Talk:The Last Airbender (film)

Dragon

Who is the dragon in the trailer, and who provides his voice? Is this a major character and should it be listed as such? 75.89.129.153 (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Wasn't there a rumor awhile back that it was Gene Simmons or something? I know the dragon is the spiritual guide to all avatars. --Jason Garrick (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

He is in the spirit world and gives aang advice, kinda like roku did in the show. I dont think he has a name in the movie.

Nope, no name was given.Just referred to as a dragon spirit, and the animation was reused when Aang (or Uung as the actors pronounced his name) went to see it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbmoyes (talk • contribs) 04:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Though speculation, it os possible the dragon spirit is related to Roku. But I can't say for sure at this moment.72.184.129.252 (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Dragon spirit is likely in reference to Roku who had a dragon as his spiritual guide. Personally, I imagine the dragon is intended to represent Roku somewhat metaphorically, as the Dragon serves to cover plot points that were originally covered by Roku in the television show, however whether or not that will ever be officially explained remains to be seen. Bliss 182 (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The dragon spirit is the same as in the show! He is the first spirit to guide and help Aang in the spirit world even before the spirit of Roku. Watch Book 1, Chapter 7 (Winter Solstice Pt. 1). --Bisco (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Suki

Suki does not appear in the final cut of the movie. if someone could find a source that states that she was going to be in it, but was cut out for time or whatever, that would be the best

Shyamalan OK with Airbender critics 'up my ass all the time'

Undated section. Commenting here so this section gets archived. Akerans (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Critical Reception Change?

"The film has received mostly negative reviews from American critics. Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that only 8% of critics in the country have given the film a positive review based on 128 reviews, with an average score of 2.8/10.[83] Among Rotten Tomatoes' "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 7%, based on a sample of 29 reviews.[84] The site's general consensus is that "Despite flashy special effects, The Last Airbender squanders the potential of its popular source material on an incomprehensible plot, laughable dialogue, and a joyless sense of detachment."[85] Another aggregator, Metacritic, gave the film a "generally unfavorable" weighted mean score of 20 based on 32 reviews." (They are slight changes that can hold peace while opinions from the rest of the world weigh in. Also could we mention that Shyamalan was currently the most (how can I put this) hated director by critics around the time of its release? ExplosionsHurtPeople (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I was never a fan of the current language. I voted against it, though as anyone can tell, I was outvoted. With the inclusion of the Australian and New Zealand reviews, the RT rating has dropped to 6%. And yet, we still call that "mostly negative." After reading RT's best comic book adaptations countdown, I saw that the RT rating for The Dark Knight was 93%. Curious, I went to the Wikipedia page for The Dark Knight, and lo and behold, what did I see? "...the film received universal acclaim."

So let me get this straight. A film with a 93% RT rating can be characterized as "receiv[ing] universal acclaim," but a film with a 6% RT rating can only be characterized as having received "mostly negative" reviews? Unless someone would like to change the wording in The Dark Knight to say "mostly positive reviews," I am changing TLA's wording to be a parallel of TDK's wording. For those who have issues with this, remember that the TDK page is considered to be a "good article."Erik-the-red (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

English, please

Any chance we could have this sentence translated into English: "Arriving to Southern Water Tribe, Zuko demands the elderly under the impression that Avatar is an old person until Aang is found."? Cottonshirtτ 10:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Be bold and do it yourself rather than being patronizing on the Talk page. Jackal Killer (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Did some expanding for clarification, hope it's not too much now. --Bisco (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sequels

The longstanding text in the "Sequels" section read like it came straight out of an M. Night fan page. In my opinion, given that the sequel has not been greenlit yet, at this point, all you need to know are three things: (1) he's got a rough draft of Book II, (2) he would like to make it if it's greenlit, and (3) he's not sitting at home waiting for the call. It's not his top priority now; making his next thriller is.Erik-the-red (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

At this point, we should give all of the available information on the sequel section. If we had 50 references with multiple pages of information, we would use all of it (as long as it was reliable). Why should we erase "history", relevent in the present or not? Obama ran for president in 2008, but its not relevant now because he is president, by your logic, we should remove this? ChaosMaster_Chat 00:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understood my logic at all. A sequel has YET TO BE ANNOUNCED. So what's the point of all that detail? We should include it because it came straight from the horse's mouth? It is not relevant AT THIS TIME. Like I said, until a sequel is greenlit, all you need to know are three things: (1) he has a rough draft of Book II, (2) he'd like to make it if the studio permits, and (3) it's not his top priority now. I'd be happy to put it back if Paramount announces that Book II will be in production.Erik-the-red (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

So what if a sequel has yet to be announced? Its sourced, by a reliable source. Its not like its made up. Why on earth would we not have this? Maybe we need a third opinion? ChaosMaster_Chat 00:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

My take is that since this film was planned to be part of a franchise from the beginning, then it is worth reporting on the most recent statements. If we had no post-release sequel information in the article, readers would not know anything at all about the franchise's continuation. We can certainly present the information differently since it is mainly talk. Possible approaches are to use the heading "Planned sequels" or to merge the content somewhere like "Release" to play down the importance of the news. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed the heading to "Planned Sequel" and included the Azula and Kyoshi Warriors information. If people are going to semi-revert the wording, could they at least recognize redundancy?Erik-the-red (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

planned sequel implied that it has been greenlitted by not in production. I think we should revert it back unless you got claims.--75.34.154.50 (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This article does not make sense!

"The casting of White actors in the Asian-influenced Avatar universe triggered negative reactions from some fans marked by accusations of racism, a letter-writing campaign, and various protests."

Noah Ringer is not White so what is this sentence talking about? Noah Ringer is American Indian. >>> http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/11/03/noah-ringer-last-airbender-cowboys-aliens/