind upon you, Bob. :) Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I read over this a little bit and I like Bob's version better. Mostly because, in my mind, your version seemed to imply that James Cameron took Hindu Deities into serious account while he was designing the Na'vi. I don't see any evidence to suggest this. I understand where you were going with it, but unless there is significant reason to think that the director was really pushing some kind of connection to said deities, it's better to go with Bob's more neutral version. Trusilver 08:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Trusilver. It did not even occur to me that my version of the footnote had such grave implications as you are describing. If it really does, it should be corrected. The following flow of logic may explains the footnote's wording, so it is easier to correct it:

Cameron: “I just like blue. It's a good color. Plus, there's a connection to the Hindu deities, which I like conceptually.”

Reader: What is that connection of the color blue to the Hindu deities he is talking about? Do they ride blue dolphins, wear blue jeans, or use blue lipstick?

Footnote: No, they are traditionally depicted as blue-skinned, just like the Na’vi.

Reader: I see. All of them?

Footnote: No, some of them.

Reader: And which ones exactly?

Footnote: Most prominently Vishnu and his incarnations Krishna and Rama. Here is a reference to a CNN.com article.

Reader: Thanks. And what's the connection to them that Cameron likes so conceptually?

Footnote: Ask Cameron.

From what I understand, unlike the above, Bob's version stops short of acknowledging plurality of the blue deities, thus inadvertently misleading readers into thinking that Vishnu is Cameron's only "conceptual connection" to the color. Or am I delusional here? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice little logic play-by-play, Cinosaur. I agree that the plurality of blue deities in Hinduism should be stressed, so that readers can have a full grasp of the "connection" that's being discussed without having to look through more articles. Possible explanations of the "blueness" can be found here. The conceptual connection discussed in the Wadhwani article is proposed by an established filmmaker, Sudipto Chattopadhyay. I support inclusion of this material in a larger treatment of the film's themes (outside of simply Cameron's own perspectives and intentions). For now, I propose a change from:

Also, Cameron said that he just liked the color blue and its conceptual connection to Hindu deities.(ref: According to Hindu beliefs, the god Vishnu has appeared in human form colored blue.)

To:

On the specific reason for the choice of blue as their skin color, Cameron said "I just like blue. It's a good color... plus, there's a connection to the Hindu deities, which I like conceptually."(ref:In Hinduism, the human manifestations of several deities, including Vishnu and Rama, have blue-colored skin.)

I believe it's a good idea to include phrasing such as "I just like" and "like conceptually" as part of a quotation; it doesn't seem like appropriate rhetoric for encyclopedic content. That's my main issue with writing, "Cameron said that he just liked the color blue", for example. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer quoting Cameron verbatim too. Though Bob's version is not far from literality, there is no reason to rephrase a direct citation from Cameron if it can be used as is. The verbatim quote will also let us keep the two footnotes apart, which is more reader-friendly. BTW, here is a wikilink explaining blueness in relation to Hindu deities quite well and may be considered for a reference. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems with quoting verbatim is that there may be extra stuff that isn't necessary to convey the idea. Here's something I got from WP:SYNTH, with a little editing, which seems like good advice in general, "Carefully summarizing or rephrasing a source without changing its meaning or implication ... is good editing." And BTW, Vishnu is a god and Rama is one of Vishnu's human-form avatars, so Aniraptor's version might be looked at with that in mind, since from that version they seem to be the same type. So far, Trusilver and I support the present version, Cinosaur has a version and Aniraptor has a version. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Good quote on paraphrasing, Bob. For the record, ours with AniRaptor are not really different versions. But before we settle on the final wording, though, what's your opinion on phrasing the sentence in the article in a way structurally closer to the original, so we can keep the two footnotes apart, like:

Also, Cameron said that he just liked the color blue by itself, as well as its connection to the Hindu deities [ft1 to blue Hindu deities], which he liked "conceptually".[fn2 to Cameron's words]

Otherwise [fn1] and [fn2] get both stuck in the end of the sentence, as if both are references for Cameron's words, which is not true. Or am I the only one seeing it as a bug here? What do you and AniRaptor think? I will get back on the footnote wording soon. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with this editing, though I still don't think that "just liked" shouldn't have quotation marks around it. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am for "just liked", if Wiki standards do not oblige us to write something as awkward as "just like[d]". Then we can also say "liked conceptually". Cinosaur (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Question, how do we know exactly which deity he had in mind or may have mistaken as blue for that matter? Why not just full quote his statement as it is, then footnote the other journalist's implication of the deity he was thinking of? DrNegative (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

From that, it sounds like you would favor my take: [On the specific reason for the choice of blue as their skin color, Cameron said "I just like blue. It's a good color... plus, there's a connection to the Hindu deities, which I like conceptually."(ref:In Hinduism, the human manifestations of several deities, including Vishnu and Rama, have blue-colored skin.)]AniRaptor2001 (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

DrNegative, this is exactly what AniRaptor and myself tried to address in the proposed footnote(s) that acknowledge plurality of the blue-skinned deities and mention a few most prominent of them. There are not so many, BTW -- Vishnu, his human avatars Krishna and Rama, as well as Shiva and Durga. The last two do not have known blue incarnations. So besides the first three who else could Cameron possibly mean by "the Hindu deities", unless he is a covert expert on arcane Hindu iconography. See also Blue#Religion. Therefore I favor AniRaptor's version. Or if we can get consensus on using a direct quote from the Hindu filmmaker as the explanatory footnote, as you seem to be proposing, fine too. Regards and thanks for your participation in the discussion. Cinosaur (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

National varieties of English

Regarding what form of spelling to use in the article for some English words, the Wikipedia Manual of Style has the section National varieties of English for reference. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Could this possibly be the most expensive movie made?

According to this source, they state that it's $307 million. [36] New Zealand Herald —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.3.199 (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's in New Zealand dollars. It says it has grossed more than $2 billion too, but its worldwide gross currently stands under US $1.7 billion. Betty Logan (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Betty is correct, that's NZD:

237,000,000.00 USD = 333,849,827.87 NZD [37]

1,718,989,686.00 USD = 2,421,453,210.04 NZD [38]

—Mike Allen 22:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

But it clearly states that Avatar was "the most expensive movie ever made". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.3.199 (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Are there any more sources that claim this? —Mike Allen 23:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to put "the most expensive movie ever made", seeing as how a film's actual production costs are always the subject of some debate. If it were to be included, I would support something more like, "the New Zealand Herald called Avatar as "the most expensive movie ever made," citing production costs of NZ$307 million." AniRaptor2001 (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There have been several sources that have referred to it as the most expensive film ever made but they don't validate the claim. Even if you take the LA Times/NY Times estimate of $280 million over the official $237 million that still puts it below the reputed estimate for Pirates of the Caribbean 3, although that budget itself is the subject of much debate. Either way, the NZ $307m estimate translates to about US $220 which puts it quite a bit below the official Spiderman 3 bugdet, so the claim doesn't even stand up when you use the article's own data. Betty Logan (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Fern Gully Connection

There has been limited discussion of a a connection with the plot of Fern Gully. But the final scene of Fern Gully contains a quote, "For our children and our children's children." Jake Sully can be heard delivering this quote while gathering the tribes. It appears to be a self-aware reference to Fern Gully by the creators. This might make an interesting line in the section noting comparisons to Fern Gully, Dances with Wolves, etc. (72.132.162.215 (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

Our own observations are meaningless without proof. :) DrNegative (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixing the inflation adjusted issue

I just thought of a simple fix to the debate about the inflation adjusted issue. Instead of mentioning the inflation adjusted gross, Wikipedia already includes a list of movie by tickets sold and places Avatar at 32nd (List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States). We can just say that "Avatar ranks 32nd domestically by estimated number of tickets sold." No one can argue against such a statement as invalid or inflated. Dante2308 (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got a good mind to delete that entire chart because it uses Box Office Mojo as a source but Box Office Mojo doesn't give the ticket sales, so presumably all that is original research. What is more if they have simply worked out the Avatar ticket sales by dividing the gross by the average ticket price then that is false economy given the fact that Avatar tickets cost more than average. Betty Logan (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Dang. I was so close to finding a solution. I would assume that you are right because Avatar's inflated ticket prices would result in a greater discrepancy between the "inflated adjusted" ranking and total ticket sales ranking. The total number of tickets sold are not in the public domain. Please delete that chart if you find that the numbers are simple division. Dante2308 (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A 7-8 Million discrepancy probably isn't going to make that much difference to its chart position soon. If its drop-off rates stay under 20% then 600 mil is a foregone conclusion, 700 mil is probable and 800 mil is possible. If it hits 720 (which is actually very likely now) then all the films above it and below 940 are separated by at least 10 mil so a small difference won't have any impact on its ranking. Betty Logan (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe in the end it wont matter much, but there is quite a bit of discrepancy between assuming a ticket price of $7.35 and the actual average nearer to and probably above $10. This makes the chart just as useless as the inflation adjusted gross. Dante2308 (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Cameron Scoops awards by recycling Studio Ghibli

Yeah, Avatar was pretty good. For me, the best part was the actual 3D visuals. The whole plot and concepts were all a rehash of the Japanese Studio Ghibli, which created, among other things, Princess Mononoke. Dense jungles and forests, mountains floating in the sky, cool glow-in-the-dark creatures, bizarre huge monsters, a variety of creative airships, the battle between the "carers" and the "exploiters," all those themes have already been totally covered by Studio Ghibli. Ghibli didn't have blue people or human-interfaced aliens, tho. And that's my two cents. --Torchpratt (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole theme of Avatar is, now after a bit of research, one of the most common type of story ever told. The Mountains floating in the sky are (if you bother to look into, enough) are also common in the sci-fi world. Creative airships are as rare as a blade of grass, today. And it doesn't take a genius to factor the bizarre creatures into the lush rainforests. No doubt Cameron borrowed both the theme and environment from someone else. Most likely Call me Joe and FernGully - I would be surprised if it was Studio Ghibli. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Sheridan (talk • contribs) 13:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I recommend we junk this section. Yet again the discussion page is being cluttered by discussion which is not about the article and more suited to the IMDB board. Betty Logan (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Some level of discussion is necessary to allow for a consensus adjustment. As for this topic, James Cameron is an avid fan of sci-fi and anime. Therefore, like anyone who is a fan of the genre, is likely to use similar elements in original works. Science fiction is basically plausible fantasy. The ship in the first few scenes is probably the only film debut of a technology in the film. I challenge any sci-fi fan to write a work that doesn't use someone else's technological or conceptual ideas like airships that aren't aerodynamic, alien monsters that aren't "bizarre," or to create a tree-inhabiting alien without trees... You can't patent the concept of a floating mountain, helicopters, or mining companies in fiction. Avatar was original because it is something we have never seen before if taken as a whole.99.32.186.55 (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll have some WP:FORUM with a side of WP:OR please. DrNegative (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Punctuation

Re. [39] and [40]: First of all, please do not mark a revert as minor. If it were minor, it would not be in dispute. Secondly, I don't see how it is relevant that the line in question is or is not a sentence fragment. The idea of WP:LQ is WYSIWYG: If it's not in the alphabet soup, it won't end up in the spoon; if it's not in the source, it doesn't go inside quotation marks. Sometimes a period in the source will have to be dropped in the quotation because it would interrupt the sentence flow; this is why one needs to use some common sense when deciding where to place sentence fragments that, in the original source, end with a period. There is no period in the source that would interrupt any syntax in the article, so I fail to see how the nature of sentence fragments is the least bit germane here. One may omit punctuation that would be disruptive (after all, except when quoting full sentences, the act of quotation is an act of omission), but one may not add punctuation where it would be...well, just what would it be, anyway? I still do not grasp the rationale for adding it. If it's not in the source, it doesn't just get to materialize within the quotation. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this. That works. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this comment. First, reverts can be marked as minor, such as vandalism or other clearly wrong edits. Not saying that yours was vandalism or clearly wrong to others. Just saying it was reflex to me. Second, you clearly sometimes read WP:Logical quotation differently than I and others do. It is relevant that the line in question is or is not a sentence fragment; this has been brought up time and time again at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. WP:Logical quotation is all about what is and what is not a partial quote. The line you reverted me on is a full quote, which just so happens to have had the word "said" in the middle of the sentence instead of at the end. This is no more a partial quote to me than if I had originally presented it without the word "said" as a pause. Also, I fail to see why you felt the need to bring this to the article talk page. Did I bring your recent wrongly-formatted edits here to this talk page? No. Because they were minor, and I knew that you would be able to see what I stated in my edit summaries. As you can see, this discussion only pertains to the two of us, and could have easily been had on my talk page. This is not the first time we have disagreed on a WP:Logical quotation matter, as I am sure you remember. Perhaps it should be taken to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, since people are clearly interpreting WP:Logical quotation differently at whatever time. And before you come back at me with the "Clearly, you are wrong" speak again, I again point you to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, where people often disagree on matters as well, even this. I would also appreciate you not saying how "one needs to use some common sense when deciding where to place sentence fragments" in regards to me, as if I am without it (common sense) or do not use it enough. Flyer22 (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22, I like using article talk pages because 1) WP is ultimately about community, and the more feedback one receives, the more nuanced one's understanding can become; and 2) article talk can be seen as a repository of reflections that can be of use to future editors. I sometimes use article talk even when I don't expect anyone to reply, but nonetheless suspect that future editors might benefit from viewing the comment. And in this case, you mentioned that other editors had agreed with you, so it would seem fair to bring the issue to the attention of other editors. But if you'd prefer that I use your own talk page when a matter seems to be primarily between the two of us, I certainly can do that. Also, in my line about "common sense", I did not mean that you weren't using common sense when placing sentence fragments (recall that I didn't see how this was about sentence fragments in the first place); what I meant was to restate my understanding of a part of WP:LQ, so as to clarify why saw no connection between that part of LQ and the matter at hand. Anyway, sorry that a misunderstanding occurred. Perhaps there ultimately is something to be brought up at WT:MOS, but I fail to see any ambiguity in the line, "On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." Therefore, because a period in that spot was not part of the quoted material, the period would go outside the quotation marks. That's why it's called "logical quotation": If A, then B. If not-A, then C. If no-period-is-in-quoted-material, then period-goes-outside-quotation-marks. Affirm the antecedent, thus accept the consequent. Pure, albeit prescriptive, logic. The exception occurs when logic has to step aside for pragmatism: If there is a period in the quoted material, and if the quoted material is a sentence fragment, then quoting the period along with the sentence fragment could disrupt the sentence flow, especially if the quotation is spliced into the middle of a new sentence. However, in this case, in the line in question for this article, there was no problematic period in the source, so the section of LQ about problematic periods would not seem to apply. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but I think that the confusion arises from your having done the same: LQ is, in my estimation, as simple as, "If the period is in the source, then it (maybe) ends up in the quotation marks; if the period is not in the source, then it (always) goes outside of the quotation marks." Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I would rather continue this discussion here than on my talk page. I would not want this discussion completely wiped from here or left as something that was discontinued. But whether you like using article talk pages or not, clearly some things are not for the article talk page. This is not the place for this discussion, in my view, because it is not necessarily about the article and certainly not as much anymore. You could argue that other editors will benefit in some way from this, such as learning about WP:Logical quotation, but I state that most of them will either not remember this discussion or will ignore it and its meaning. I say that because I have learned that most Wikipedia editors either do not pay attention to WP:Logical quotation or do not know about it, which is why I am always having to cite it and insert it. And when some do find out about it, they reject it; this is usually if they are American, like I am. They do this because it is "wrong" American-wise. There is also the fact of, as I stated before, editors interpreting WP:Logical quotation differently. You and I clearly do on this particular matter. The line "On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." needs to be rewritten or at least expanded upon after that for clarity, because people obviously do not look at it the same. I do not take it as literally as some, and rather focus on what is after it (the stuff about sentence fragments). Let's take the debated line for example:

"They both fall in love with each other, but they need to fight side-by-side," said Cameron, "and so there's that kind of requirement to let the other person go in order to do what you need to do, which is kind of interesting."

How is the period that I left right where it is (at the end of the word "interesting") not a part of the quoted material? And if one wants to switch this focus to the commas before and after the words "said Cameron" and say that they are not a part of the quoted material, the same goes for when we relay these types of lines: "Cameron said Avatar is a genuine epic." When we write this, we may relay it as "Avatar is a genuine epic," said Cameron. In that case, the comma is also not a part of the quoted material, but we do not write it as "Avatar is a genuine epic", said Cameron (with the comma outside of the quoted material. Likewise, if a punctuation is a part of quoted material, but we relay it as a sentence fragment, the punctuation should still go outside of the quoted material. This is what I have seen done by editors quite familiar with using WP:Logical quotation.

If I am partly wrong in how I use WP:Logical quotation, I can accept that. We cannot all be right about everything. But perhaps we should bring in one of the considered experts on this topic from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style or at least post a message there about this discussion? A I told you last time, a similar discussion like this was brought up before at Talk:The Twilight Saga: New Moon/Archive 1#WP:Logical quotation, and one of the considered experts stated that I was right. Flyer22 (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm American as well, and I was completely oblivious to logical quotation before I started editing on here. But I (now) accept it as the most faithful way to represent quoted material. But if exact representation is the goal, I don't see how LQ can be interpreted in anything but the most literal sense--as if it were almost to photograph the quoted line. The period at the end of "interesting" is not part of the quoted material, for the simple reason that there is no period at the end of "interesting" in the source. There is, instead, a comma. Now, had the source itself used LQ, it wouldn't have put either a comma or a period there--no comma because Cameron's line per se wouldn't have ended with a comma; and no period because, although Cameron's line is a full sentence, it is followed in the source by the words, "he explained", and so does not end the source's quotation of the line. Perhaps you are saying that we should end Cameron's line with a period because his line was a full sentence that would properly be quoted with a period before the right quotation mark. This would be true if we were citing Cameron. But we're not citing Cameron; we're citing Eric Ditzian and MTV, who incidentally happen to be quoting Cameron in their source--and their source is of the secondary variety, which WP ideally treats as the source material. And Ditzian/MTV didn't put a period in the disputed spot, so neither should we. Finally, I realize that this discussion has become more about grammar than about Avatar, and I certainly don't want to detract or distract from more pertinent threads. But ultimately, I agree with you: The discussion started here, for better or for worse, so it might as well come to fruition here as well. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Avatar has now surpassed Titanic

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2414728620100124?type=marketsNews --24.189.90.68 (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Non domestic totals only if you read it. The worldwide total is off by about 2 million. Dante2308 (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait until Monday afternoon (US time) for a more exact figure; right now, it's just estimates over the weekend. —Mike Allen 01:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur. The figures for each week usually don't get finalized until the following Monday. You have to wait for all movie theatres in all time zones to close their general ledgers for the week and report their final figures. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Another link: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i107616f101d6818868bd08edad593649?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thr%2Fnews+(The+Hollywood+Reporter+-+News)&utm_content=Twitter

Too much detail in the lede?

There are a lot of figures in the lede that are duplicated later in the article. I think this amount of detail is unnecessary. Since it's established that it probably isn't the most expensive film of all time I suggest just removing the budget information from the lede since the production section already covers it. As for the box office detail, I suggest retaining the current gross and its current ranking on the worldwide chart and leaving the rest to the box office section. The lede should only cover the most fundamental facts about the film, but there is too much statistical information bunged in. If someone comes to the article they don't need all that about budgets and opening figures, just a basic idea of how successful it has been and then they can go to the appropriate section if they want to read about its performance or conjecture about the budget. Betty Logan (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Dead links

There are currently 10 dead links on this article. [41]. Mostly from ComingSoon.net. I haven't looked at the article to see what the sources are being used for. Just a FYI. —Mike Allen 01:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You should them if you come across them so people know they need to be replaced. Betty Logan (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to hit up the wayback machine to see what I could find when I get time. We could probably find more recent refs to use for those as well. DrNegative (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If the information is static (i.e. not related to box office) try and use http://webcitation.com to archive the pages. That way if the links go dead the information doesn't become unsourced. Betty Logan (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going through right now. Under the Character (Humans) section there is a dead comingsoon.net link and then the archive link next to it. So that is triggering the tool saying it's a dead link because it's listed (even though the archive is also listed). Another one, I retrieved from the way back machine. —Mike Allen 01:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, make sure the dead link isn't hyperlinked and that the archived page link is. Sounds like the problem DrNegative (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

Ah, OK sounds like a solution. :) —Mike Allen 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh, how do you "unlink" within the "url=" parameter? —Mike Allen 02:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have seen editors do it but I'm not sure how to properly format it. Have you tried this example format for the reference?

"Wikipedia Main Page". Archived from the original on 2005-07-06. Retrieved 2002-09-30. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2002-09-30 suggested (help)

Checklinks should ignore the url hyperlink in this case if there is a valid archive url field within the ref to support it. DrNegative (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok that's how some do it already. It was one ref "Avatar starts filming in April" that had a ref name="start" and when the ref was used (2 times) and it didn't use the ref name, it used the whole cite web on all of them, one being the archive cite web and one being the regular site web. If that makes sense. lol —Mike Allen 02:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense now. Checklinks was treating them as two seperate instances as refs and knocking one as a dead link. I'll help you clean some of these up. DrNegative (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Roger Dean Artwork similarities

Am I dreaming or does Roger Dean deserve a nod from James Cameron for some of the concept artwork on this movie. Some of the Screen Shots look like they were lifted right of the Yessongs album cover. 66.49.231.71 (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Already discussed further up. Please read the Talk page prior to starting a new section. Doniago (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly

This quote is said to come from Entertainment Weekly, where Cameron talks about Avatar: “100 percent of what the actor does. Not 98, not 95—but 100 percent…Every nuance, every moment of their creation on set is preserved.” Does anyone have the link? An older quote in Wikipedia's article about Avatar says they were going to capture 95% of the actors' facial performances, but here it says 100%. 84.210.23.42 (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the words were spoken at Comic Con, here's a link to a report: http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/jackson-cameron-saddened-state-film-industry_4578 AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

American film?

I noticed that in comparison to several featured film articles (Star Wars, Jurassic park, Casino Royale, etc.) on Wikipedia, this one seems to be lacking the film's country in the opening sentence of the lead. I looked through the archives and it seemed as if consensus was a hung-jury. Are we going to leave it to the reader to decide the film's origin of distribution? I feel that it should be noted. DrNegative (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I feel like this caused a headache last time it was brought up. If we go by nationality of production company:

• Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation: USA
• Dune Entertainment: USA
• Giant Studios: GB
• Ingenious Film Partners: GB
• Lightstorm Entertainment: USA

By this metric, it would be a British-American production. The fact that it was filmed in New Zealand by a Canadian director seems to have caused a bit of a stir. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I was unsure of the policy of reference so to speak. Other filming locations here[42] list:

• • • Hamakua Coast, Hawaii, USA
    • Hughes Aircraft - 909 N. Sepulveda Boulevard, El Segundo, California, USA
    • Kaua'i, Hawaii, USA
    • Los Angeles, California, USA
    • O'ahu, Hawaii, USA
    • Playa Vista, California, USA
    • Stone Street Studios, Stone Street, Miramar, Wellington, New Zealand
    • Wellington, New Zealand

On that note, I didn't think filming locations were taken into serious account because many filmakers shoot on location outside the film's country of origin anyway. Then I thought it depended on the distribution studio (who also fronted the majority of the bill and owns the contractual rights to the film) which would be Fox in this case headquartered in Hollywood, CA. I'm sure this omission will be brought up in a future FA review for this film and I'm trying to get a good rational as to why we opted to disclude it. DrNegative (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe this was the main discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)/Archive_5#American-British_film.3F It seems the issue was whether it should be labelled American, or British-American, or American-British. The easiest thing to do would be to call it American, since as you say the distribution studio is the biggest player and is located in the U.S. I'm not sure it's worth continuing to keep this out of the lead, since in the rest of the article we regularly refer to "domestic" box office figures which correspond to U.S. (and Canada) box office figures. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

TfD, RM and (eventually) RfD

There are current proposals by me to move category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 24#Category:Avatar (film) and the template at Template talk:Avatar (film). If the second move goes ahead, i will put the original link on RFD. Simply south (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)