Talk:Avatar (2009 film)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Avatar (2009 film) article.|
|This is not a forum for general discussion about Avatar. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Avatar at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
|Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
|Avatar (2009 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.|
|Text from this version of Avatar (2009 film) was copied or moved into Avatar 4 with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on January 31, 2014.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Please be calm and civil when you make comments or when you present evidence, and avoid personal attacks. Please be patient as we work toward resolution of the issues in a peaceful, respectful manner.|
|Threads older than 60 days may be archived by.|
- 1 Mistake
- 2 Pandora's atmosphere is unbreathable, not poisonous
- 3 $2B Fact incorrect
- 4 Country
- 5 Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2014
- 6 Huge Similarities to Indian(Malayalam) Film Vietnam Colony..
- 7 Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2015
- 8 Strong plot resemblance to "The Word For World Is Forest"
Pandora's atmosphere is unbreathable, not poisonous
- Probably just too low presure to breathe. It'll probably be like Mars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha3031 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
$2B Fact incorrect
It also became the first film to gross more than $2 billion.
No. Titanic was. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Both the United States and the United Kingdom are listed as countries, I included Britain along with America with a reliable source yet you still reverted it. Why? Anarchistdy (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- See the previous discussion at these two locations: , . There may be more discussions in other archives, but as I and others have said, this has been discussed before and a consensus has been reached before. It's not hard to search the archives to find evidence of such discussions. I managed to do it in less than 15 seconds. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 09:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
No consensus was reached on those archives, other than not listing either 'American' or 'American-British' which is what I suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchistdy (talk • contribs) 10:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Anarchistdy, WP:Pipelinked my username in the heading; see here. I have removed it with this post of mine, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages.
- The first discussion GSK linked to above is about using "Cinema of the United States" as a WP:EGG and "American" vs. "U.S."; the second discussion GSK linked to above is about "American" vs. "American-British." The consensus in that latter discussion, based on the weight of the arguments, is to list the film as American. And if some see no consensus there for that, it would be more accurate to state that the consensus was to list the film as American, to not list it as American or British, or that there was no consensus on anything regarding this. There might also be other discussions about the topic in the archives; though I've been at this article for years, I'd have to check the archives to see if there are any other discussions about this in them. Like I told Anarchistdy in one of the reverts shown at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard about edit warring over this county matter, WP:FILM is there to contact about this country-listing topic. Flyer22 (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
There should be no American or British-American as like I have said Wikipedia: FILM LEAD says if there is more than 1 country of production then the nation isn't listed in the first sentence. That is fair. I have removed the switched the sources for American and added them to the United States in country section. Do not add American or British-American or American-British as it is not necessary. Thank You WARNER one -9999 (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- See here on my talk page for where I point out that WARNER one (9999) likes to WP:Edit war over country listings for film articles, especially if it means that "British" is represented (which is why he doesn't want "American" in the lead). He is apparently incapable of applying the country-listing matter on a case-by-case basis, cannot see when "British" does not belong (such as when WP:Edit warring with Masem at the Memento (film) article or with Canterbury Tail at the Aliens (film) article), and cannot discuss before making edits; from what I see, he doesn't respect WP:Consensus and seems to think that things should go his way or no way; notice above that he uses the words "Do not." Oh, and here is his latest edit on this matter, which is grammatically-challenged and should be fixed if it's to stay. I don't have the patience for WARNER one's problematic behavior (problematic behavior noted on his talk page), and I suspect that he edited Wikipedia before as a registered editor before being indefinitely blocked, so I have instead let this matter go. But for future notice, I would support only "American" being in the lead, per that being the the long-standing WP:Consensus due to past discussions on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Flyer22 is intent on trying to ignore other countries involvement and using me as reason for his actions. I admit I have made mistakes in the past on Memento which I have learnt from. However on Alien I have been right and provided references. I have succeeded in changing Alien and have came to an agreement that puts USA and UK fairly in it, this was not decided by me alone. In Aliens UK is mentioned on BFI and Lumiere. How can that be denied?. I have never been blocked before. This is my first and only Wikipedia account. I support many countries such as Australia in The Matrix and Others such as Canada in Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters and Taiwan in Life of Pi. On Wikipedia the fact is USA involvement is almost always glorified ignoring other countries. I do support making countries fair. I use references. I do not attempt to admit being perfect though do not call my actions "problematic behavior" s please point out where it suggests that on my talk page. I use reasons set out by Wikipedia, which you know cause I have told you many times by even leaving the reason on your talk page. I am not overshadowing USA involvement. US is still before UK in country section. Your just stubborn and are ignoring facts. I love USA and still think there are many films that should be labeled "American" there are however many co-productions that should have no label. I am a serious editor who can not be bothered to keep dealing with this rude person. I work on other areas of Wikipedia such as World Wars and Rotten Tomatoes (I am currently monitoring Michael Bay's critism. How come when it is an Australian or British film the rules apply differently to when it is an American film. It is wrong and should be stopped. Thank you. WARNER one --9999 (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- [ WP:Edit conflict; Betty's comment below came before my reply to WARNER one; I got briefly sidetracked before replying]: WARNER one (9999) , I am female, as many at this site know. And I'm not trying to ignore other countries' involvement; I am trying to get you to see reason with regard to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and that it's those policies and guidelines I was abiding by. You cite WP:FILMLEAD, and yet completely disregard WP:Consensus, which, unlike WP:FILMLEAD, is a policy. You were already told by Erik and by me that the "listing British" aspect is a case-by-case matter and that you should not be going around enforcing your personal preference (whether it's to list "British" in addition to "American" or to remove both listings) on Wikipedia film articles. You did not "succeed" at the Aliens (film) article; "American" is still currently the only country listed there in the lead, as it should be. And it's not about "making countries fair"; if you notice, the WP:Neutrality policy has a WP:Due weight section, which is another policy you should be following. And don't pretend that you actually discuss anything on Wikipedia in a productive manner; you simply WP:Edit war, make a note on the article or user's talk page and think that doing so settles matters because your word is final. You are a WP:Disruptive editor, as also recently seen by your edit warring with TriiipleThreat at the X-Men: Apocalypse page (seen, for example, here), even as he pointed out the WP:NFF film guideline to you; so I take it that you are selective in which film guideline you follow. I stand by everything I stated above. You won't last long here as an editor if you keep editing in the way that you have. And removing problematic sections like this one, which show that you also edited as an IP, will not help you. If I'm rude to you, it's because I "cannot be bothered" with someone who refuses to even discuss a contested matter that was previously settled by WP:Consensus and simply thinks that his word is law. Flyer22 (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note that here on my talk page, WARNER one has stated that he's done with this discussion. I told him that we can and should hold off on the WP:Civility violations and instead work toward a new consensus, and that I don't mind much at all not having any country listed in the lead; it's his approach that I took more objection to. Flyer22 (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment there is a standing consensus not to include Britain in the lede but that does precede recent revisions to MOS:FILM. I am not sure to what extent the old consensus stands, but I think the status quo should probably remain in place and a new discussion started if there is an existing consensus in place. I should also point 9999 to WP:BRD which you should follow even if you believe you are right, except in cases of possible libel regarding living people, and constant deviation from BRD is likely to conclude with a block. On the issue at hand I think LUMIERE and the BFI are reputable sources, but let's not forget they are European centric sources too i.e. the BFI has a mandate to promote British film, and the American Film Institute may not agree with their findings. In the case of Avatar the BFI and the AFI do seem to concur it is an international co-production; on top of that it was filmed in the United States and New Zealand and written & directed by a Canadian so it does seem to be a bit churlish for us to refer to it as just an American film when not even the American Film Institute regard it as such. I know in other cases similar to this we refer to the film as an "English language film" and just have the two production countries in the infobox which I think would be a sensible compromise in this instance. Betty Logan (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2014
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
Please change the film from being called American to British-American or American-British as the film is clearly stated on the BFI and even in this pages "Country" box as being from United States and United Kingdom. I hope you look in to this matter as it indirectly undermines all the people from the U.K.' S work on the film. If you need anymore evidence of the UK's work then let me know. Thanks. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not done: see above discussion Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)#Country Cannolis (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Huge Similarities to Indian(Malayalam) Film Vietnam Colony..
Its seems funny but true that Avatar has huge similarities to Indian (Language:Malayalam) film 'Vietnam Colony'.
But Vietnam Colony is a ordinery drama,comedy film.
Similarities: In Vietnam Colony, Hero Krishna Moorthi comes to Veitnam Colony to Capture that colony for a company. But The hero convince the native people that he is among the native people.
In Avathar, The Hero comes to Pandora to exploit the land, and he convince the native alien that he is among them.
... In Vietnam Colony, The Hero didn't know the real intention of the Company, in Avatar also. ...
In Vietnam colony, Initially Heroin is an enimy to Hero, also in Avatar. ...
After knowing the brutal intention of the Comapny, Hero become wise and switch his side to Native people. In Avatar. its same.
At Climax, both film hero become a real native boy. ...
There are many other Similarity to of them. ...
The above is the photo: The First time Krishna Moorthi Comes the colony, Some people comes to attack him. But all of them fear and go back after saw the man backside the hero. But Hero didn't know that he is in back side, He think they fear him. Same incident in Avatar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2015
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
Please change "Avatar (marketed as James Cameron's Avatar) is a 2009 American epic science fiction film directed....."
- Not done: see above discussion. Not a simple edit request Cannolis (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Strong plot resemblance to "The Word For World Is Forest"
Please include a section indicating the derivative nature of Avatar's plot. The relevant section in The Word for World is Forest can be lifted virtually verbatim for this purpose, complete with references. "Pocahontas" and "Call Me Joe" should also be referenced. - Tenebris 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- It seems a little disingenuous of you to ask that we add information here based on content included in another article which you specifically added to that article. I would recommend that editors review that material for potential synthesis issues before adding here. DonIago (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)