Talk:Avatar (2009 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 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.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Animated films task force (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the New Zealand cinema task force.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Animation / Films / Computer (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / American Cinema (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject New Zealand (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Mistake[edit]

"Following the film's success, Cameron signed with 20th Century Fox to produce three sequels, making Avatar the first of a planned tetralogy."

Tetralogy refers to five instalments. There will only be four (Avatar + 3 sequels).

Someone, please change the word tetralogy to quadrilogy, the correct term.

No, "tetralogy" doesn't refer to a group of five works. "Quadrilogy" and "tetralogy" both mean the same thing. -- Chamith (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Chuckle. Tetralogy (Greek) is the correct term for 4 books. Quadrilogy (Latin + Greek) was a term invented by some Hollywood idiots because they didn't know the word tetralogy. Pentalogy would be the correct word for 5 books (then hexalogy, heptalogy, etc.). If anyone is listing possible influences, you can add Nalo Hopkinson's Midnight Robber, probably. That book is better than Cameron's film, btw Vince Calegon 13:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince Calegon (talkcontribs)

Disambiguation?[edit]

Hi,

I made a minor edit earlier and added this line: "This article is about the 2009 film. For the concept in Hinduism, see Avatar. For other uses, see Avatar (disambiguation)."

However, it was removed because the editor said that the title has already been disambiguated. Correct me if I'm wrong - but I can't exactly see it? All I can see is the Cirque du Soleil show (TORUK). The Avatar page for Hinduism lists the movie on top, so I felt it'd only be fair for the movie page to list the concept as well, considering that there's no prominent redirect to the Avatar (Hinduism) article from the page about the movie which makes no sense considering that the movie got its name from the concept. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger7253 (talkcontribs)

This article is called Avatar (2009 film), so why would anyone come to this page thinking it would be about the Hindu concept? Betty Logan (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Tiger7253 (talk · contribs), I reverted you per what I stated in my WP:Edit summary, and per what Betty Logan explained above.
On a side note: Remember to sign your posts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
"the title of this article is already disambiguated" means there is already "(2009 film)" at the end of the article title to show which meaning of "Avatar" the article is about. Per WP:NAMB, Wikipedia does not use hatnotes when the title is already disambiguated and cannot be confused with other articles. For comparison, the article Avatar does not have a disambiguated title so in that case there are hatnotes. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


Ah, thanks. I'm a bit new to all of this so I got confused. And I didn't mean that people would come to this page thinking that it's about the Hindu concept - all I said was that it is quite hard to find the other Avatar page, because only this one in particular comes up in google, so I thought it'd make sense to include a link to the other page on top for convenience but that's apparently against wiki policy so yeah. Cheers Tiger7253 (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I have to be honest, that is something I have never considered before. I wonder if this happens on a lot of disambiguated pages? If it does it could be worth considering adding a link to the main disambigation page on all disambiguated pages. Betty Logan (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I have seen it suggested to test Google searches and base hatnotes on the result but it didn't get support. Some of the reasons against are that Google results can change, people may use different Google searches, there are other search engines and ways to reach articles, if somebody clicks "Avatar (2009 film)" on a search engine page then they are probably looking for the film, and we have a search box on every page where undisambiguated titles like "Avatar" should give access to meanings we have articles about. It has also been suggested, without getting support, to make hatnotes on all articles with disambiguated titles. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that basing decisions on the ephemeral results of search engines would not be a very good idea, but if this kind of scenario is commonplace I think there would be some value in placing a single disambiguation hatnote on all disambiguated pages. We shouldn't be going out of our way to make things difficult for people who don't use the "front door". But as you say, would people looking for the Hindu Avatar click on the film link in google? I honestly have no idea. Ideally we need to get some data; one way would be to create a special redirect exclusive to this article that redirects to the main disambiguation page, and then we could see if a statistically significant number of people landing at this article were looking for another Avatar article. Betty Logan (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I was referring to general policy discussions like Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 44#Proposal for regular use of hatnotes on biographical articles to provide links to the topics of "others" who have a shared or similar name. I don't think individual articles should start making their own systems. Some users (like myself) browse Wikipedia and click interestingly sounding links without having planned to go there in advance, so data may not be simple to interpret. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Avatar (2009 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Avatar (2009 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Star wars[edit]

I see someone keeps adding stars wars in relation to more boxoffice sales....we need a source for this change. -- Moxy (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Source was/is already there. I was the one who changed the article. I did not add anything to the article (without a source) I merely corrected the article section according the the two sources next to the sentences I edited. Please check the sources and demonstrate that my edit is wrong using those sources. Other sources of course my counter the information in the sentences I corrected but that is another issue and is not what I did in my edit. Robynthehode (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I will hit the 3 revert so back here. You said 'how is it possible a source from 2010 says anything about StarWars' I think you are mistaking Star Wars for The Force Awakens. Of course a source from 2010 which is stating an adjusted for inflation figure can refer to Star Wars - Stars Wars: A New Hope - which is exactly what the source is referring to. Before reverting my edits please check the sources. That is what I did and why I made my original edit to correct the article so it was in accord with the sources that the text was supported by. I would urge you to check these sources and change the edit (if it confirms I am correct - I have treble checked the sources) back to what I put. I will check the sources again and change the article tomorrow if my rechecking of the sources support my edit. Robynthehode (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
i am not sure what you are seeing ...its says " Within 31 days of its opening, his new movie Avatar had left Star Wars's box office record in the dust." it mentions StarWars in passing like with The Dark Knight's....would a source with numbers not be better? lets look for a more recent source. -- Moxy (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok after some research i see what is trying to be said. should we look at DOMESTIC GROSSES Adjusted for Ticket Price Inflation for the source?. -- Moxy (talk)
Okay more in depth (much of this written before your last edit Moxy but now merged in so I don't have to rewrite). My original edit was based on the article here [[1]]. And I was editing the sentence 'On a worldwide basis, Avatar ranks third after adjusting for inflation, behind Gone with the Wind andTitanic,[206] although some reports place it ahead of Titanic.[207]' The first citation which is from the Daily Telegraph in 2010 does state 'Within 31 days of its opening etc' (which by the way does not support box office figures nor any rankings and the reference re Star Wars was about box office grosses not grosses adjusted for inflation) but later in the article 'But still, once you adjust those box office records to acknowledge the effects of inflation, it's a slightly different story:

1. Gone with the Wind – $2,984m

2. Titanic – $2,896m

3. Star Wars – $2,199m

4. Avatar – $2,021m

5. E.T. The Extra Terrestrial – $1,897m'

So this is the source and there is Avatar in fourth place which is what I put in the article merely trying to correct the article to match the source. Second citation which is meant to support the text 'although some reports place it ahead of Titanic is from Reuters and on further checking I see I have misread that article which does support this statement. My apologies. However further edits to this sentence after my edits added Box Office Mojo citations. As far as I can see on Box Office Mojo it only supplies information on domestic (USA and Canada I believe) grosses adjusted for inflation not International. The international figures are unadjusted grosses and therefore using Box Office Mojo in this case is not correct. I see the current edit of the article no longer has the Box Office Mojo citation. As per my original statements I was only trying to edit the article to match the sources. This is what a good Wikipedia editor does and if we make mistakes we correct them. I hope this present edit with Avatar in fourth place with no citation from Box Office Mojo is acceptable to all Robynthehode (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I dont see these numbers on that page...but I believe you. So all ok for now-- Moxy (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment LOOK at the DATES on the sources: the Telegraph source is dated FEBRUARY 3, 2010 while Avatar was still playing. The Telegraph article states "Finally surging past Titanic's record last week, Avatar's haul topped $2 billion worldwide". The Telegraph goes on to say "But still, once you adjust those box office records to acknowledge the effects of inflation, it's a slightly different story" and provides the following table:
The Telegraph's chart of adjusted worldwide grosses as of February 2010
Rank Title Worldwide gross
(2010 $)
1 Gone with the Wind $2,984m
2 Titanic $2,896m
3 Star Wars $2,199m
4 Avatar $2,021m
5 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial $1,897m
The grosses for Gone with the Wind, Titanic, Star Wars and ET are all adjusted to 2010 prices. The gross for Avatar represents its gross up to February 3, 2010.


Avatar would ultimately finish its run in 2010 on $2,788 million. If you factor that in to The Telgraph's table, it would look like this:
How the chart would look after Avatar completed its run
Rank Title Worldwide gross
(2010 $)
1 Gone with the Wind $2,984m
2 Titanic $2,896m
3 Avatar $2,788m
4 Star Wars $2,199m
5 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial $1,897m
This chart continues to use The Telegraph's adjusted 2010 grosses for Gone with the Wind, Titanic, Star Wars and ET. The gross for Avatar represents its final gross at the end of its run in 2010 and is taken from Box Office Mojo.


As you can see, using The Telegraph's adjusted figures, Avatar would ultimately wind up behind Gone with the Wind and Titanic but ahead of Star wars, once you take into accounts its final gross rather than its gross of February 2010. However, this is disputed by Reuters which implies that adjusted for inflation that Titanic grossed less that $2.47 billion worldwide:

Director James Cameron's record-setting blockbuster has earned $1.78 billion internationally, with its worldwide tally weighing in at $2.47 billion. In addition to its worldwide record in current dollars, "Avatar" has now beaten 1997's "Titanic's" global box office milestone on an inflation-adjusted basis as well.

So going by the adjusted grosses given by The Telegraph and Reuters and the final gross for Avatar taken from Box Office Mojo, Avatar eventually finished behind Gone with the Wind but ahead of Star Wars, and may have beaten Titanic, which is accurately summarised by this version of the text. Betty Logan (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed comment Betty Logan. However it looks like your conclusions contravene WP:Synth. You have not provided a source that supports your conclusion for combining the two sources (the Telegraph and Box Office Mojo). In addition you are mixing apples with pears. The Telegraph source talks about international adjusted for inflation figures, Box Office Mojo only states international non adjusted figures (but adjusted figures for the domestic market - USA and Canada combined. You can't mix the two without performing original research. Provide the source that support your conclusions Robynthehode (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
How much inflation do you think there was during the first 35 days of Avatar's release? Avatar's gross is NOT adjusted for inflation, nor does it need to be: Avatar had grossed just over $2 billion as of the start of February (see All-Time chart) and The Telegraph is comparing the gross as of February 2010 to the adjusted grosses for Gone with the Wind, Titanic and Star Wars. A few months later Avatar had amassed $2.8 billion. By saying that Avatar came 4th adjusted for inflation (by using an eariler figure for Avatar) is actually misrepresenting facts, because you are ignoring the remainder of Avatar's run in which it added a further $700 million to its total. You are also misunderstanding WP:SYNTHESIS: synthesis does not prohibit combining two sources to source different facts, it prohibits combining two sources to create a new claim. There is no new claim here: we are using Box Office Mojo to source the final worldwide gross for Avatar (as opposed to using a figure that comes just a month into its run) and we are using the Telegraph as the source for the 2010 adjusted totals of the other films. Betty Logan (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your wonderful accusation by calling me a pedant. No I am not misunderstanding WP:Synth. As it says there 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.' You were trying to do exactly that because the conclusion you made (Avatar in third place) was based on information from the Telegraph and Box Office Mojo that was not stated in either of those sources when the figures were adjusted for inflation. And the ' when figures were adjusted for inflation' is the point here because neither you (in supplying a source saying so) or those sources show Avatar in third place explicitly. I am clearly correct on this point. If you can show me the source that explicitly states the worldwide adjusted for inflation figure for Avatar (and all the other films for the date of the theatrical run end of Avatar) then state that here and use it in the article. Then a clear comparison can be made. If I am a pedant for merely wanting Wikipedia article text to correctly reflect the source used to support it then you are simply blind to conceding that another editor wants Wikipedia to be as accurate as you want it to be - which smacks of self righteousness. Robynthehode (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I take it back: you are not a pedant, because you actually seem to be trolling now. As part of my original revert of your misrepresentation of the facts I immediately addressed your intial concern about something not explicitly backed up by the source by by removing the claim that Avatar was ranked third adjusted for inflation. The only claim I left sourced to the Telegraph was the claim that Gone with the Wind and Titanic had both potentially grossed more after adjusting for inflation to 2010 prices, which is corroborated by the source. As editors we select which parts of the source we use: if part of the source is no longer applicable due to the facts changing since publication then it is down to editorial discretion how much of the source we use. The Telegraph's claim that Star Wars was ahead of Avatar was a time sensitive claim that was clearly true at the point of publication, but clearly not applicable a month later considering that Avatar's gross eventually overtook the figure the Telegraph had down for Star Wars. You ask me for a source for "adjusted" figures at the end of Avatar's run a couple of months later? Well, I can just as easily ask you to provide a source to corroborate the claims that the Telegraph made about Avatar still hold after Avatar added a further $700 million—and thus fundamentally altering the premise of the original claim—to its total. Deliberately including information which we know is no longer representive of the facts to mislead readers are counter-productive to the goals of an encyclopedia. Betty Logan (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Wonderful now accused of trolling. Incredible! My initial edit was minor. I attempted to make the text reflect the sources which I did with the case of the Telegraph source. I made an error with regard to the Reuters source and apologised for that and accepted the information the Reuters source stated. This initial edit was not pedantry but trying to make the text reflect the sources. It can said that your edits are pedantry to reflect your particular view regarding the grosses and rankings of the films in question. With regard to your later comments above you are simply moving the goal posts in raising editorial choice. I believe you have violated WP:Synth. You have provided no information to counter that. Rather than trying to fulfil my request to provide a reliable source to support your edit re using the synthesis of the Telegraph and Box Office Mojo source information you have merely asked me to provide a source related to the time sensitive nature of the Telegraph source. Doesn't solve the issue does it? If you believed my edit was misrepresenting the facts then you should have changed the article to reflect the end of run Avatar information (with a source) and edited the text related to the Telegraph source to reflect its time sensitive nature. Instead you and other editors merely reverted my edits so the text remained inaccurate in its representation of the Telegraph source. And in all this you accuse me of pedantry, trolling and trying to mislead readers. Unbelievable. Try take a few steps back and reviewing how you have dealt with this. I know you're an experienced editor but we all make mistakes. I know I do and I apologise here very clearly if any previous comments I have made have been counterproductive. Will you? Robynthehode (talk) 08:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I dealt with the issue by immediately addressing your concern by removing the claim that it was ranked third adjusted for inflation (as you can see here). Regardless of whether it was a sufficient ammendment is besides the point, because you fully reverted to your preferred version without making any attempt to accommodate my concerns about outdated claims, as I had attempted to do with your revision. Maybe we would be better served if your reviewed your own actions because all I see from you in the article history is reverts, whereas all my reverts were followed by a pro-active attempt to resolve the problem with the wording. Betty Logan (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Erroneous citation 24[edit]

The citation following the sentence: "The stereoscopic filmmaking was touted as a breakthrough in cinematic technology.[24]" is erroneous. It links to http://newsblaze.com/entertainment/features/james-camerons-avatar-film-to-feature-vocals-from-singer-lisbeth-scott_62071/ which talks about the vocals in the film and has nothing to do with the previous sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Errollgarner (talkcontribs) 17:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2016[edit]

Remove citation 24 which does not refer to the sentence before.


Errollgarner (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: See the archived version. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)