Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

box office records

Shouldn't the accolades page also contain the box office records set or smashed by Avatar?

What of the records that Avatar is still breaking? (6th weekend, 7th weekend...)[1][2] They aren't currently documented here...

70.29.210.242 (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The records are noted within the Box Office section. The accolades page is more suited to listing the awards, nominations, and other notable recognition given to the film by various notable groups who award achievements in film. Record book stats do not fit into this category. DrNegative (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"...24 countries to date, including China, Russia, Australia, Spain, Hong Kong, Colombia, Czech Republic, Chile, Portugal, Singapore, Ukraine, Hungary, United Arab Emirates, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Dominican Republic, Latvia, Serbia, East and West Africa, Qatar, Jordan, Jamaica and Bahrain" Since when is East and West Africa a country? I've never even heard of it referred to as a single region. Sloppy!

I have changed countries to markets [3] as the source says. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

According to BoxOffice mojo, Avatar is far behind Titanic, ET and Star Wars [4].--Ezzex (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That's after an estimated ticket price inflation has been calculated and that's only for the North American market. Worldwide Avatar has made more money than any other film.Feudonym (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Avatar has also broken the Brazilian domestic historical box office record: BRL 81 million, as of 9 February, 2010. Brazil should thus be added to the list above. Here is the source (in Portuguese): [5]. Krystoffer (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

RDA colony on Pandora

Bob K31416, your last edit reads:

Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) heads the mining operation and is the Administrator of the colony, which has a private security force called Sec-Ops.

Previously I changed it to:

Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) is the administrator of the RDA mining colony, which uses a private security force called Sec-Ops.

because, besides being shorter and easier to read, it also correctly describes the nature of the RDA colony. You said in the revert summary of my revision: "in addition to mining, colony does science, etc too." But both the film and in the script contain the following dialog between Selfridge and Augustine:

SELFRIDGE But after -- how many years? -- relations with the indigenous are only getting worse.

GRACE That tends to happen when you use machine guns on them.

On Selfridge’s desk is a magnetic base, and hovering in midair, in the invisible field, is a lump of METALLIC ROCK. Pure UNOBTANIUM. He grabs it and holds it up between thumb and forefinger, in front of Grace’s eyes.

SELFRIDGE This is why we’re here. Unobtanium. Because this little gray rock sells for twenty million a kilo. No other reason. This is what pays for the party. And it’s what pays for your science. Comprendo?

He places it back in the magnetic field.

SELFRIDGE Those savages are threatening our whole operation. We’re on the brink of war and you’re supposed to be finding a diplomatic solution. So use what you’ve got and get me some results.

which portrays the RDA colony as primarily a mining facility, with science playing but a subservient role. That's why I thought of changing your revision to my version above. However, it could as well read just 'the RDA colony':

Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) is the administrator of the RDA colony, which uses a private security force called Sec-Ops.

which makes it even shorter albeit less exact. What do you think? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The scientific aspect of the colony seems somewhat autonomous, but not completely, relative to the mining operation's goals. For example, Quaritch had to embed a spy (Jake) in order to get info for the mining operation's goals. Quaritch couldn't simply get this info from the scientists. As colony Administrator, Selfridge has considerable authority that he uses for the interests of RDA, but apparently not complete control of the scientific work, which seems separate from the mining operation, although there is cooperation between the two. I think the present form of the article with a mining operation and a scientific operation that are both part of the colony, is the appropriate structure in describing the plot and is more consistent with the script which refers to a "colony", rather than a mining colony. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, Bob. A couple of small points: (1) neither the script nor the movie seem to refer to Selfridge as the Administrator of the colony. Just plain 'administrator' (Script, p.16); (2) what would you think of a slight re-write to make the sentence smoother? For instance:

Administrator Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) heads the mining operation of the RDA colony, which has a private security force called Sec-Ops.

Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Administrator Parker Selfridge" sounds like a governmental title to me, rather than a company position. Although there is some ambiguity in it, I think the meaning leans toward a governmental authority. Your new version appears to be essentially the same as your previous version with "RDA colony" instead of "RDA mining colony", so the points of my previous response still seem to apply. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Bob K31416: My new version is essentially different in the sense that it (1) respects your objection that the colony is not exclusively a mining one, by divorcing 'colony' and 'mining operation', (2) puts 'administrator' in without tying it to 'of the colony', (3) improves the structure of the sentence by doing away with '...heads' and '...is' both connected to the same subject 'Selfridge' in your version. Also, IMO, capitalizing initial 'A' in 'administrator' within the sentence is not ideal stylistically, so (4) placing 'administrator' as the first word takes care of this as well. 'RDA colony' does not necessarily mean the name of the colony, but just its affiliation, like 'a colony of the RDA on Pandora'. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The name of the colony appears to be Hell's Gate, as indicated on p. 9 of the script.

I came upon some interesting info on another aspect of the subject. On the official movie website there is a link where RDA stands for Resources Development Administration. So the mention of RDA "corporation" in the article seems incorrect. RDA may be a governmental agency and the mining and Avatar programs may be part of that agency. I would say that the Hell's Gate colony is administered by the RDA and Selfridge is the Administrator on Pandora.

So, if you want to give a name to the colony, it would be the Hell's Gate colony, according to the script. I also checked in the script for any mention of a corporation and there wasn't any. So perhaps we should remove "corporation" and "corporate" from the article, and add "Resources Development Administration (RDA)". --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Corporate" brings up another interesting note on discrepancies between the script and the film. It doesn't appear anywhere in the script as you've pointed out, yet it does appear in the film. In the script, on page 14, Dr. Augustine says "They're pissing on us without even the courtesy of calling it rain. I'm going to Selfridge..." and storms out the door while Max says that it's not a good idea. But in the film, after Max says it's not a good idea, she says (while storming out of the lab) "No man, this is such bullsh*t! I'm going to kick his corporate butt. He has no business sticking his nose in my department..." Thus, we do have an instance in the film where it is mentioned. Also, another reference to the true nature of RDA appears on page 52 of the script. Parker says "Killing the indigenous looks bad, but there’s one thing shareholders hate more than bad press -- and that’s a bad quarterly statement." --AzureCitizen (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That sure does sound like a corporation. I did four searches in the script for RDA, resource, development, and administration, and I didn't find anything. Perhaps the name "RDA" isn't even in the movie and the corporation is unnamed? I wonder how the name "RDA" got into the article and what source it came from. The only source I saw mentioned in the article that used RDA was for a Mattel action figure.

Also, I'm not sure what to make of the quote of Dr. Augustine re Selfridge, "He has no business sticking his nose in my department..." It suggests that Selfridge doesn't have authority over the scientists. Augustine's reference to "my department" possibly means that she and Selfridge are employees of the same corporation, but in different independent departments. Perhaps Selfridge is in charge of the mining program, and Augustine is in charge of the avatar program, and they are separate programs. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There's mention of RDA at Wikia.

"This page is for articles regarding the Resources Development Administration (RDA) company."[6]

"Parker Selfridge is the passive-aggressive head administrator of the RDA on Pandora."[7]

"Dr. Grace Augustine is a xenobotanist in charge of the Avatar Program."[8]

--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So it looks like my version above kind of says it all:

Administrator Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) heads the mining operation of the RDA colony, which has a private security force called Sec-Ops.

Or does it? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(For both Bob K and Cinosaur) In the scene where Selfridge walks into his "office" just off the main operations area and lectures Dr. Augustine about unobtanium, then says "those savages are threatening our whole operation...", behind Selfridge's desk on the wall to the left are the letters "RDA" lit up in white-blue light. Just a few seconds later, when he tells Dr. Augustine that she is supposed to be "finding a diplomatic solution", Dr. Augustine is standing near Selfridge's open office door, which is glass inset in a frame. On the glass is written "ADMINISTRATOR PARKER SELFRIDGE" and just below that the word "PRIVATE".--AzureCitizen (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

AzureCitizen, Thanks.

Cinosaur, Your version looks fine to me.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks AzereCitizen for your in-depth research. Thanks Bob for your constructive feedback leading to consensus.  Done Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

telepresence

This film obviously has telepresence as a major part of its theme so why does the Category:Films about telepresence category keep getting removed? -Eekerz (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Eekerz, sorry for repeated reverts of your category edit, but, as I said before, it is proper to get consensus here before attempting to replace an established category with one of your own (and fairly recent) creation, especially since the latter relies upon an article of yet unrated and still disputed quality. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Why replace? This film is about technology, as well as being about telepresence. We can have both. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who initially added the Category:Films about technology (and Category:Films about rebellions) cats in the first place, but then I made Category:Films about telepresence a subcategory of technology films so it made more sense to change the cat since it was a more specific cat. However, both tech and telepresence cats works for me since Avatar does have a lot of tech in it (not just the avatar telepresence units). Oh and how is telepresence in dispute? It only has a "needs additional references" notice, which is hardly a dispute considering the amount of references it does have (22). -Eekerz (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Eekerz, the problems I had with your edits were (1) your replacing the existing category with one of your own, and (2) marking such edits as minor (something you have already been asked by other editors not to do). And, yes, the telepresence article does have a notice that its quality and importance are still unrated. Other than that, I have no objections. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Films about telepresence is more specific than Category:Films about technology, Cin. Duh. Just because I created a more specific category FOR WHAT THE MAIN POINT OF THE FILM IS ABOUT doesn't mean I have a "pet project". If Wikipedia wants to be so nitpicky about what constitutes a minor edit, MediaWiki should automatically detect a minor edit. I mark cat changes as minor--so what? Just because an article is unrated and not classified in impotance hardly means it's in dispute either. -Eekerz (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Eekerz, thanks for your comment. My objections were to your replacing a category with your own. I apologize if my "pet project" comment offended you personally; it never meant to. But if you do not want to come across as having one, you may still find it helpful to look up WP:MINOR re. what constitutes a minor edit and what does not, in case you have not had enough time to do so yet. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, remove the films about technologies cat (too generic) and replace it with films about telepresence. --Scandum (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Poul Anderson novel: The Avatar

Had the following reverted: Another Anderson novel The Avatar contains a jungle planet called Pandora in which primitive blue-skinned natives attack the characters with arrows.

Reversion was by Bob K31416 Bob K31416, comment "(Undid revision 342183972 by DewiMorgan (talk)not connected to film by reliable source WP:NOR)"

Now, NOR only applies to non-factual stuff, defined as "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". Citing a referenced novel which anyone can look at and check the facts in is none of this.

But I have maintained the reversion, since I feel it was probably the wrong place in the article for me to have put it, since it wasn't a topic raised by a critic. But at the same time... when the movie stands accused of ripping off Poul Anderson, the fact that there exists another novel by the same author, with the same name as the movie, that contains a jungle planet called Pandora in which primitive blue-skinned natives attack the characters with arrows, does seem somewhat relevant to the movie. If anyone can think of a better place to put it, I'm interested. DewiMorgan (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

First, The Avatar goes to a dab page and not an actual article about the novel. Second, nowhere on The Avatar or even Poul Anderson#Other novels does it explain what the novel is about, let alone that it allegedly contains (according to you), a planet named Pandora and blue-skinned natives attacking characters with arrows. Find it online and/or cite the book as a reference with a direct quote from it (and page number). This Slash Film blog entry (in response to the allegedly original io9 post) asks if Avatar is an uncredited rewrite of Anderson's 1957 short story Call Me Joe. -Eekerz (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Google Books has Anderson's The Avatar and a search for "Pandora" yields 3 hits but "blue" also gives 3 hits (but 2 don't refer to skin and the 3rd isn't shown) It could be Google Books in-book search is limited to only 3 hits. Anyway, again, if you have the book, find where what you claim is and give page numbers, and/or find some other reputable source (I know, it's annoying) that has already done it (or let them know about it so they can publish this similarity too). Wikipedia is full of original research and unsourced articles but high-profile articles like this one tend to be far more anal regarding Wikipedia's rules. -Eekerz (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Categorization

The article calls Avatar a "science fiction epic film". But isn't it really a fantasy movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.67.186.187 (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Avatar is definitely sci-fi but also epic and fantastic so why can't it be all 3 (and more)? -Eekerz (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cinema of the United States

I meant to say in the edit summary that American links to Cinema of the United States, not America.[9] Anyways, it does go against the WP:EGG principle, and that article adds nothing of value to the Avatar film. Not to mention it just adds a line of blue links in the first sentence. I would have removed the 2009 in film link, but Avatar is listed in the first paragraph. This is been discussed before and the verdict was the same as above, what do others think? —Mike Allen 21:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There is not much I can add to what you have already stated. Flyer22 (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

1) The wikilink is for the adjective "American" that modifies film. So it is essentially a wikilink for "American film", which appropriately goes to Cinema of the United States.

2) I don't see how this wikilink goes against WP:EGG. Could you give some detail, using excerpts from WP:EGG, that supports your points? Thanks.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link" So clicking American, one may think (and expect) they are going to the American article, not Cinema of the United States. —Mike Allen 00:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. How about we just not wikilink it at all? DrNegative (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Here's the full sentence of the excerpt that you quoted, "Per the Wikipedia:Principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link."

Then at the wikilink there is, "When the principle of least astonishment is successfully employed, the information is understood by the reader without struggle. The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or overwhelmingly confused by your article."

Seems like the wikilink to Cinema of the United States should be OK, considering the context. Also, note item (1) in my previous message. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I mean seriously what is at that link that would interest a reader for Avatar? A partial history of the Cinema of the US? DrNegative, yes that's what I did, not wikilink it, but it's causing controversy, so I brought up here, or else I wouldn't have bothered clogging up the already congestive talk page. :) —Mike Allen 00:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

From your response, it appears that your objection no longer involves WP:EGG and is now based on whether it's a worthwhile wikilink. I'll let you and others decide that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh it has always been about the eggs, I'm just enumerating further, is all. ;-) —Mike Allen 01:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Gee whiz. And here I was thinking that you saw the reasonableness of my message before my last and that's why you didn't respond to the points. Anyhow, I guess I've gone as far as I can with the discussion with you regarding WP:EGG. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob K31416 has explained things quite well, and I haven't really seen any counterargument to what he's said. MikeAllen, if you have a further argument (in addition to the mere assertion that you do, in fact, have a further argument--"I'm just enumerating further"), please feel free to tell us what it is. I assume that this "further enumeration" has yet to come, because as of now, the fullest and latest elaboration that I see on this matter comes from Bob K31416, who has put your WP:EGG quote into context. And the context, I think, is quite clear: A link is an egg if it is counterintuitive and surprising. I do not see how Cinema of the United States is a counterintuitive or surprising leap from "American science fiction epic film". The practicality of WP:EGG is that it discourages articles that would not communicate the same ideas in writing as online. If somebody sees "American science fiction epic film" in print, are they not more likely to think of "American film" than of "America" as a geographical term? I've got ADD, and even my mind doesn't wander off from the first line of the article and start to contemplate the largely irrelevant history or topography of the Americas. IMO, a link to America or to United States of America would be considerably more distracting and peculiar and counterintuitive than a link to Cinema of the United States, considering that the article is about a major contribution to...well, the cinema of the United States. But maybe that's just me. If so--if there is any surprise at all in finding that the "American" in "American...film" links to an article about, well, American film, rather than to an article about "America"--then the surprise will be a pleasant one, because the link will have been a more intuitive match than what one might have expected. The link is not an egg at all. It's an intuitive, reasonable, and ultimately helpful link for any reader who wants to know more about the film's wider, spatiotemporal context. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it is a helpful link, Cosmic Latte. WP:OVERLINK says, "An article is said to be underlinked if subjects are not linked that are helpful to the understanding of the article or its context." Following this line of thinking, we should be linking to articles that are helpful to understanding this article or its context. When we use "American" in the lead sentence, it is a purely definitive manner. We basically say, the film is primarily American-produced. Cinema of the United States does not add any more help to this. I would argue that there is a similar problem with 1999 in film for the same reason. We're telling the reader in the lead sentence that the film was released in 1999. What does "1999 in film" tell us about the topic? It is better used in the right context, such as discussion of its performance against other films released in 1999. Erik (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The overlink quote strikes me as slight stretch--I'm not saying that the article is underlinked, and I'm not even arguing the converse (i.e., that it's "not overlinked"). Regardless of how well the article balances blue text with black overall, I'm saying that, in and of itself, the pipelink to Cinema of the United States is not the least bit discredited by WP:EGG. But, to run with the underlinking/not-overlinking thing anyway, how is an understanding of the "cinema of the United States" not helpful to understanding the context of an "American film"? In fact, how is it not the context of the film? The film did not just materialize inside a vacuum; it came to be in a certain place (the U.S.) and time (1999...plus ten). I'd think that time and place would be at the very core of something's context... Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I would think that "film" would be the core! :) I think that Cinema of the United States is only marginally better than linking to either film or the United States. It is better applied for articles about classic films, and not even in the lead sentence of these, in my opinion. For example, "Critics have called so-and-so one of the defining American films." The cinema article to me is too general, especially in the lead sentence. If we talk later on in the lead section or the article body about how Avatar shaped American cinema in some way (maybe being the harbinger of 3D technology), the link could fit in that context. It's just that linking to that article in every American film's lead sentence exaggerates the value. We link to it because it's been linked to; kind of a circuitous argument where it could be better applied or not applied at all. Erik (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The key issue here is what exactly does the link bring to the article? How does "Cinema of the United States" inform the Avatar article. There is a certain sort of logic in linking "American film" to the "Cinema of the United States" but how does it bring a greater depth of understanding to the subject matter of the article? Will it be of side interest to readers of the article? There really isn't a strong case for including the link. For example, if there was no James Cameron article there would be a strong case for red-linking his name because there is a gap in the information being presented, but in the absence of a "Cinema of the United States" article I doubt anyone would red-link "American film". It seems it is being linked in this context simply because the article exists. Betty Logan (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That article says absolutely nothing about 3D films. How is it helpful again? —Mike Allen 19:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Erik and Betty: Fair points. Perhaps, now that I think about it, what I find most counterintuitive is that, in not linking "American" to something, the article appears to take for granted that the reader will already know a thing or two about America, whereas an article about a film made in, say, Palau might provide some sort of link in the assumption that the reader knows next-to-nothing about the country. (I'm American, by the way; I just try to edit bias-free, as if I'd just flown in from...well, Pandora, I guess.) But yes, if a term is linked, it ought to be able to deepen--not trivially to broaden--the reader's understanding of the topic. Finally...Mike: Just for future reference, that's a fairly loaded question, because it assumes that the answer must be given in terms of the preceding assertion. It's rather like if I say, "You spilled your milk! How can you possibly be a decent human being?"--as though human decency must be explicable in terms of unspilled milk. With regard to your comment, it is as if the helpfulness of the linked article must be accounted for vis-a-vis that article's inattention to only one of Avatar's countless features. Perhaps it must be so accounted for--but you have not argued that it must, and I am not convinced that it must. Nonetheless, I'm not going to push this matter any further, because--as noted above--I do see a valid reason for avoiding the link so early in the article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I just have one question. When using the word American, what does it refers to? Does it mean it's a work of studios in the many countries of America? I'm assuming it refers to works from studios from Canada & the U.S. in which case it should say "North American film". If you refer to U.S. then it should say "U.S. film", as the usage of American to refer to the U.S. should be avoided as the Royal Spanish Academy states: "...But the use of American to refer exclusively to the inhabitants of the United States should be avoided, abusive use that its self explain by the fact that the US Citizens utilize the abbreviated name America frequently to refer to their country. It should not be forgotten that America is the name of the whole continent and all the people that inhabits it are Americans: [10]." As to this, I think the word American should be changed to U.S. if referring to the United States of America. Just ask yourself this. Should we be using and teaching popular and generalized terms or the irrefutable correct terms? Douken (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue of whether or not to use the adjective "American" when referring to the U.S.A. in the English Wikipedia seems like a very general issue for all of the English Wikipedia. Does anyone know if that has been settled somewhere in the English Wikipedia? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What does it it say on a US passport Bob? If it says you're US citizen then it should be U.S, if it says you're an American citizen then "American" would be acceptable here since it is referring to the film's nationality. To draw an analogy, the British Isles encompass both the UK and Ireland, so geographically speaking anything "British" can come from UK or Ireland. But Irish passports say you're an Irish citizen and UK passports say you're a British citizen, so in that sense it is acceptable to refer to British films in regards to just the UK because it's the legal nationality on their passports and it's being used to decribe a nationality rather than a geographic region. Betty Logan (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood my last message. Please reread it. I wasn't making a point for either side of this issue. Like I said, it seems like a very general issue. Seems like it should be settled for all of the English Wikipedia, so that this type of discussion doesn't keep popping up from article to article. Perhaps it has been settled somewhere? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I was involved in a similar discussion a while ago. Perhaps "U.S." or "United States" would be a more neutral adjective. The problem is, "American" really is the only accepted name for a U.S. citizen (well, apart from "U.S. citizen" itself). So if that's as good as the noun gets, then maybe the quest for a better adjective is taking things too far. But it's sort of a complicated issue and I'm not sure as to where else it might have been addressed. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the term "American" is fine as the correct word in all dialects of English. Hundreds of associations use the word American to represent the U.S., including the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, the American Federation of Labor, and of course, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this: ""Yankee" (or "Yank") is a common colloquial term for Americans in English": Avatar is a 2009 Yankee science fiction epic film...? Betty Logan (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if you could give an example of where "American" alone, without a modifier such as Native or South, was used somewhere in an English language publication to refer to someone other than a person from the U.S.A.? Also, could you give an example from an English language publication of its use as an adjective to refer to something other than the U.S.A.? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

To be fair Bob, English language usage isn't really the issue here since English is the second language in most non-English speaking countries so possible translations must also be taken into account here - it's entirely possible that the majority of articles on the English wikipedia are read in a non-native tongue. I don't actually mind either way, but as the editor who brought the issue up points out "American" is applicable to his country too. I was under the impression that "American" was the official term, but if the official nationality of the US is US then I don't think there is much wriggle room on this one. Betty Logan (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Re "English language usage isn't really the issue..." - It definitely is the issue because this is the English language Wikipedia. (BTW I noticed an adjective example in a link provided by Cosmic Latte, "Organization of American States". It would be interesting if there's an example that is not in a name, like an example that uses the phrase "American woman" to refer to a woman who is from North or South America.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem, Bob, is that English language phrases will always reflect a bias towards those countries where the English language is the native tongue. Those of us who live in an English speaking country have a duty to those who don't to make sure we don't use phrases that are unique to those countries. The English language Wikipedia isn't the English speaking countries Wikipedia, it is for anyone anywhere that is English literate. Betty Logan (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems like you are asserting that somehow in some country, the term American film will somehow be interpreted to mean a film made my some country or countries other than the U.S.A. Can you give an example from a publication in any language or in any country, where the "American" in "American film" does not refer to the U.S.A.? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't live in a non-English speaking country, but someone else does and has already outlined the problem that "American" doesn't just refer to the US. I really don't see what the problem is here. I recall you had similar issues with US/domestic and can only asume your objections are rooted in some sort of misguided nationalism because there really isn't a valid argument for referring to Avatar as an American film rather than a US film. If US nationality is US then you're arguing for a colloquial usage. Betty Logan (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The demonym for the United States is "American". It is not a colloquial term. I support wikilinking "American" in the lede to Cinema of the United States as is done on many film articles, to settle any confusion that may exist. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Betty Logan, Perhaps you might try to show that the use of "US film" is more prevalent than the use of "American film" inside Wikipedia. I don't think your other arguments are very convincing. Just my opinion.

P.S. Your somewhat personal attack re nationalism is neither true nor useful, if you are trying to win me over to your point of view. An apology might be helpful. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

To be fair you accused Cinosaur and myself of being socks, and that was neither truthful or useful. I don't recall an apology being forthcoming there. Betty Logan (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets stay on topic guys, I found a link here and here of a very long disussion on this matter for the manual of style. DrNegative (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems there is no consensus either way, and it doesn't look like there is going to be one anytime soon. The thing is this isn't like American Football where it's part of the name, "American" is purely an adjective here and "U.S." is equally applicable, so taking the situation on its merits I don't think anyone would object to "Avatar is a 2009 U.S. science fiction epic...". Since "American" as an adjective is divisive as shown by those two debates, perhaps the less controversial alternative is preferable? The over-riding objective is that there is clarity for anyone who is able to read English. Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

In my previous message I suggested to you, "Perhaps you might try to show that the use of 'US film' is more prevalent than the use of 'American film' inside Wikipedia." It's my impression that in Wikipedia, "American film" is the prevalent form, not "US Film". --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I started looking at Lists of films and so far haven't seen "US film" used in the film articles. I've seen instances of "American film" but not "US film", although I didn't look that much. Why don't you have a go at Lists of films? And keep track of how many instances of "American film" you encounter and how many instances of "US film". Or maybe someone knows about a film in Wikipedia where "US film" is used. Also, be careful that some mischievous editor didn't change from one to the other, prompted by this discussion. That can be done by looking at the version from a week ago, for instance, if "American" or "US" is found. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The article in question is called Lists of American films. Would the "correct" title be "Lists of U.S. films"? Also, from American (word): "In modern English "American" generally refers to the United States, and in the U.S. itself this usage is almost universal, with any other use of the term requiring specification of the subject under discussion." The source for this is The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There clearly doesn't seem to be any appetite for changing it, it's basically just me and the editor who brought it up who think the alteration would be better. Unless there is some fresh input to the discussion we may as well wrap this up. Betty Logan (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and linked it to Cinema of the United States.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? —Mike Allen 04:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: DrNegative links to past discussion in 2003 about using U.S. or American (which wasn't what this thread was about, btw). It seemed so lovely back in the early days of Wikipedia. "If you want to change it, I'll be perfectly happy to follow along behind you and make it correct." That is all. LOL —Mike Allen 04:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I posted that for the sake of other arguments as to how to address the US or American choice as it came up. Several comments mentioned US film or American film as a choice. As for the wiki-link, I prefer not to wiki-link it at all, however per Bob's logic, I could understand how it does not violate guidelines by linking it to Cinema of the United States so that is my choice since we are linking it. DrNegative (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:"What does it it say on a US passport Bob?" I'm not this Bob, but my Passport reads in the cover "United States of America" in the next page there's a section that reads "Nationality/Nationalité/Nacionalidad". Below that it reads "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" and if I use common sense, I conclude this document is telling me that I am a United States of America citizen. I took the liberty of looking at other country's passport to make sure under nationality is not listed the name of the country itself like in the case of the United States of America. I found that the Brazilian Passport under nationality it can say two things depending on gender and that is "Brasileiro" for male and "Brasileira" for women, not Brasil. The Belgium passport says "Belg" and not Belgium. The passport from India says "Indian" under nationality. As looking through various countries it has come to my attention that there's a pattern, signs of standardization. This mean, for travel purposes worldwide a person from The United States of America is a "United States of America Citizen". Meaning that that's demonym for United States of America citizens if we follow what the passport says. Using common & logical sense we look at the words "North America" & "South America". I don't think South America is the southern region of the United States. Is more like the Southern region of America as the word states. A simple example of what happens in America would be if France, Germany and Italy separate themselves from the EU and called themselves United States of Europe. After some time they begin to call themselves Europeans, people from Portugal would be called Portuguese and people from Austria would be called Austrians, but Portuguese and Austrians tough not called Europeans are in fact Europeans. As to where you can read in English language an article using the word "American" to refer to another thing that is not the US, you can read this articles [11] , Amerigo Vespucci , The Discovery of America by Cristopher Colombus (Note that Christopher Colombus never landed on North America). As for Avatar, I think if it was made in the U.S. let it be an U.S. film and problem solved. Douken (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is appropriate to use US or American apparently depends on the context. From what I've seen in Wikipedia film articles, the norm is to use in the opening sentence "American film" rather than "US film", so the present article is just conforming to other film articles in Wikipedia. (See Lists of American films.) If you think that "US film" should be used instead of "American film" in Wikipedia, perhaps you should suggest that on a guideline talk page, or incorporate that yourself in a Wikipedia guideline. As far as I know, there isn't a guideline that specifically suggests using one or the other in film articles, so we just conform to the prevalent usage in the rest of Wikipedia film articles. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Na'vi as symbol of resistance

As stated in the article, Bolivian president Evo Morales thinks the Na'vi are a good symbol of standing up to imperialism. Someone with the power to do so (the article is currently locked) should add that the Na'vi have been adopted as a symbol by some people fighting against what they view as injustice. Specifically, Palestinians dressed as Na'vi protesting the separation wall. Link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.240.121 (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I was stunned when I came across the article, but I'm reluctant to say it should be included in the article; but it is just too wild to NOT include it. --Hourick (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like predictions about the film's cultural impact were far from misplaced! I propose creating a "Cultural impact" section, where we could probably re-include or move Evo Morales' comments, re-include or move the re-naming of the Chinese mountain, and this Palestinian protest. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This and another instance of Avatar's recent cultural impact is already referenced in Themes in Avatar (2009 film), which is linked under Themes and inspirations. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Initial screening

Unter Initial screening the article claims, that the film was adpoted in 4D vision in Korea in summer 2009. This seems to be unlikely since the film was released in December 2009 worldwide. Please verify or correct this. --146.107.3.4 (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It is verified, read the reference. Betty Logan (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Na'vi are a race?

In the introduction it says Na'vi is a race, but shouldn't it be species? Race is only a subgroup of species - "a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring of both genders, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen." I propose changing Na'vi to species.--TheBearPaw (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed that. There's also no indication that the "colony" threatens the Na'vi's existence - just a local tribe of Na'vi, nor that it threatens the planet's ecosystem. I'll go ahead and fix that as well. --Scandum (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not seeing what is so wrong with calling them a race, considering that a lot of a science-fiction works often state "alien race" when talking about a species with no shown subgroup. We also often hear the words "human race" instead of "human species." Although...I must state that it is difficult to believe that there is no different type of Na'vi. Unlike humans being distinguished by color and a few other things, maybe the Na'vi species are distinguished by something else. But, yes, calling the Na'vi a species is the correct way to word it...considering that the word "Na'vi" is not specifying a subgroup of that particular species. Flyer22 (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

ITS JUST A MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtmckay (talk • contribs) 04:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yes, we do not need a reminder of that. Not the usual editors of this article anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Political response

I don't know exactly how to word it, but i belive that there should be a section or a mention of that. For example Survival International has made a response to the film, pointing out that it is far from fictional, but rather fictionalised story of what has happened to the tribal peoples all over this planet [12]. --Beta M (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As a POI, this and another political projections of the movie are already covered in Themes in Avatar (2009 film). This is not to rule out the possibility of Political response as a new section in Avatar (2009 film), but just to mention that even if consensus will be against this new section, it is taken care of in the daughter article anyhow. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This subject was mentioned in the article with the Morales quote in the social and political paragraph of the Critical reception section, "Evo Morales, Bolivia's first indigenous president, praised the film for its 'profound show of resistance to capitalism and the struggle for the defense of nature'." I think that expanding on this subject and others was the purpose of the creation of the article Themes in Avatar (2009 film). --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, Bob. That's the purpose. However, somehow I can still sympathize with editors who want to see their contributions show up in the main article. ;) Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Impact as an allegory

A blog of on Foreign Policy Magazine's website noted the number of movements and actvist and politianns using the film as an effective allegory for thier causes. [13] perhaps we can incorporate this into the article Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Already here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinosaur (talk • contribs) 17:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"Avatar Blues"

Worthy of note? CNN article 195.27.13.214 (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussed. Check the archives. DrNegative (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A problem with the first line

Avatar is not science fiction, it is fantasy. This is clearly seen from wikipedia's definition of science fiction:

"Science fiction is a genre of fiction. It differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature"

Avatar's setting is futuristic, but this does not make it science fiction. Every unexplained (and ridiculous) phenomena from floating mountains (why do they float?) to the "Flux Vortex" (no explanation here either) points towards fantasy. Just pointing that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.107.236.80 (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition of fantasy is as follows: "Fantasy is a genre that uses magic and other supernatural forms as a primary element of plot, theme, and/or setting." The floating mountains and flux vortex, while not explained by science, are not explained by magic or The Force or whatever either; I personally assumed that these phenomena had scientific explanations but that they weren't important enough to go into depth for.

Another thing is that while some things go unexplained, others are indeed explained 'scientifically'. --82.46.44.28 (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Floating mountains could hypothetically be explained as gravitational anomalies - their existence doesn't necessarily lie beyond the laws of nature on Pandora. Both the NY Times and LA Times describe Avatar as science fiction [14] [15] so you'd have a tough time having the description removed because it's a verifiable description. If you can find sources that describe the film as "fantasy" then you can always add to the description. The story is placed firmly in a scientific context with any understanding of the planet and its lifeforms presented through rational scientific explanations so I think that would qualify it as science fiction by most criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Flux_Vortex Not sure if the wiki is fan fiction or not, but unobtanium apparently is a super conductor that generates a strong magnetic field, hence the floating mountains. --Scandum (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

$200,000,000 in IMAX

Today Avatar crossed yet another milestone hitting the $200,000,000 mark, more than double the previous record. Here is a link showing the news release from the IMAX Corp http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?dsid=2541&dekey=1&company_name=Imax+Corporation&id={11753274-0CD1-40D3-B6B5-1A9CE115C6A9} Dante2308 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the original source: http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=184846. Betty Logan (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Themes in Avatar

I recently stumbled upon this daughter article listing in the Avatar template and I assumed this page was created while I was on vacation. I added a hat-note linking to it in the "Themes" section. If anyone feels that it should not be linked for any reason, feel free to remove it. DrNegative (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was created today (Feb. 14). I like the idea, but what about when Avatar 2 is out, make a new "Themes" article about it separately? Or cross that bridge then. —Mike Allen 04:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah I found it (Feb. 10) [16] ;) I see what you are saying though about the title. The title makes specific reference to this particular film though so I don't think this would be a problem later on. One day we may need to address this but for now I would say the name fits so to speak. I am only concerned about the possibility of it turning into a POV fork as a main branch from this article. I hope the main editors will strive to keep it neutral. However, if any trims need to be made from this article (the enormous amount of themes), this new daughter article gives us a starting point as well. DrNegative (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

DrNegative, thanks for adding that hat-note to Themes in Avatar. It actually saved my day by giving me a very timely heads-up about the theft, which had caught me unawares. Since the article was just about ready for a roll-out when it was hijacked by a now banned user, we decided to continue editing it in main space. And I agree with your thoughts that this daughter article can serve as a thematic library for the new themes as they are being proposed to the main article. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And yes, you and other editors are most welcome to take part in editing Themes in Avatar to make it a useful addition to the main article and to prevent it from turning into a POV fork. Cinosaur (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A separate point -- shouldn't Themes in Avatar (2009 film) be hat-noted under Critical reception too as a "See also" article to facilitate those readers who are interested in more thematic critical reviews? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks awkward having a hat-note there. Maybe give the two critically implied themes paragraphs a sub-heading of their own to place a hat-note or migrate the paragraphs to the new themes article? DrNegative (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

DrNegative, please correct me if I am wrong, but the "See also:" hat-note is justified under Critical reception per Layout manual, which says:

Other references under the section title: If one or more articles provide further information or additional details, references to such articles may be placed immediately after the section heading for that section.

In other words, the "See also" template does not have to necessarily refer to an article that covers the section in question entirely. Supplying further information on some of the section's main points (which is what Themes in Avatar (2009 film) does) seems to be good enough. And if somebody writes articles on, say, Similarities with Avatar (2009 film) in other media and Peer reviews of Avatar (2009 film) expounding on the 4th and 5th paragraphs of Critical reception respectively, they will be plugged in under the same ”See also:" hat-note as well:

See also: Themes in Avatar (2009 film), Similarities with Avatar (2009 film) in other media, and Peer reviews of Avatar (2009 film)

Also, yours was an interesting suggestion about migration, but I believe that the most prominent thematic comments should stay in the main article as significant parts of the film's critical reception. What I would propose, though, is that all thematic sentences of the 3rd paragraph under Critical reception have corresponding counterparts as sections in Themes in Avatar (2009 film) and vise versa. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of the guidelines through the layout manual. My only concern was that if we are going to use the same hat-note twice within the article, we should add a subsection title to the "Critical reception" section to follow a hierarchy. As it stands now, the reader could assume that this link to the "Themes" article also elaborates on the film's review ratings and artistic critique when in fact it does not. DrNegative (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

My impression was that, unlike "Main article:", the template "See also:" rules out such an assumption. Or does it? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

DrNegative, on a second thought — do you think this:

See also: Thematic reviews of Avatar (2009 film)

will be a more appropriate way to clarify what the linked article is elaborating on in the Critical reception section? I am not opposed to creating a subsection title either, but the above could be a simpler way. Cinosaur (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I am satisfied with that. More definitive and precise to the reader. Looks good. DrNegative (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.  Done. For other such cases we may consider {{Details}} and {{Further}}. Also, may I ask your opinion on my suggestion above regarding syncing contents of Critical reception 3rd paragraph and Themes in Avatar (2009 film), to avert "a theme out of the blue" kind of thing? Cinosaur (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In most articles that I have seen, when a daughter article is created that addresses the section in question from the main article, the section gets shortened to a summary on the main article and the full details gets migrated to the daughter. I am not sure how to go about it in this case because this paragraph could have been in the "Themes" section but was kept in the "Critical reception" for flow. It is a unique situation in this case because the new "Themes" article covers multiple sections from the main. You could probably implement a section in the daughter article to treat the "Critics" view of the themes and organize select info there maybe. DrNegative (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Either option is fine with me. Should we ask for more opinions? And I am not sure about a section dedicated to critics's view in the daughter article because that would basically mean restating the same quotes from that article under a different section — unless I get your suggestion entirely wrong. Cinosaur (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't really a suggestion, but therein lies the problem. We have a nice paradox here. ;) DrNegative (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem. If there is any information about themes that is not important enough to be in the main article, move it to the daughter article. Stated another way, if most readers of the main article would be interested in the information, leave it in the main article (as well as in the more complete daughter article). The daughter article is accumulating more information, although I still don't think it is comprehensive in covering the themes. BTW, it is mostly an article about critics' views, isn't it? Anyhow, once it has settled down for a few weeks, I think that it will need a reorg, but for now, I think it is fulfilling its function. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A little point

Could it not be mentioned that Sully and Neytiri mated under the Tree of Souls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeky Freak (talk • contribs) 21:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, they did not. It was the/a Tree of Voices. Anyways, this is already mentioned in the "plot" part of the article. - 87.139.3.204 (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Performance analysis

Under the "performance analysis" section, the article says: Regarding sentiment that Avatar would need significant "repeat business" just to make up for its budget and achieve box office success, Cameron commented on sharing being a part of successful films and believed Avatar could inspire this reaction. "When people have an experience that's very powerful in the movie theatre, they want to go share it. They want to grab their friend and bring them, so that they can enjoy it," he said. "They want to be the person to bring them the news that this is something worth having in their life. That's how Titanic worked."

I don't think this paragraph adds anything. Cameron is just stating the obvious. Of course, to be a blockbuster, a film needs repeat business and good "word of mouth". Just because Cameron says something about the box office performance does not mean that it is notable - he does not discuss strategy; he's just giving his impression of the apparent fact that repeat business and good word of mouth is needed to achieve good box office performance. I tried to delete this, but Flyer22 put it back in. Flyer, since you are concerned about keeping the length of the article down, let's take this out. Comments from others, please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, "The comment is in response to this film needing to perform like Titanic in order just to be successful, due to its budget. Not all films need repeat viewings."

You say, "Of course, to be a blockbuster, a film needs repeat business and good word of mouth." To this, I again point out that plenty of films have become "blockbusters" without significant repeat business or good word of mouth. The Twilight Saga: New Moon film is a recent example of that, when referring to its opening day and weekend...unless you do not consider that film a blockbuster. The fact is that this film's success was largely dependent upon repeat viewing; it absolutely needed it in order to not be considered a box office failure. There is nothing wrong with making this clear, with Cameron's comment about how films become this successful. Not all films have these type of repeat viewing performances, and these two films are the only ones to have repeat viewership to such a large extent. The above paragraph also creates an excellent lead-in for the Titanic comparisons. Out of all of Cameron's quotes in that section, this one is one of the two most important ones. You already cut down what I view as the most important one -- the quotebox one.

Yes, I am worried about the size of this article (I am the one who addressed it twice on this talk page with no responses about it and had to take action myself), but this paragraph does not add much space (the article stays at 134 kilobytes with or without it), and I am still keeping this article's size down. It's amazing that the Home media section is in it without this article being over 140 kilobytes, as this article was headed to before.

When this article needs more cuts because it is no longer staying very close to 134 kilobytes, we will worry about more cuts then. But these days, this article's size has been relatively stable. Flyer22 (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

To some it may be obvious, but others it may not. Repeat viewing are a key concept to the financial success of this film and Titanic. That statement reaffirms to the reader that Cameron is in agreement.

As for the article's size, it is rather large, but stable and informative. This article should be near the peak size now with the "Home Media" section in. The editors here have done such a good job at keeping the cruft out, and the good encyclopedic content in, that any large cuts made could actually hurt the article. DrNegative (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it can come out without being detrimental to the article. It's a moot point now - that whole section is conjecturing what sort of business Avatar would need to be successful. It's come out now, it's clearly a runaway success so the performance analysis section should be focusing on the reasons for its success. If repeat viewings have been a key factor in Avatar's success then we should find some recent sources to bear that out, rather than just relying on pre-release speculation. Betty Logan (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I am just not seeing why it should or needs to come out, Betty. Moot point or not. The Performance analysis section is focusing on the reasons for this film's success. It is well-structured in that respect, but the criticisms and predictions of/about the film before its release are just as important to note...especially considering its box office performance in light of all that. The section starts off documenting the doubts about the film's box office performance, then goes into the predictions, then goes into the astonishment by its box office performance, and finally finishes with the explanations for its unusually strong box office performance...along with two comments congratulating this feat. Most of everything in that section is important to note, and all of it is very relevant. The section is well-written, and was carefully mapped out by me when I put it all together. There is nothing more that needs to be added to it, and the "needed cuts" for it have already been made. What is wrong with letting one paragraph detailing how important repeat viewership had to be to this film stay in? Repeat viewings being a key factor in Avatar's success is further noted in that section; it is not as though we are relying only on Cameron's explanation. But that Cameron paragraph shines significant light on just how important repeat viewership had to be to this film's success, without us going into later detail about that and how the film would have bombed otherwise...by studio standards. Flyer22 (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Russian broadcast

previously discussed in:

• Should there be a "Similarities to Other Works" section?
• Is Avatar an original story?
• The Strugatsky Brothers' original 1960-s novel
• WP:UNDUE and prominence of sociopolitical aspects

SerdechnyG (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

copied from Talk:Themes in Avatar

SerdechnyG, I understand your desire to include these facts here, but they simply do not belong. The article is about themes in Avatar, and not about allegations of plagiarism, which have been too many to name. You may consider starting a separate article on Avatar plagiarism charges and then link it in under the main article's appropriate section, if you get consensus there. Repeated reverts here are not helpful to get other editors to respect your proposed contributions. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This article focuses exclusively on the themes in Avatar. I am not sure why you were directed to this article, but if your material belongs anywhere it is in the main Avatar article; possible inspirations for Avatar are dealt with in Avatar_(2009_film)#Themes_and_inspirations where possible influences on Avatar are discussed. My suggestion would be to reduce the size of your edits and incorporate it into the first paragraph of that section which specifically discusses other possible film influences such as Dances With Wolves and John Carter. Betty Logan (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Call me George. To the point - there was no desire from my side. Frankly, I don't give a damn about it. I just wanted to tell about this controversy and nothing more. I agree with You, Betty, that "This article focuses exclusively on the themes in Avatar." But, when I wrote it in Critical reception - it was deleted in few minutes. In Russia we call it "soccer", when one group redirects you to another, brushing it aside because "that's not our business", dodging the question, and repeating this vicious circle again and again. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate it's no fun to be told on both articles it belongs in the other article. The main article has a section called "Themes and Inspirations" while this article is just called "Themes". Do you feel that your edits document a theme, or do they document an inspiration? It's up to you to decide which heading they should come under and then argue your case on the appropriate article, rather than just slipping it in where resistance is the weakest. Cenasaur met with a lot of resistance to material he was trying to put into the article which is how the dedicated themes article came about, so that is always an option for you. Another option would be to widen the scope of this article so it covers both themes and inspirations, but is sometting that needs to be discussed and agreed on first. The remaining option might be to reduce the size of your edits to the most salient points and see if they are acceped in the main article. The main article after all has to maintain a balance between all the different aspects of the film's coverage so the problem may just be an undue weight issue. Betty Logan (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't try to find a hull breach to insinuate. I'm just trying to follow the advices of other wikipedians. And I guess I'm doing it for nothing. It's better to stay on my own, than to accept such advices. We're speaking different languages. However, thank You very much. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I added in a much briefer mention of the Noon Universe similarities and a cite to The Guardian which had a good article discussing this. That should satisfy everyone, I hope. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My dear friend, why do You do it only now, after two days of quarrels. Besides, it's not a russian, but a soviet novels. By the way, You forgot to mention the name of author. However, it's a good beginning. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a question to ask: Komsomolskaya Pravda is not a reliable source? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no time limit to working on Wikipedia. Sometimes it is better to step back from an issue for a few days and come back to it with a clear mind - you may come up with a better idea. In fact, sometimes I come back to an article a year or two later with a better way to make my point. These are Russian-language novels. You should think about what will convey your point to the majority of readers on English Wikipedia in a simple, concise way. You do not need to educate the readers here about Noon Universe - that is what the blue link is for. You need to simply make your point about possible plagiarism and give just enough context to allow the reader to follow up if she has further questions. Try to compromise with other editors, while explaining to them why you are doing what you are doing. See WP:CONSENSUS. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

These Russian-language novels were translated into 42 languages in 33 countries (more than 500 editions) around the Globe. So please don't use the word "majority" regarding to readers on English Wikipedia. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The entire quotation for all to consider:

Russian broadcast

After film was broadcasted in Russia, brothers Strugatsky' fans, noted that Avatar plot is almost completely copying Strugatsky 1960-70s Noon Universe. Only significant differences between them are: Main protagonist is russian (soviet), and indigenous Pandorians have dog-like muzzles, unlike Avatar's cat-faced characters. Huge bruhaha had been ensued by pro-communist press and web-media, that even russian civil rights activists, such as Valeria Novodvorskaya make a retaliatory turn, and released articles about "crazy commies". But when Boris Strugatsky heard these news, he refused to take any legal actions against Cameron. However, Cameron denies Avatar is a ripoff.

references

There has been endless coverage over possible inspirations and source material for Avatar, much in verifiable sources, but that doesn't necessarily make the claims notable. If legal action were taken against the producers for plagiarism then that would be a notable action and would need to be covered by the article. However, James Cameron has responded to this particular accusation (in The Guardian article) so there is a notable response to the claims that can be documented, but it really should be through sources that include the notable response. Betty Logan (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I also don't think the Douthat addition is notable. Betty, I suggest that you revert to this version. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I will support Ssilvers' version of this and the revision link that he noted above. The proposed paragraph or any addition to Ssilver's version violates WP:UNDUE. DrNegative (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Douthat addition needs to be excised. I think the author's response that he does not support the accusation is worthwhile, since Cameron himself has denied the claims. Betty Logan (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the changes. If anyone is dissatisfied feel free to revert, but I think restricting it to Cameron's response and the Strugatsky reponse is sufficient since these are the only two notable parties. I've removed the Douthat stuff too since it seemed largely irrelevant. Betty Logan (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. DrNegative (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Not bad. I wonder, what obstacles prevented you from such conclusions, wright after this text was added. Was it unavoidable, to start that edit warring or... -- SerdechnyG (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of references, guys, make sure that references are properly formatted (as in template format). That type of formatting is important to GA and FA articles, is advised for any Wikipedia article, and it is more work for others to have to fix the reference formats. Flyer22 (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with their format? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

With whose format? If you mean the above displayed format, to Wikipedia, it is not proper reference formatting. This is why Wikipedia usually demands its GA and FA articles be in template reference format when they should be. Wikipedia:Citation templates can show you different styles, but it is typically best that articles be consistent in their reference formatting...as long as "the consistency" is "proper" reference formatting. Some editors may only put references in as bare urls, which is certainly a no-no. The editors who do that usually do it because they either do not know how to use reference templates...yet, they do not know that Wikipedia prefers them, or because they are lazy when it comes to doing it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not an answer "Why it was deleted", nor a reasonable ground. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean; I did not say it was deleted because of improper reference formatting. I already gave you my reasons, on my talk page, for why I reverted the piece you included, after someone reverted you before me. And now an effort to compromise with you has been made, as shown above in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Flyer, WP does not "demand" or even request that GA and FA articles be in template reference format, although I agree that refs must be consistent within an article. I have pushed over [more than] a dozen articles through GA and FA without template reference format. See WP:CITE for alternate formats that are acceptable. I think the templates make it more difficult for people to edit articles. There are plenty of very good editors on Wikipedia who agree with me - it's not that they are lazy or don't know how to use the templates, they just don't like them. But this is your article, so go ahead and make sure all the refs are in the template formats if that's what you like. It's your personal preference. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have somewhat changed the tone of your reply, but my reply will remain mostly as I wrote it before your change: No, it is not wrong. The articles you have "pushed over" clearly were not in their best format; either the reviewer did not know the standards these articles are supposed to be held up to or the articles were given GA or FA status before the standards were as strict as they are now. Most editors who have been at Wikipedia for at least two years and do not use template reference formats do not use them because, yes, either they do not know how to, they do not know that Wikipedia prefers them, or because they are lazy when it comes to doing it. I have seen this enough times. And, again, articles should typically be put in template reference format; this was discussed before taking this article to GA status. An editor from Wikipedia:WikiProject Films confirmed it as well. By Wikipedia standards, "alternative formats" are generally only accepted when citing television or books and journals. Book and journal examples are mostly what WP:CITE shows. And bare url style is most definitely wrong. If it were not, we would not have bots coming around fixing bare url insertions. Your style of inserting bare urls with the title and date is not preferred by Wikipedia's quality standards either; for example, we do not know for sure what date "your date" is referring to (unless we check the link), and it does not tell us who wrote the article (though that admittedly seems to be because the author's name is not even given in the source). See Embedded links. If you are going to add references to this already huge article, at least make sure that they are properly formatted. Templates might make it more difficult for people to edit articles to you, but those templates provide accurate (and, to some, needed) information about the references. While checking references to make sure they are correctly attributed is best, not everyone does it or wants to. The information we give in the reference templates should be accurate.

As for your attitude about this being "my article," do you always give a sour attitude and bad-mouth editors when you do not get your way? Just because I have done my best to take care of this article, help it reach and keep it up to standards, which I have received several compliments for (even from you), it does not mean that I feel I own this article. These editors trust me and what I have to say because I actually do listen to them and often discuss changes with them on the article talk page or mine or theirs. We talk, compromise/work together. If you want that, then I suggest you present your cases better and talk on this talk page more in order to better get acquainted with this article's usual editors (as I suggested before). When editors already have WP:Consensus about things, meaning the article is designed a certain way because a group of editors worked together to achieve a specific version, it is up to the editor who wants a change to convince them to change it. If you do not get your way, do not bitch about it. Remember to try and keep a positive atmosphere around here. I have not always gotten my way regarding this article. I have often gotten compromises (as in partially "my way.") Flyer22 (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what a diatribe, but you're still wrong. SandyGeorgia, the director of FAC, has stated that she does not like the cite templates. Nevertheless, since you have established the cite template format for this article (and I suspect the film project is pretty much in agreement on this style), I agree that editors should use the cite template format here, and I am sorry for the few instances where I have used another format. I'll try harder. But why call other editors names? Sorry you're so defensive. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Call it a diatribe all you want, but I am not wrong. No matter what SandyGeorgia, the director of FAC, has stated, I know what I have seen on Wikipedia.

Where did I call other editors names in this discussion? If you mean you, I am specifically speaking of you basically bad-mouthing the editors here, as you did on my talk page, simply because you did not get your way. It was bad-mouthing to me, because you were drawing conclusions about how they were scheming to keep certain things out of this article. While I feel that a few were trying to keep certain things out of this article, I do not feel that they were exactly for the same reasons you gave. My speaking on that now was not about being defensive, but rather about what I just stated above -- you should make better cases, talk with these editors more. You acted as though they were your enemies, consistently trying to suppress your and others' viewpoints. If you would get to know these editors better, their online personalities and editing styles, you would be better equipped in interacting with them. When you bring something up on this talk page, something you want included or excluded, you give up too quickly instead and then act as though we are the bad guys (I feel).

Going back to the defensive bit, though... Yes, I am going to defend myself against accusations seeming to say that I feel I own this article and that I am the one pulling all the strings. So to make it perfectly clear... No, I do not look at this article as "What I say goes/stands." Flyer22 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22 does have a strong point in relation to the citations. The sole instance that we use to counter any argument of original research on Wikipedia for our edits are our sources that we provide. The citations are of the utmost importance because of the policy against original research in Wikipedia and they should therefore be held under high scrutiny in terms of format and layout regardless of what anyone else says so that the reader can easily verify them. DrNegative (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Differences between virtual camera and simulcam

I moved a part attached to the section about the simulcam to the section about the virtual camera. If this is not where it belongs, then delete it or place it somewhere else, because it certainly does not belongs where it used to be. It's only through the virtual camera you don't have to worry about "repeated camera and lighting setups, costume fittings and make-up touch-ups." With the simulcam, there is live action in front of you, and you need to film these scenes the same way you have to with all live action. The difference is that the live action actors interacts with digital characters only visible on the simulcam. I have a feeling there is still a lot of confusing around about this. Hipporoo (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Must be a lot of confusion. But, specifically, I am confused by the placement. I do not see how this piece fits better after the lines "Cameron gave fellow directors Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson a chance to test the new technology. Spielberg and George Lucas were also able to visit the set to watch Cameron direct with the equipment." The linked piece starts off saying "Cameron said this process does not diminish the value or importance of acting." That piece clearly does not flow well after the Spielberg and Lucas part; it sounds as though Cameron is saying that having these people visit "does not diminish the value or importance of acting." It seems completely misplaced. If it truly belongs around the spot you put it in, then blending it better should not be difficult.

It should be easy enough to solve what Cameron meant, either way, through the source. Flyer22 (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not break the paragraph into two halves? The first part where he explains that the technology doesn't detract from the actors' performances can go between the technical description and the bit about inviting the directors, and the second half comprising of Spielberg's response can be placed after the directors bit. Might help it flow a bit more. Betty Logan (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a good solution, Betty. I'm for it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and tweaked it this way. Flyer22 (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

And then again to this, per better flow (what Betty said about order of Spielberg's response). Feel free to tweak it further, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Inspirations

The Navi and the world Pandora are clearlz based or directlz taken from on the 90s RPG Albion. (and not in a dream by somebodies mother) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.116.207 (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:FORUM and WP:OR. DrNegative (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

11th straight weekend atop the foreign box-office

We note that the film was #1 at the domestic box office for 7 weeks, but it has also been #1 at the foreign box office for 11 consecutive weeks. See, e.g. this. That streak will probably end now that Alice in Wonderland will take over most of the 3-D screens. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried to note this using your source and clarified those last two sentences in the next to last paragraph of the box office section. Check my prose and adjust if necessary. DrNegative (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sequels

A number of sites listed on google news are reporting Sigourney Weaver is holding talks with James Cameron about reprising her role in future sequels. Should this be added to the sequels section of this article?--Forward Unto Dawn 12:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest waiting until there is some kind of formal announcement. See WP:CRYSTAL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant something along the lines of what is already written in this article about Stephen Lang and what he said about the possibility of returning in an Avatar sequel. If you'll take a look at the link I posted, Weaver is quoted as saying she is discussing with Cameron the possibility of her returning in a sequel. Please take a look at the link. If you're still not in favour of adding something to the article, I'd suggest we remove Stephen Lang's quote from the article.--Forward Unto Dawn 01:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Because we are trying to keep this article's size under control, and from increasing too much more, I am not keen on things being added to it these days (whether it be text or extra references). Aside from a little more to the Home media section when the time comes, anything else being added to this article these days is trivial/unneeded. But I do not see why mention of Sigourney Weaver discussing with Cameron the possibility of her returning in a sequel should not be included...considering we mention Stephen Lang possibly returning. I suggest cutting out the quote by Stephen Lang of his return (even though he quickly explains that he could return because they have his DNA)...and adding one very small line after the Stephen Lang bit about Weaver. Only one reference attributed to it (just like one line about Weaver) would be best, taking into account this article's size. Flyer22 (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Vote on Flyer22's proposal:

• Support - It's better than not including it at all.--Forward Unto Dawn 05:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Against - I really don't see the point of saying that Sigourney Weaver may or may not be in the sequel. Until it is confirmed either way it doesn't add any information value. It also sets a precedent for including unsubstantiated rumours which good articles really shouldn't do. Betty Logan (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we add rumours to this article. I'm talking about facts. Fact: Cameron is planning sequels to Avatar. Fact: Weaver is holding discussions with Cameron about reprising her role. If you don't think we should include Weaver in this article's sequel section, I assume you agree we should remove the comment about Stephen Lang (or perhaps even the entire Sequels section itself)? Again, read the news articles within the link I provided.--Forward Unto Dawn 07:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Betty. I'd get rid of the Stephen Lang reference completely, too. It may be just wishful thinking on his part. If the producers or actors actually make an official announcement that even a tentative deal has been reached, then it could be worth mentioning, but the fact that they are talking about it seems premature. I certainly would not delete the sequels section, though. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That is the whole point. Based on the grounds that you are stating for not allowing this inclusion, then the entire Sequel section could be deleted based on those very same grounds as well since Fox hasn't confirmed anything either. The sequel itself hasn't even reached a tentative deal. All we have is Cameron stating what the sequel would be "if" it were green-lit by Fox sometime in the future. DrNegative (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

James Cameron has confirmed his intentions about the sequel, the course it will follow, some of the characters etc. If he had included details about Sigourney Weaver's character then her possible involvement would be notable. Betty Logan (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

So its a question of notability? Sigourney Weaver confirming her intentions to be in the sequel isn't notable? DrNegative (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If they're in negotiations she hasn't confirmed her intentions yet. If she doesn't get enough money she may intend not to be in the sequel. Betty Logan (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. She has confirmed her "intention" in multiple sources if you carefully read them. One could also argue about the notability of the sequel because it hasn't even entered negotiations yet on that note. Address my points. How is it not notable stating that Sigourney Weaver stated herself that she is in talks with Cameron about returning for the sequel? Saying she "will" be in the proposed sequel is speculative, quoting her intention and the fact that she is in talks about it is not however. That is my argument. DrNegative (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to read this source as my rationale. [17]. DrNegative (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Sure, it's notable enough that she states she is in talks about it with Cameron. If she says she was talking with Cameron about being in the sequel, then I don't see how phrasing it that way would be speculation. I will support it. DrNegative (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Other sequel info

Cameron mentions his other plans here[18] for the title and the story/theme of the proposed sequel. Not sure if any of it could add to what is already mentioned. DrNegative (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure either. He may reconsider the proposed title when he remembers that avatars are human-Na'vi hybrids and aren't completely Na'vi. See the "Jake Sully" post at the bottom of the news article.--Forward Unto Dawn 04:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigourney Weaver and Sequels Verdict?

OK, so what are we going to do about the Sequels section? At the moment there doesn't appear to be consensus, so the status quo still reigns.--Forward Unto Dawn 04:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)