Talk:Avatar (2009 film)

Plot vs. Special Edition

As some of you are aware, there is a particular scene added at the end of the re-release that fills in a small hole in the original plot relating to Jake and his designation and acceptance as the new tribe leader by Tsu'tey. Jake's new hierarchy within the tribe was assumed/speculated in the original release, but now its blatantly obvious in the Special Edition.

I was wondering everyone else's opinion. Are we to continue treating the film plot solely on the original theatrical release version? The reason I ask is because I am pretty sure editors will attempt to add info similar to my example (even if it may be minor) in the future and we need to establish a stance on it. DrNegative (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to adding something like that to the Plot section itself, as long as we note that this scene is from that edition specifically. My basis for this is that I've read several summaries on the site that are based on director's cuts and the like. That said, for all I know those other pages I've read are actually going against a guideline (although they are just guidelines and not policy) and should be redone accordingly. The other option, of course, would be to add a note about the additional scene under the Home release section, the way we have with alternate endings and similar DVD extras. But if the scene in question is actually edited into the movie and not just an extra, I would be fine with it being included in the plot summary. Technically, I guess I would be fine either way as long as we note it somewhere. Good idea to bring it up before the inevitable happens. Millahnna (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be in favour of including information in regards to the extended version. It is, after all, canon.--Forward Unto Dawn 04:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Box Office in Terms of Real Dollars

As noted in the Wiki article, "Avatar" is the 14th highest grossing film of all time. But what are the other 13 films? Anybody know? Apparently "Ben-Hur" is 13th and "Titanic" was 6th, but what are the other top films in real dollars? I'm assuming "Gone With The Wind" is number one. My sister used to be a grade school teacher, by the way, and she said the reason "Titanic" (which was basically a re-make of "A Night To Remember") made so much money was because young girls would go back to see "Titanic" five or six times. So now we have to factor in repeat business. Anybody know of a site that lists top grossing films of all time in real dollars? Remember, movies used to cost only 10 cents. I'm wondering if silent films such as "Birth Of A Nation" would be up at the top. Or "Flesh and the Devil" with Greta Garbo. And there's 6 billion people now whereas 50 years ago there were only about 3 billion people so what about factoring in percentages of world population, has anybody ever done that? There's a lot of variables to the equation. I'm wondering, just what is the most popular film of all time? Anybody got any idea? Thanks. 71.157.182.121 (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing films is what you are looking for. It mentions the inflation thing. Dream Focus 01:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a list I found on the Internet of top films in real dollars, but there are so many elements to factor in, it gets difficult even adjusting for inflation: Gone With The Wind; Star Wars; Sound of Music; E.T.; The Ten Commandments; Titantic; Jaws; Dr. Zhivago; Exorcist; Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs; 101 Dalmatians; Star Wars V; Ben-Hur; Avatar. From: List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States. 71.157.182.121 (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"overseas"

The expression "overseas" ist not appropriate. It implies that Wikipedia is centered on to a specific part of the world or sees things form a point of view of one country or continent. But this is just the English-speaking Wikipedia and not fixed to a specific territory. --93.134.102.249 (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Movie is a US-British co-production

IMDB says Country: USA + UK. The movie was co-produced by Ingenious Film Partners, a british Production Company http://www.imdb.com/company/co0136728/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.226.158 (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

it is also distributed by Columbia Pictures IMDB says —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.215.49 (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Currently IMDB is disputed as a reliable source for much of its content because of its allowable user-submitted content for help in building its database. You can read up on the many discussions of this issue on the reliable sources noticeboard archives. It is brought up every couple of months or so. Your proposed edits have also been discussed to the point of deadhorse and can be found in the talk-page archives. DrNegative (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Or is New Zealand (remember Weta Digital) now regarded as part of the United Kingdom, again??? Gee, that's big news! --SciCorrector (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 109.76.215.49, 29 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

hi i would like to keep avatar up to date and protect from vandalism 109.76.215.49 (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC) thank you

 Not done: Welcome to Wikipedia! If there are specific changes you would like made, post them in another request. You can also sign up an account and after being WP:autoconfirmed you will be able to edit the main article. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Bribecka, 14 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

There are two mentions of Kerner Studios/Kerner FX and their camera systems in the "Filming" and "Visual Effects" sections. The citation doesn't support these claims. It's just self-promotion with nothing to back it up. They didn't work on Avatar.

Can somebody with the ability remove the two offending sentences?

Bribecka (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There is actually a reference for it. There were just two overlapping reference tags. Do you still think the sentences should be removed? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done I looked at the source and verified that the source did not state what was written in the article. I removed them. Thanks for the notification. DrNegative (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Avatar 2 and 3

There should be articles for Avatar 2 and 3, they are %100 confirmed now, Cameron and Landau will produce, and Cameron will direct. They will be released in 2014 and 2015 respectively. --200.121.221.25 (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: See Things to avoid when starting an article. At this stage, there is really no content that could be added to such articles, apart from the fact that they will be produced, and possibly released in 2014/2015. The small amount of information regarding the sequels to Avatar can be included in this article.--Forward Unto Dawn 00:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)