Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

"Average" on Rotten Tomatoes

As I stated in my edit summary, "Removed the average rating mention. I never see why that is important to note; this part of the score is always "average" there, even when clearly above average."

It continued with:

The 'average' that you removed does not mean the movie was rated as 'average', it means that the rating was an 'average' (i.e. arithmetic mean) of several ratings. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I know that. But the rating is "average" (i.e. arithmetic mean) of several ratings for every film there. Thus, why exactly is it important to mention? Flyer22 (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

To indicate that it is based on an average of several ratings, not a subjective rating. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The vibe it gives off is that the film has an "average" score of whatever, as if the score (whether very low or very high) is just average. It is not even remotely important to mention, in my view. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It's fine to use the word "average" here. The Featured Article Changeling (film) writes it like this: "61% of 189 critics listed by review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes had given the film a positive review, with an average rating of 6.3/10." Erik (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

To expand, the percentage reported by Rotten Tomatoes is based on a pass-fail system. While the percentages are more prominent, the average rating is more "drilled down" and reflects that even if a film is 90%, a low average rating would mean that critics think that the film is generally pretty good, but not great. Erik (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I also used it for the Jennifer's Body article. But I still do not see why it is important. Either way, three editors are for, while two are against. So I will revert myself. Flyer22 (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to state, though, that I usually think of general readers and how they will perceive things. General readers, unless familiar with Rotten Tomatoes, do not know how all this works. Flyer22 (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example. Man on Wire has 100% at Rotten Tomatoes, which means that an assessment of the film critics' reviews indicates that none of them see it as a "rotten tomato". However, the average rating, 8.4/10, indicates that this is not a perfect film. The average rating is similar to what Metacritic reports because I do not believe that there are any films that have received 100 for the metascore. In a way, the average rating at Rotten Tomatoes and the metascore at Metacritic can be more directly compared for a more balanced idea of how critics received the film. (Man on Wire received 89 on Metacritic.) Erik (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

And to respond about how Rotten Tomatoes works, the way Changeling writes the report is the best way I've seen to explain it in summary form. Saying "84% approval rating based on 220 reviews from critics" is not the same thing as "84% of 220 critics have given the film a positive review". Erik (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I know how the Rotten Tomatoes scoring process works, Erik. My issue was with how the "average" rating might be perceived among general readers who are not as familiar with Rotten Tomatoes. Despite knowing what "average" means at Rotten Tomatoes in this case, my mind almost always immediately thinks, "Oh...the rating is simply average, as in an average film." That is how it is when I see "with an average rating of." This is why weighted mean is sometimes pipe-linked as "average" in the Reception sections of film articles, as I did with the Jennifer's Body article, so that people know exactly what type of average we mean. I like how Bob K31416, moments ago, changed it to "with a rating average of" for clarification in this article. That is how it should be formatted, in my opinion. I will start formatting that part of the score that way as well for film articles. I say thanks to Bob K31416 for the change and new format option. Flyer22 (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this about me changing/updating the scores last night? I copied the format from Up in Air (which is the same for Changeling). Are you saying the RT scoring should be explained like the MC scoring is? So "rating average" is the best way to put it? Also, I didn't know that there was any particular order they went in? I know I usually see RT first (and that's why I usually write it, but I just copied it from FA), but does it really matter? I haven't read any guidelines that I know of about this. Is is just a personal style? --Mike Allen 20:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It just had to do with a possible misunderstanding of the word "average". Average can mean "so-so" or it can be a mathematical term. Hence the change from "average rating" to "rating average" in order to make it clearer that it didn't mean "so-so". --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I understand the misunderstanding. :P --Mike Allen 22:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Mike, I would say that the reason why Rotten Tomatoes is usually put first is because it is more notable than Metacritic (as in usually cited more/more popular), and because it is usually formatted that way on Wikipedia. I personally prefer that the Rotten Tomatoes score be put first. Flyer22 (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with this. Metacritic reviews seem to stop at like 35, while RT can go beyond 250 reviews. --Mike Allen 22:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Release dates??

Is it just my computer the dates in the infobox have vanished from? When I go into "Edit" the dates are there, but on the publsihed page there are just gaps. Betty Logan (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right they are GONE. They are written oddly like this {{dts|2009|12|18}}. Wouldn't it just make sense to write it December 18, 2009? --Mike Allen 20:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Did the template get borked? Should we switch back to standard dates for now?AniRaptor2001 (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I switched it to {{Start date}} and its working now. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 20:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is it preferred to be in {{Start date}} format rather than just writing it out? --Mike Allen 22:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I honestly couldn't tell you. It has something to do with ISO or some technical reason. One of the other coordinators may know, though. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox film#Microformat. Erik (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Gracias. --Mike Allen 00:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Percentages Table?

[1] should we add a talbe similar to this to the reception section? I know it is only one film, which is why I am asking on here, and not (trying) to make a big deal out of it. Collectitron said something about only two valid sources, and while I do see the "problem" with community reviews, stating them should not be considered unvaild. Maybe you could explain in more detail, Collectitron? ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Absolutely not (and FYI, it is easy to copy/paste someone's username if you have trouble spelling it). Its pointless, when the content is already better covered in prose, and neither RT community views are valid nor Yahoo Movies which are user ratings same as IMDB. Neither are reliable sources and do not belong in the article anywhere. Eliminating those, you have three numbers for a single film which are, again, already properly presented in prose. The table just clutters the article and adds no value, nor does it make much sense IMHO to have a one line table for a single film. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see why we need a table, the information is well presented in prose. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 00:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. But could you at least give a WP link stating that Yahoo is not valid? If not, then I don't see why just you saying that it is similar to IMDB is a reason for it not to be valid. The Critics Review section (for example [2]) is valid as it states Rolling Stone, E Online, Hollywood Reporter, New York Post. Those are all valid. The one I am sure you are refering to is ( this [3]) where more then 7,000 Yahoo users scored the movie. The later one is therefore not valid, and the former is.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

WP:ACCESSIBILITY? I see why it would be used on film series/franchise pages, when listing multiple films, but just one?. Plus this table looks so out of place. I say absolutely not. --Mike Allen 01:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Pandora's wildlife

At least add something about the Great Leonopteryx....or the Toruk as the Na'vi call it.

Great Leonopteryx, Toruk. A close relative of the Banshee but significantly larger with a wingspan of over 25 metres. Striped scarlet, yellow, and black, with two midnight blue crests on the head and lower jaw. The crest on its head is razor sharp and can be used to injure or disembowel prey, or cut vegetation obstructing its flight. It has a distensible jaw, a large brain cavity and membranous wings that are stretched taut over its carbon fiber bone structure. It also has powerful talons for grasping prey and perching, twin tail for flight control, flow-through ventilation for high performance. The fierce beauty and nobility of the leonopteryx gave the species a central place in Na'vi lore and culture. It is celebrated in dance, song, and with elaborate totems that symbolize both the fear and respect accorded to the creature. Indeed, the leonopteryx is crucial to the Na'vi sense of destiny and interconnectedness. This creature's name in Na'vi translates roughly to 'Last Shadow' as its prefered method of attack is from above so therefore the last thing you see is its shadow.It is rare but ocassionaly a Navi warrior, called Toruk Makto can bond and ride a Leonopteryx though during the timeframe of the film no one has been successful for four generations and only five Na'vi warriors have ever managed to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mini p18 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought they said that six Na'vi warriors had become Toruk Makto in the film. --60.240.148.107 (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I heard five, with Jake Sully becoming the sixth... AniRaptor2001 (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

More information regarding this can be found out here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debnathsandeep (talk • contribs) 10:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Pandora's Wildlife: More Unanswered Questions

Given that all animals seen on Pandora appear to be hexapods, how come the Na'vi have only four limbs ? Assuming, as it is plausible, that the Na'vi, being a relatively new species, share a common six-limb ancestor with other closely related species on the moon, where did the extra limbs go ? From a Darwinian evolution point of view, shouldn't the Na'vi exhibit at least anatomical traces of vestigial limbs as found e.g. under the fins and tails of ocean mammals like whales and dolphins on Earth ? 200.168.20.35 (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is science fiction; in the real world, a species like the Na'vi probably would resemble the other creatures more closely than they do in the film, but the director probably wanted them to look very close to human, so that audiences could better relate to the alien characters.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

3-D how does it work - special glasses?

Is there a standard for modern 3-D projection? Is there an article that could be linked to that describes how it works? If it is something that only works with this film, then could someone knowledgeable please include it in this article? (fotoguzzi) 69.64.235.42 (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The 3-D effect works by projecting two images. The polarization on the glasses worn in the theater make each eye see a slightly different image. I think under the effects section of the article there ought to be a paragraph briefly explaining how the 3-D effect works in theaters. alach11 (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The 3-D effect is a proprietary technology known as RealD. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I projected this movie using a Dolby 3D system, which is an entirely different (and in my opinion superior) breed of 3D technology. 98.248.199.8 (talk) 10:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and no special screen needed? Interesting technology, do you know if there are any benefits regarding the pleasantness of the viewing experience over RealD? I didn't get much of a headache while watching the film, though it's still... annoying in a way.AniRaptor2001 (talk)

I don't want to drift too far off-topic, but: it doesn't lose as much light as Real so brighter picture with same wattage bulb, the 3D effects are equally viewable no matter where you're sitting (with Real you should ideally be sitting in center seating), and the offset for the different frames is less pronounced (some people can see a bit of a lag on Real, for each frame, at least with single-projector setups. Properly phased dual-projector, with each projector dedicated to one frame, doesn't really have this issue). The glasses are also much better quality, with thicker lenses and better polarization. I'm the same guy as above, just different location (don't like to log in when at public locations).71.128.132.238 (talk) 05:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

American-British film?

IP addresses keep removing the British/UK parts from the lead (intro) and infobox, when it comes to categorizing this film. One IP in particular, 98.235.192.45, keeps doing this. Thus...I ask, which is it? Is this film categorized as an American-British film or simply an American one? Flyer22 (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Film nationality is always difficult to categorize when there are multinational partners, but under Wikipedia style guidlines a film takes it nationality from the nationalities of the production companies. From Template:Infobox film under "Country": Insert the home country or countries of the film's main production companies. Since one of the production companies is UK based (Igenious Film Partners) then that makes the film a US-UK co-production. "Ingenious Film Partners" can be clarified as a production company at IMDB [4] (you will also note that IMDB have Avatar's nationality down as US/UK) and at Hollywood Reporter [5] (at the bottom of the page under "production companies). Betty Logan (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, Betty. I was hoping that you would be one of the first to reply to me about this, since I saw you also reverting the IPs who were removing the British/UK parts. Flyer22 (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question probably doesn't know the Wikipedia guidelines. In spirit Avatar is a big American Hollywood blockbuster, but the rules for defining nationality on Wikipedia are pretty clear cut. If you have to revert again put in a link to this discussion so they know why their edits are being reverted. Betty Logan (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

ChaosMaster16 An IP removed the American-British part from the lead as redundant, since it is also in the infobox. I do not object, but everything is usually redundant in infoboxes (LOL). Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The film style guidelines recommend that the film's nationality is included in the first sentence of the lede, but it's not a compulsory requirement. I've seen lots of film articles without the nationality in the lede though so it's your call. Betty Logan (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This should be restored. The infobox is SUPPPOSED to be redundant to the article - it is a quick shot summation of content sourced in the article. Removing it for being redundant is a bad reason to remove it. As for its nationality, follow the guidelines - and if its unclear, see what reliable sources call it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, as is clear from my statement above, I did/do not see how removing it because it is redundant made/makes much sense either; infoboxes mostly include redundant information. That is partly why I restored the current box office gross information to this article's Box office section after ChaosMaster16 removed it as redundant. But I know that ChaosMaster16 means well, and is also a good editor here at Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. ChaosMaster16 did not remove the American-British part. It was an IP who did it. I am not sure how I made this mistake, other than probably going through the edits too fast and assuming that ChaosMaster16 did it when I finally did not see it there anymore (after ChaosMaster16 made an edit about something being redundant). I wonder why ChaosMaster16 did not comment on this, though. Missed the new part of this discussion?

Anyway, sorry about that. Flyer22 (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In the past it has been ChaosMaster's way or no way. I hope he has learned from his last block. I hope. --Mike Allen 03:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is false to claim that the film is a joint American-British film. It is primarily an American film with the typical minor relationships with other countries. For example, the Lord of the Rings films used New Zealand production companies, but they are not considered New Zealand films. The driving studio for Avatar is American, so the film is American. Erik (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It may not meet your definition of what constitutes an international co-production, but it meets the criteria set on Wikipedia. The nationality on Wikipedia is identified through the nationality of the production companies, one of which is British. This follows the IMDB system which also regards the nationality of Avatar as US/UK. If we take your example, the Lord of the Rings films are also regarded as US/NZ co-productions on IMDB, and also in their Wikipedia articles because New Zealand production companies were involved in their production. If you disagree with the criteria then you really need to take it up at the Wiki Film Project, and until the criteria is altered the nationality should be defined under the current existing criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox film indicates that the "country" should be that of the main production companies. Looking at company credits, there is only one "main" production company, 20th Century Fox. The rest are secondary. 20th Century Fox is an American studio, so Avatar is an American film. Is it not considered a Hollywood blockbuster? Erik (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

IMDB doesn't seem to make any distinction between the 'main' production companies and other production companies. The NYTimes [6] mentions Fox, Dune Entertainment and Ingenious Film Partners, so they're obviously significant enough to be mentioned by a third party reliable source. Betty Logan (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that 20th Century Fox is the main studio when it comes to Avatar. The other production companies are not as prominent. The companies can be mentioned in the article in some capacity, but it is misleading to declare in the lead sentence that it is an American-British film. I ask you again, is Avatar not considered a Hollywood blockbuster? Erik (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Avatar is indeed a Hollywood blockbuster, but the objective is to present facts. A British production company was involved which makes it a US-UK co-production under Wikipedia criteria. If nationality was restricted to just the primary production company then it would be correct to call it American, but there are plenty of third-party secondary sources that identify the other production companies. This interpretation is consistent with other film articles like the Bond films and Lord of the Rings. Betty Logan (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no "Wikipedia criteria" for the presence of a secondary production company from another country escalating the film into a dual-country production. Avatar is verifiable as a Hollywood blockbuster. We can mention the other production companies in the article body, but they are not as prominent as 20th Century Fox itself. You are placing undue weight on the secondary production companies. Erik (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is always a primary production company, but if Wikipedia didn't allow for other prominent partners it wouldn't be pluralised. The term "main production companies" is a subjective term, where do you draw the line? After the main one? Do you list them all? Like everything else on Wikipedia, if it is notable for inclusion then you should be able to source it and there are plenty of sources out there that identify Fox, Lightstorm, Dune Entertainment and Ingenious Media as production companies. If they are significant enough to be namechecked in the New York Times, then the are significant enough to be included as production companies on Wikipedia, which the film's nationality derives from. It is consisten with the approach on other film articles, and it is consistent with IMDB which uses the same criteria and lists Avatar as US/UK. Betty Logan (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

We can agree that it is acceptable to mention the production companies in the article. This does not equate labeling Avatar as an American-British film, though. You acknowledge that 20th Century Fox is the main production company, and we see at Template:Infobox film that this is how the nationality is determined. We can still include the other companies in a lesser capacity, but there is no case for calling it a British film in part. In any case, we are at a stalemate, and it is best to wait for others to weigh in to set the consensus. Erik (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

← Yeah, I've got to agree. This is primarily an American film. Though a British production company may have been involved in some way, labelling Avatar an American-British film is misleading the reader; presented without context, such a statement may lead people to assume equal weight between the two, when this is clearly not the case. Far better to present the information about which companies worked on the film later on, where the available space will allow for a more nuanced explanation. Steve ^T • C 16:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If we're getting technical, if we just go off 20th century Fox's nationality that makes Avatar Australian since Fox is now Australian owned! It would be useful to have some clarification form teh Film project since it is you chaps that created the guidelines. Template:Infobox film pluralises "production companies" so it doesn't seem intended to limit the criteria to the primary producer, and what does limiting the criteria to just one production company here mean in the context of other films? Lord of the Rings was produced by a New Zealand production company with financing from an American company. Bond is British produced with financing from an American company. Does that make them NZ/British by virtue of their primary producer, or American as primary funder? In the case of latter is 2012 now a Japanese film because Columbia films are financed by Sony? It opens up a whole can of worms by limiting nationality to what is perceived to be the main producer. Betty Logan (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is to avoid being technical. Going with what Steve said, you are taking the secondary production companies and ascribing equal weight as an American-British co-production. 20th Century Fox is unquestionably a major American studio. In any case, I forgot to cite this part of MOS:FILM, "Ideally, the nationality of the film (based on its home studio) should be identified in the opening sentence." We can all agree what the home studio is. Erik (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

How do you define the "home studio"? The studio where the film is made? The company that has control over the project? The company that finances the film? The company that owns the copyright? Betty Logan (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you're getting technical. Actually, 20th Century Fox pretty much covers all that. Erik (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait, some stuff was filmed in New Zealand. It must be a New Zealand film, then! Erik (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am simply asking for objective criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the nationality of the film from the opening sentance under WP:GOODFAITH assuming the sentance you quoted applied to foreign-language films only since it immdediately follows that section of the MOS. If I am wrong please revert my edit as soon as concensus is reached regarding the disputed nationality of the film. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

We could do that approach because the lead section mentions 20th Century Fox, but I don't think it is very disputable to say it is an American film. Any major blockbuster will obviously involve companies around the world working on it, but the home studio for Avatar is quite clear. Erik (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that Avatar is an American film. Using foreign production companies because parts were filmed in those countries does not make it any less so. As Steve notes, adding the nuanced details in the production is fine, but for the lead, it is an American film. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So are all the Bond films "British" then? They are based in Britain, produced by a British production company but financed with American money. Betty Logan (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a different kettle of fish to the Bond films. American money, primarily British production—a completely different weighting. Again, it's nuanced, but more of a straight split and more easily summarised in a single sentence. The point is, there will always be exceptions to a rule, which is why I like to keep an open mind and consider these things on a case-by-case basis. Make no mistake, this discussion has been useful (if overlong!) and it will help in the future when a similar situation comes up. All the best, Steve ^T • C 20:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

How about we don't list either "American" or "British" in the lead? That'll solve that. :) --Mike Allen 23:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually mind if the film is American or American-British, which is what this dicussion keeps being reduced to. I would just prefer it if there were some objective criteria which I can look up and say "this film is American" or this film is "American-British". If we are going to assign a nationality surely it can't be done on an arbitrary basis at the discretion of editors otherwise it will applied inconsistently across the film articles. Thinking about it I don't think we should have a criteria because it constitutes original research. Writing that a film has a particular nationality is a claim, and maybe the way to approach this is to just insist on verifiable reliable sources like we do for all claims. Some editors say above the Avatar is obviously an American film, so I think references should be applied to that effect. If the 'nationality' is notable then it should be relatively easy to track down references - I think I've even seen Avatar referred to as an "American" film. This would be consistent with Wikipedia's verifiability policy when it comes to making claims. What do other editors think about this approach? Betty Logan (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)