Talk:Avatar (2009 film)

Themes in Avatar

I recently stumbled upon this daughter article listing in the Avatar template and I assumed this page was created while I was on vacation. I added a hat-note linking to it in the "Themes" section. If anyone feels that it should not be linked for any reason, feel free to remove it. DrNegative (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was created today (Feb. 14). I like the idea, but what about when Avatar 2 is out, make a new "Themes" article about it separately? Or cross that bridge then. —Mike Allen 04:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah I found it (Feb. 10) [1] ;) I see what you are saying though about the title. The title makes specific reference to this particular film though so I don't think this would be a problem later on. One day we may need to address this but for now I would say the name fits so to speak. I am only concerned about the possibility of it turning into a POV fork as a main branch from this article. I hope the main editors will strive to keep it neutral. However, if any trims need to be made from this article (the enormous amount of themes), this new daughter article gives us a starting point as well. DrNegative (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

DrNegative, thanks for adding that hat-note to Themes in Avatar. It actually saved my day by giving me a very timely heads-up about the theft, which had caught me unawares. Since the article was just about ready for a roll-out when it was hijacked by a now banned user, we decided to continue editing it in main space. And I agree with your thoughts that this daughter article can serve as a thematic library for the new themes as they are being proposed to the main article. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And yes, you and other editors are most welcome to take part in editing Themes in Avatar to make it a useful addition to the main article and to prevent it from turning into a POV fork. Cinosaur (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A separate point -- shouldn't Themes in Avatar (2009 film) be hat-noted under Critical reception too as a "See also" article to facilitate those readers who are interested in more thematic critical reviews? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks awkward having a hat-note there. Maybe give the two critically implied themes paragraphs a sub-heading of their own to place a hat-note or migrate the paragraphs to the new themes article? DrNegative (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

DrNegative, please correct me if I am wrong, but the "See also:" hat-note is justified under Critical reception per Layout manual, which says:

Other references under the section title: If one or more articles provide further information or additional details, references to such articles may be placed immediately after the section heading for that section.

In other words, the "See also" template does not have to necessarily refer to an article that covers the section in question entirely. Supplying further information on some of the section's main points (which is what Themes in Avatar (2009 film) does) seems to be good enough. And if somebody writes articles on, say, Similarities with Avatar (2009 film) in other media and Peer reviews of Avatar (2009 film) expounding on the 4th and 5th paragraphs of Critical reception respectively, they will be plugged in under the same ”See also:" hat-note as well:

See also: Themes in Avatar (2009 film), Similarities with Avatar (2009 film) in other media, and Peer reviews of Avatar (2009 film)

Also, yours was an interesting suggestion about migration, but I believe that the most prominent thematic comments should stay in the main article as significant parts of the film's critical reception. What I would propose, though, is that all thematic sentences of the 3rd paragraph under Critical reception have corresponding counterparts as sections in Themes in Avatar (2009 film) and vise versa. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of the guidelines through the layout manual. My only concern was that if we are going to use the same hat-note twice within the article, we should add a subsection title to the "Critical reception" section to follow a hierarchy. As it stands now, the reader could assume that this link to the "Themes" article also elaborates on the film's review ratings and artistic critique when in fact it does not. DrNegative (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

My impression was that, unlike "Main article:", the template "See also:" rules out such an assumption. Or does it? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

DrNegative, on a second thought — do you think this:

See also: Thematic reviews of Avatar (2009 film)

will be a more appropriate way to clarify what the linked article is elaborating on in the Critical reception section? I am not opposed to creating a subsection title either, but the above could be a simpler way. Cinosaur (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I am satisfied with that. More definitive and precise to the reader. Looks good. DrNegative (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.  Done. For other such cases we may consider {{Details}} and {{Further}}. Also, may I ask your opinion on my suggestion above regarding syncing contents of Critical reception 3rd paragraph and Themes in Avatar (2009 film), to avert "a theme out of the blue" kind of thing? Cinosaur (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In most articles that I have seen, when a daughter article is created that addresses the section in question from the main article, the section gets shortened to a summary on the main article and the full details gets migrated to the daughter. I am not sure how to go about it in this case because this paragraph could have been in the "Themes" section but was kept in the "Critical reception" for flow. It is a unique situation in this case because the new "Themes" article covers multiple sections from the main. You could probably implement a section in the daughter article to treat the "Critics" view of the themes and organize select info there maybe. DrNegative (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Either option is fine with me. Should we ask for more opinions? And I am not sure about a section dedicated to critics's view in the daughter article because that would basically mean restating the same quotes from that article under a different section — unless I get your suggestion entirely wrong. Cinosaur (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't really a suggestion, but therein lies the problem. We have a nice paradox here. ;) DrNegative (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem. If there is any information about themes that is not important enough to be in the main article, move it to the daughter article. Stated another way, if most readers of the main article would be interested in the information, leave it in the main article (as well as in the more complete daughter article). The daughter article is accumulating more information, although I still don't think it is comprehensive in covering the themes. BTW, it is mostly an article about critics' views, isn't it? Anyhow, once it has settled down for a few weeks, I think that it will need a reorg, but for now, I think it is fulfilling its function. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Impact as an allegory

A blog of on Foreign Policy Magazine's website noted the number of movements and actvist and politianns using the film as an effective allegory for thier causes. [2] perhaps we can incorporate this into the article Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Already here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinosaur (talk • contribs) 17:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"Avatar Blues"

Worthy of note? CNN article 195.27.13.214 (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussed. Check the archives. DrNegative (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A problem with the first line

Avatar is not science fiction, it is fantasy. This is clearly seen from wikipedia's definition of science fiction:

"Science fiction is a genre of fiction. It differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature"

Avatar's setting is futuristic, but this does not make it science fiction. Every unexplained (and ridiculous) phenomena from floating mountains (why do they float?) to the "Flux Vortex" (no explanation here either) points towards fantasy. Just pointing that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.107.236.80 (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition of fantasy is as follows: "Fantasy is a genre that uses magic and other supernatural forms as a primary element of plot, theme, and/or setting." The floating mountains and flux vortex, while not explained by science, are not explained by magic or The Force or whatever either; I personally assumed that these phenomena had scientific explanations but that they weren't important enough to go into depth for.

Another thing is that while some things go unexplained, others are indeed explained 'scientifically'. --82.46.44.28 (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Floating mountains could hypothetically be explained as gravitational anomalies - their existence doesn't necessarily lie beyond the laws of nature on Pandora. Both the NY Times and LA Times describe Avatar as science fiction [3] [4] so you'd have a tough time having the description removed because it's a verifiable description. If you can find sources that describe the film as "fantasy" then you can always add to the description. The story is placed firmly in a scientific context with any understanding of the planet and its lifeforms presented through rational scientific explanations so I think that would qualify it as science fiction by most criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Flux_Vortex Not sure if the wiki is fan fiction or not, but unobtanium apparently is a super conductor that generates a strong magnetic field, hence the floating mountains. --Scandum (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A little point

Could it not be mentioned that Sully and Neytiri mated under the Tree of Souls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeky Freak (talk • contribs) 21:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, they did not. It was the/a Tree of Voices. Anyways, this is already mentioned in the "plot" part of the article. - 87.139.3.204 (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

$200,000,000 in IMAX

Today Avatar crossed yet another milestone hitting the $200,000,000 mark, more than double the previous record. Here is a link showing the news release from the IMAX Corp http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?dsid=2541&dekey=1&company_name=Imax+Corporation&id={11753274-0CD1-40D3-B6B5-1A9CE115C6A9} Dante2308 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the original source: http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=184846. Betty Logan (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Performance analysis

Under the "performance analysis" section, the article says: Regarding sentiment that Avatar would need significant "repeat business" just to make up for its budget and achieve box office success, Cameron commented on sharing being a part of successful films and believed Avatar could inspire this reaction. "When people have an experience that's very powerful in the movie theatre, they want to go share it. They want to grab their friend and bring them, so that they can enjoy it," he said. "They want to be the person to bring them the news that this is something worth having in their life. That's how Titanic worked."

I don't think this paragraph adds anything. Cameron is just stating the obvious. Of course, to be a blockbuster, a film needs repeat business and good "word of mouth". Just because Cameron says something about the box office performance does not mean that it is notable - he does not discuss strategy; he's just giving his impression of the apparent fact that repeat business and good word of mouth is needed to achieve good box office performance. I tried to delete this, but Flyer22 put it back in. Flyer, since you are concerned about keeping the length of the article down, let's take this out. Comments from others, please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, "The comment is in response to this film needing to perform like Titanic in order just to be successful, due to its budget. Not all films need repeat viewings."

You say, "Of course, to be a blockbuster, a film needs repeat business and good word of mouth." To this, I again point out that plenty of films have become "blockbusters" without significant repeat business or good word of mouth. The Twilight Saga: New Moon film is a recent example of that, when referring to its opening day and weekend...unless you do not consider that film a blockbuster. The fact is that this film's success was largely dependent upon repeat viewing; it absolutely needed it in order to not be considered a box office failure. There is nothing wrong with making this clear, with Cameron's comment about how films become this successful. Not all films have these type of repeat viewing performances, and these two films are the only ones to have repeat viewership to such a large extent. The above paragraph also creates an excellent lead-in for the Titanic comparisons. Out of all of Cameron's quotes in that section, this one is one of the two most important ones. You already cut down what I view as the most important one -- the quotebox one.

Yes, I am worried about the size of this article (I am the one who addressed it twice on this talk page with no responses about it and had to take action myself), but this paragraph does not add much space (the article stays at 134 kilobytes with or without it), and I am still keeping this article's size down. It's amazing that the Home media section is in it without this article being over 140 kilobytes, as this article was headed to before.

When this article needs more cuts because it is no longer staying very close to 134 kilobytes, we will worry about more cuts then. But these days, this article's size has been relatively stable. Flyer22 (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

To some it may be obvious, but others it may not. Repeat viewing are a key concept to the financial success of this film and Titanic. That statement reaffirms to the reader that Cameron is in agreement.

As for the article's size, it is rather large, but stable and informative. This article should be near the peak size now with the "Home Media" section in. The editors here have done such a good job at keeping the cruft out, and the good encyclopedic content in, that any large cuts made could actually hurt the article. DrNegative (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it can come out without being detrimental to the article. It's a moot point now - that whole section is conjecturing what sort of business Avatar would need to be successful. It's come out now, it's clearly a runaway success so the performance analysis section should be focusing on the reasons for its success. If repeat viewings have been a key factor in Avatar's success then we should find some recent sources to bear that out, rather than just relying on pre-release speculation. Betty Logan (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I am just not seeing why it should or needs to come out, Betty. Moot point or not. The Performance analysis section is focusing on the reasons for this film's success. It is well-structured in that respect, but the criticisms and predictions of/about the film before its release are just as important to note...especially considering its box office performance in light of all that. The section starts off documenting the doubts about the film's box office performance, then goes into the predictions, then goes into the astonishment by its box office performance, and finally finishes with the explanations for its unusually strong box office performance...along with two comments congratulating this feat. Most of everything in that section is important to note, and all of it is very relevant. The section is well-written, and was carefully mapped out by me when I put it all together. There is nothing more that needs to be added to it, and the "needed cuts" for it have already been made. What is wrong with letting one paragraph detailing how important repeat viewership had to be to this film stay in? Repeat viewings being a key factor in Avatar's success is further noted in that section; it is not as though we are relying only on Cameron's explanation. But that Cameron paragraph shines significant light on just how important repeat viewership had to be to this film's success, without us going into later detail about that and how the film would have bombed otherwise...by studio standards. Flyer22 (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Russian broadcast

previously discussed in:

• Should there be a "Similarities to Other Works" section?
• Is Avatar an original story?
• The Strugatsky Brothers' original 1960-s novel
• WP:UNDUE and prominence of sociopolitical aspects

SerdechnyG (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

copied from Talk:Themes in Avatar

SerdechnyG, I understand your desire to include these facts here, but they simply do not belong. The article is about themes in Avatar, and not about allegations of plagiarism, which have been too many to name. You may consider starting a separate article on Avatar plagiarism charges and then link it in under the main article's appropriate section, if you get consensus there. Repeated reverts here are not helpful to get other editors to respect your proposed contributions. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This article focuses exclusively on the themes in Avatar. I am not sure why you were directed to this article, but if your material belongs anywhere it is in the main Avatar article; possible inspirations for Avatar are dealt with in Avatar_(2009_film)#Themes_and_inspirations where possible influences on Avatar are discussed. My suggestion would be to reduce the size of your edits and incorporate it into the first paragraph of that section which specifically discusses other possible film influences such as Dances With Wolves and John Carter. Betty Logan (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Call me George. To the point - there was no desire from my side. Frankly, I don't give a damn about it. I just wanted to tell about this controversy and nothing more. I agree with You, Betty, that "This article focuses exclusively on the themes in Avatar." But, when I wrote it in Critical reception - it was deleted in few minutes. In Russia we call it "soccer", when one group redirects you to another, brushing it aside because "that's not our business", dodging the question, and repeating this vicious circle again and again. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate it's no fun to be told on both articles it belongs in the other article. The main article has a section called "Themes and Inspirations" while this article is just called "Themes". Do you feel that your edits document a theme, or do they document an inspiration? It's up to you to decide which heading they should come under and then argue your case on the appropriate article, rather than just slipping it in where resistance is the weakest. Cenasaur met with a lot of resistance to material he was trying to put into the article which is how the dedicated themes article came about, so that is always an option for you. Another option would be to widen the scope of this article so it covers both themes and inspirations, but is sometting that needs to be discussed and agreed on first. The remaining option might be to reduce the size of your edits to the most salient points and see if they are acceped in the main article. The main article after all has to maintain a balance between all the different aspects of the film's coverage so the problem may just be an undue weight issue. Betty Logan (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't try to find a hull breach to insinuate. I'm just trying to follow the advices of other wikipedians. And I guess I'm doing it for nothing. It's better to stay on my own, than to accept such advices. We're speaking different languages. However, thank You very much. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I added in a much briefer mention of the Noon Universe similarities and a cite to The Guardian which had a good article discussing this. That should satisfy everyone, I hope. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My dear friend, why do You do it only now, after two days of quarrels. Besides, it's not a russian, but a soviet novels. By the way, You forgot to mention the name of author. However, it's a good beginning. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a question to ask: Komsomolskaya Pravda is not a reliable source? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no time limit to working on Wikipedia. Sometimes it is better to step back from an issue for a few days and come back to it with a clear mind - you may come up with a better idea. In fact, sometimes I come back to an article a year or two later with a better way to make my point. These are Russian-language novels. You should think about what will convey your point to the majority of readers on English Wikipedia in a simple, concise way. You do not need to educate the readers here about Noon Universe - that is what the blue link is for. You need to simply make your point about possible plagiarism and give just enough context to allow the reader to follow up if she has further questions. Try to compromise with other editors, while explaining to them why you are doing what you are doing. See WP:CONSENSUS. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

These Russian-language novels were translated into 42 languages in 33 countries (more than 500 editions) around the Globe. So please don't use the word "majority" regarding to readers on English Wikipedia. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The entire quotation for all to consider:

Russian broadcast

After film was broadcasted in Russia, brothers Strugatsky' fans, noted that Avatar plot is almost completely copying Strugatsky 1960-70s Noon Universe. Only significant differences between them are: Main protagonist is russian (soviet), and indigenous Pandorians have dog-like muzzles, unlike Avatar's cat-faced characters. Huge bruhaha had been ensued by pro-communist press and web-media, that even russian civil rights activists, such as Valeria Novodvorskaya make a retaliatory turn, and released articles about "crazy commies". But when Boris Strugatsky heard these news, he refused to take any legal actions against Cameron. However, Cameron denies Avatar is a ripoff.

references

There has been endless coverage over possible inspirations and source material for Avatar, much in verifiable sources, but that doesn't necessarily make the claims notable. If legal action were taken against the producers for plagiarism then that would be a notable action and would need to be covered by the article. However, James Cameron has responded to this particular accusation (in The Guardian article) so there is a notable response to the claims that can be documented, but it really should be through sources that include the notable response. Betty Logan (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I also don't think the Douthat addition is notable. Betty, I suggest that you revert to this version. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I will support Ssilvers' version of this and the revision link that he noted above. The proposed paragraph or any addition to Ssilver's version violates WP:UNDUE. DrNegative (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Douthat addition needs to be excised. I think the author's response that he does not support the accusation is worthwhile, since Cameron himself has denied the claims. Betty Logan (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the changes. If anyone is dissatisfied feel free to revert, but I think restricting it to Cameron's response and the Strugatsky reponse is sufficient since these are the only two notable parties. I've removed the Douthat stuff too since it seemed largely irrelevant. Betty Logan (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. DrNegative (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Not bad. I wonder, what obstacles prevented you from such conclusions, wright after this text was added. Was it unavoidable, to start that edit warring or... -- SerdechnyG (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of references, guys, make sure that references are properly formatted (as in template format). That type of formatting is important to GA and FA articles, is advised for any Wikipedia article, and it is more work for others to have to fix the reference formats. Flyer22 (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with their format? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

With whose format? If you mean the above displayed format, to Wikipedia, it is not proper reference formatting. This is why Wikipedia usually demands its GA and FA articles be in template reference format when they should be. Wikipedia:Citation templates can show you different styles, but it is typically best that articles be consistent in their reference formatting...as long as "the consistency" is "proper" reference formatting. Some editors may only put references in as bare urls, which is certainly a no-no. The editors who do that usually do it because they either do not know how to use reference templates...yet, they do not know that Wikipedia prefers them, or because they are lazy when it comes to doing it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not an answer "Why it was deleted", nor a reasonable ground. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean; I did not say it was deleted because of improper reference formatting. I already gave you my reasons, on my talk page, for why I reverted the piece you included, after someone reverted you before me. And now an effort to compromise with you has been made, as shown above in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Flyer, WP does not "demand" or even request that GA and FA articles be in template reference format, although I agree that refs must be consistent within an article. I have pushed over [more than] a dozen articles through GA and FA without template reference format. See WP:CITE for alternate formats that are acceptable. I think the templates make it more difficult for people to edit articles. There are plenty of very good editors on Wikipedia who agree with me - it's not that they are lazy or don't know how to use the templates, they just don't like them. But this is your article, so go ahead and make sure all the refs are in the template formats if that's what you like. It's your personal preference. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have somewhat changed the tone of your reply, but my reply will remain mostly as I wrote it before your change: No, it is not wrong. The articles you have "pushed over" clearly were not in their best format; either the reviewer did not know the standards these articles are supposed to be held up to or the articles were given GA or FA status before the standards were as strict as they are now. Most editors who have been at Wikipedia for at least two years and do not use template reference formats do not use them because, yes, either they do not know how to, they do not know that Wikipedia prefers them, or because they are lazy when it comes to doing it. I have seen this enough times. And, again, articles should typically be put in template reference format; this was discussed before taking this article to GA status. An editor from Wikipedia:WikiProject Films confirmed it as well. By Wikipedia standards, "alternative formats" are generally only accepted when citing television or books and journals. Book and journal examples are mostly what WP:CITE shows. And bare url style is most definitely wrong. If it were not, we would not have bots coming around fixing bare url insertions. Your style of inserting bare urls with the title and date is not preferred by Wikipedia's quality standards either; for example, we do not know for sure what date "your date" is referring to (unless we check the link), and it does not tell us who wrote the article (though that admittedly seems to be because the author's name is not even given in the source). See Embedded links. If you are going to add references to this already huge article, at least make sure that they are properly formatted. Templates might make it more difficult for people to edit articles to you, but those templates provide accurate (and, to some, needed) information about the references. While checking references to make sure they are correctly attributed is best, not everyone does it or wants to. The information we give in the reference templates should be accurate.

As for your attitude about this being "my article," do you always give a sour attitude and bad-mouth editors when you do not get your way? Just because I have done my best to take care of this article, help it reach and keep it up to standards, which I have received several compliments for (even from you), it does not mean that I feel I own this article. These editors trust me and what I have to say because I actually do listen to them and often discuss changes with them on the article talk page or mine or theirs. We talk, compromise/work together. If you want that, then I suggest you present your cases better and talk on this talk page more in order to better get acquainted with this article's usual editors (as I suggested before). When editors already have WP:Consensus about things, meaning the article is designed a certain way because a group of editors worked together to achieve a specific version, it is up to the editor who wants a change to convince them to change it. If you do not get your way, do not bitch about it. Remember to try and keep a positive atmosphere around here. I have not always gotten my way regarding this article. I have often gotten compromises (as in partially "my way.") Flyer22 (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what a diatribe, but you're still wrong. SandyGeorgia, the director of FAC, has stated that she does not like the cite templates. Nevertheless, since you have established the cite template format for this article (and I suspect the film project is pretty much in agreement on this style), I agree that editors should use the cite template format here, and I am sorry for the few instances where I have used another format. I'll try harder. But why call other editors names? Sorry you're so defensive. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Call it a diatribe all you want, but I am not wrong. No matter what SandyGeorgia, the director of FAC, has stated, I know what I have seen on Wikipedia.

Where did I call other editors names in this discussion? If you mean you, I am specifically speaking of you basically bad-mouthing the editors here, as you did on my talk page, simply because you did not get your way. It was bad-mouthing to me, because you were drawing conclusions about how they were scheming to keep certain things out of this article. While I feel that a few were trying to keep certain things out of this article, I do not feel that they were exactly for the same reasons you gave. My speaking on that now was not about being defensive, but rather about what I just stated above -- you should make better cases, talk with these editors more. You acted as though they were your enemies, consistently trying to suppress your and others' viewpoints. If you would get to know these editors better, their online personalities and editing styles, you would be better equipped in interacting with them. When you bring something up on this talk page, something you want included or excluded, you give up too quickly instead and then act as though we are the bad guys (I feel).

Going back to the defensive bit, though... Yes, I am going to defend myself against accusations seeming to say that I feel I own this article and that I am the one pulling all the strings. So to make it perfectly clear... No, I do not look at this article as "What I say goes/stands." Flyer22 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22 does have a strong point in relation to the citations. The sole instance that we use to counter any argument of original research on Wikipedia for our edits are our sources that we provide. The citations are of the utmost importance because of the policy against original research in Wikipedia and they should therefore be held under high scrutiny in terms of format and layout regardless of what anyone else says so that the reader can easily verify them. DrNegative (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Differences between virtual camera and simulcam

I moved a part attached to the section about the simulcam to the section about the virtual camera. If this is not where it belongs, then delete it or place it somewhere else, because it certainly does not belongs where it used to be. It's only through the virtual camera you don't have to worry about "repeated camera and lighting setups, costume fittings and make-up touch-ups." With the simulcam, there is live action in front of you, and you need to film these scenes the same way you have to with all live action. The difference is that the live action actors interacts with digital characters only visible on the simulcam. I have a feeling there is still a lot of confusing around about this. Hipporoo (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Must be a lot of confusion. But, specifically, I am confused by the placement. I do not see how this piece fits better after the lines "Cameron gave fellow directors Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson a chance to test the new technology. Spielberg and George Lucas were also able to visit the set to watch Cameron direct with the equipment." The linked piece starts off saying "Cameron said this process does not diminish the value or importance of acting." That piece clearly does not flow well after the Spielberg and Lucas part; it sounds as though Cameron is saying that having these people visit "does not diminish the value or importance of acting." It seems completely misplaced. If it truly belongs around the spot you put it in, then blending it better should not be difficult.

It should be easy enough to solve what Cameron meant, either way, through the source. Flyer22 (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not break the paragraph into two halves? The first part where he explains that the technology doesn't detract from the actors' performances can go between the technical description and the bit about inviting the directors, and the second half comprising of Spielberg's response can be placed after the directors bit. Might help it flow a bit more. Betty Logan (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a good solution, Betty. I'm for it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and tweaked it this way. Flyer22 (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

And then again to this, per better flow (what Betty said about order of Spielberg's response). Feel free to tweak it further, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sequels

A number of sites listed on google news are reporting Sigourney Weaver is holding talks with James Cameron about reprising her role in future sequels. Should this be added to the sequels section of this article?--Forward Unto Dawn 12:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest waiting until there is some kind of formal announcement. See WP:CRYSTAL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant something along the lines of what is already written in this article about Stephen Lang and what he said about the possibility of returning in an Avatar sequel. If you'll take a look at the link I posted, Weaver is quoted as saying she is discussing with Cameron the possibility of her returning in a sequel. Please take a look at the link. If you're still not in favour of adding something to the article, I'd suggest we remove Stephen Lang's quote from the article.--Forward Unto Dawn 01:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Because we are trying to keep this article's size under control, and from increasing too much more, I am not keen on things being added to it these days (whether it be text or extra references). Aside from a little more to the Home media section when the time comes, anything else being added to this article these days is trivial/unneeded. But I do not see why mention of Sigourney Weaver discussing with Cameron the possibility of her returning in a sequel should not be included...considering we mention Stephen Lang possibly returning. I suggest cutting out the quote by Stephen Lang of his return (even though he quickly explains that he could return because they have his DNA)...and adding one very small line after the Stephen Lang bit about Weaver. Only one reference attributed to it (just like one line about Weaver) would be best, taking into account this article's size. Flyer22 (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Vote on Flyer22's proposal:

• Support - It's better than not including it at all.--Forward Unto Dawn 05:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Against - I really don't see the point of saying that Sigourney Weaver may or may not be in the sequel. Until it is confirmed either way it doesn't add any information value. It also sets a precedent for including unsubstantiated rumours which good articles really shouldn't do. Betty Logan (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we add rumours to this article. I'm talking about facts. Fact: Cameron is planning sequels to Avatar. Fact: Weaver is holding discussions with Cameron about reprising her role. If you don't think we should include Weaver in this article's sequel section, I assume you agree we should remove the comment about Stephen Lang (or perhaps even the entire Sequels section itself)? Again, read the news articles within the link I provided.--Forward Unto Dawn 07:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Betty. I'd get rid of the Stephen Lang reference completely, too. It may be just wishful thinking on his part. If the producers or actors actually make an official announcement that even a tentative deal has been reached, then it could be worth mentioning, but the fact that they are talking about it seems premature. I certainly would not delete the sequels section, though. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Sure, it's notable enough that she states she is in talks about it with Cameron. If she says she was talking with Cameron about being in the sequel, then I don't see how phrasing it that way would be speculation. I will support it. DrNegative (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

David Brooks quote

I suggest restoring the David Brooks quote - I think he lays out very clearly what several commentators have said; plus he's a notable reviewer from a notable newspaper. If what he says is repeated elsewhere, perhaps the other source could be removed. This is just my opinion as a reader of this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)