Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Article protection

This article was receiving 200,000 views per day last week, and now that it's been unprotected, vandalism is occurring regularly. Should it be re-protected until the hubbub cools down? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what semi-protection is for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - The previous level of protection should be restored. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support: I think the nom is asking for it to get semi-protected like before it expired. I so support this. Energy needs to go into the article so it can reach FA, not reverting annoying vandals. —Mike Allen 05:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support: The hit count remaining high and the fact that the film being as notable as it currently is, becomes a good target of vandals. DrNegative (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I put in the request for semi-protection and it was approved for one month by an admin. DrNegative (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that's better than a week that I usually get. LOL. —Mike Allen 06:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Do I even have to say I support? One of my recent edit history comments was/is clear on this matter, and this is a much viewed article (which IPs love to add trivia to or vandalize). Glad it has been protected for a month. Just looking at the revision history moments ago, I could not tell how long it had been protected for -- its expiration time stated the same exact time it was just "locked," LOL.

• As for FA status, you all feel that we should just skip nominating it for GA and go right to FA after more perfecting? Flyer22 (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

However you're supposed to do it, I guess. I just thought the ultimate goal was to reach FA, but if you have to go through GA to get there, then that's OK too. —Mike Allen 07:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I will support you whichever direction you choose to go. Its definitely GA material as it stands now in my opinion. DrNegative (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be watching the article come this time next month and if the level of activity is still abnormally high, I will be extending the semi-protection on a week by week basis. As for GA status... I think that it qualifies for GA status right now, the article is definitely more stable than it was a ten days or so ago when GA was last proposed. I don't know if I would jump headfirst into FA, but I think that FA is definitely in the future. Trusilver 19:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

similar movie Pocahontas (1995 film)

I have added similar movie Pocahontas (1995 film) to see also section. You may like to insert it into article text if you find any good ref comparing the stories. Raise lkblr (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Does not belong in the See also section; it is already mentioned in the Critical reception section. Flyer22 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Besides...since it is not directly related to this film, it would not belong in the See also section anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

To be added at the end of the "Critical Reception" section of the article.

{{editsemiprotected}}

Many science fiction fans have noted other close parallels with previous written works. Most notably, the plot point of the dragons bonding permanently with their riders is central in Anne McCaffrey's popular series of books about the dragon-riders of the planet Pern.

The movie's plot, dealing with conflict between colonizers and the natives has reminded a number of readers of Ursula LeGuin's "The Word for World is Forest," and Joan Slonczewski's "A Door Into Ocean." In the first, the conflict between the forest-dwelling natives and the colonizers becomes violent after the colonizers attack and destroy a tree-city (as in Avatar). The natives fight back and drive the earthlings off their planet. In the second, the natives have a scientifically based link to their environment (as in Avatar).

Dionwr (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

 Not done This is unsourced speculation--Jac16888^Talk 01:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent wording.

One line of the plot says They attempt to transplant her "soul" into her avatar and another line says The film ends with Jake's consciousness being transplanted into his Na'vi avatar. You should use the same word in both lines. 202.74.194.57 (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How about something like "They attempt to make the Avatar transference permanent" or something?202.74.194.57 (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Epic film?

Avatar doesn't seem to fit the description of an epic film that is provided by the wikilink. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"They typically entail high production values, a sweeping musical score (often by an acclaimed film composer), and an ensemble cast of bankable stars, placing them among the most expensive of films to produce." Avatar seems to the fit the description pretty good. Theleftorium 18:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Epic film" will work for me. Just an aside, I couldn't remember any of the music from the movie, so I googled and found this. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Music, budet and stuff are not the definition of the genre. Avatar is not more epic than any Dysney's full-lenght, such as Lion King.Garret Beaumain (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You might be right re animated films. Frankly, in going along with calling it an epic, I may have been wrongly influenced by this section of the article Epic film. I'm not sure. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservative/Religious Ire?

The Los Angeles Times and the Examiner (for some reason, Examiner is on the blacklist) have interesting articles and links about the widespread negative reaction to the film by conservatives and the religious. I currently see only two lines expressing this belief - perhaps it should be expanded to one paragraph? --haha169 (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's another LA times source and one from Fox news for discussion of the conservative perspective. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If it is decided to include more info on conservative/religious reception, wouldn't it be more logical as well as easier for readers if it is put separately in "Release" section under a subheading "Reception by religious groups" or something? Why clog "Critical reception" with obviously religious responses, which, even when coming from professional movie critics, may have nothing to do with the movie's critical evaluation as a movie? Cinosaur (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is not exclusively religious. And the religious are not exclusively slamming the film. But it has been mostly true that the negative reviews generally come from the politically conservative media who have qualms with the movie's messages. This is part of the movie, yes?--haha169 (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind WP:UNDUE and also that the movie is predominantly a piece of action-adventure entertainment. It's my impression that the political aspects are not nearly as important to most people as the entertainment from the action-adventure, special effects, etc. I think this is supported by a comment that was quoted in the article that was made by a Southern Baptist pastor critical of the film, "If you can get a theater full of people in Kentucky to stand and applaud the defeat of their country in war, then you’ve got some amazing special effects." So, although the criticism on sociopolitical grounds is out there, we should give it the appropriate amount of space in the article, not too much, and not too little. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That was my argument from the beginning. I do not believe two lines is sufficiently enough to address an issue that found its way onto the mainstream media - as well as this being one of only two major factors that lead to a negative review (the other being cliche and predictable plot). In fact, I would use WP:UNDUE to argue the fact that there is a proportionally longer amount of text referring to positive reviews than negative. Noting the presence of these arguments would serve nicely to balance between the positives and the negatives. --haha169 (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

When considering WP:UNDUE and something making it to the mainstream media (LA Times, Fox, etc.) consider how much space that topic is given in the mainstream media compared to other topics about the movie in the mainstream media. Just an aside, in the Fox article I found a view re pro-military that I haven't seen in any other articles, "Director Cameron has thus made another film that is anti-corporate, but pro-military." --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This search was conducted at the time of my timestamp, so the order may have changed, but a Google news search of "Avatar critics" ([1]), the first result is: This week in political civility: Avatar bashed by conservative critics, along with 1,519 related articles, like this one from ABC which nicely sums up conservative arguments with multiple quotes. It seems quite major to me. --haha169 (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the google way is a try at quantifying it for comparison. I noticed that the search you made with keywords Avatar critics got 1701 hits when I just did it. I did a google search with keywords Avatar review and got 48,300,000 hits. Seems like the keyword "critic" may turn up more hits re criticizing comments, whereas the keyword "review" turns up more hits about the movie reviews in general. But it's not clear whether any of this is valid or gets us anywhere in deciding the percentage of negative criticism on sociopolitical grounds. For that, maybe take the Rotten Tomatoes percentages, and consider that the negative reviews on sociopolitical grounds are a subset of all the negative reviews, and this relation might suggest the percentage of negative criticism on sociopolitical grounds in general? Anyhow, so far I haven't seen evidence that percentage-wise the negative sociopolitical comments should get more attention in the article than they already have gotten. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair assessment. But I still think that there should be an addition, because the current way it is written is simply two quotes from places more obscure than LA Times, ABC, and FOX; and the fact that they aren't mentioned as a "conservative" argument, but simply a quote that lacks reasoning behind it that is followed by another quote. --haha169 (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're making a point that has been in my mind for awhile. That the negative criticism should not appear like it is coming from some fringe element. But on the other hand, the quotes are quite good in summarizing and expressing the feelings of the sociopolitical critics, in my opinion. Also, I think the negative comments should not be qualified by "conservative" any more than positive reviews by liberals should be characterized as coming from liberals. It doesn't seem like NPOV to do that because it prejudices the reader. One thing not mentioned yet is the pantheism aspect and I've had a discussion with Cinosaur and I have agreed on a sentence with him in a discussion here. I'm waiting for that editor to add it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. 03:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word "billion"

The US and the UK uses the short scale i.e. 1 billion = 1,000,000,000 whereas the majority of the world uses longscale i.e. 1 billion = 1,000,000,000,000. When using the term billion in terms of the worldwide gross I'm concerned that using short scale terminology violates WP:WORLDVIEW. The fact that's it's a UK backed US produced film is a valid point for using short scale for its domestic gross, but the majority of the worldwide gross accounts for long scale regions. To prevent potentially violating WP:WORLDVIEW I recommend not using the term "billion" and using its numerical equivalent i.e. 1,000,000,000 or 1000 million. At the moment we are using US and British terminology for information that mostly lies outside of those regions. Betty Logan (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

From WP:ORDINAL, "The named numbers, billion and trillion are understood to be short scale..." Also the numbers definitely should -not- be fully typed out. Doniago (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In short, we are speaking English - what national variety of English is long-scale now that British English is not? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that English is a second language in most countries so there will be many people from non English speaking countries who will misinterpret the semantics. Even in Britain the phrase causes confusion because while Britain offically uses short scale now, colloquially it still means a million million, especially to older generations. It seems the style guide is clear on this issue but it's unfortunate Wikipedia has opted to put itself in a position where its text can be easily misinterpreted when the ambiguity can easily be removed. Betty Logan (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Small correction

"Pandora, a fictional world in a distant planetary system"

I don't think that Alpha Centauri's, the closest planetary system there is, should be called "distant". Let's change it to "another" or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.181.225.250 (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

4.5 light years qualifies as "distant" in my book. DrNegative (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Then according to your book all planetary systems (other than our own) are distant, and so there is no need for the adjective at all. But I think the anon makes a valid point. In terms of planetary systems, this one would be close compared to all others, so I've adjusted the article. Ben (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your addition of Alpha Centauri worked well and it wasn't even discussed here. I agree with DrNegative. The planetary system is distant and it didn't say anything about in comparison to others, it's simply distant. If you would like to change it, please get consensus first. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You're not making any sense and you didn't give any rationale against the change. The word distant makes no sense in the previous version, let alone to say something "is simply distant", and I explained that above. If you disagree, explain why. Ben (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

26453814179326.24 Miles away = distant. The other planetary systems that you mentioned, assuming there are any in "this" work of fiction, are not even mentioned to contrast to your relative thinking of the term. DrNegative (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe you just gave me a number and told me that equals distant. What, pray tell, is the point at which something changes from being considered close and then to distant? When you realise that there is no answer to that question, then ask yourself what is the point in describing 'x' as 'y', if all 'x' satisfy 'y'? For example, do we bother to list in our apple article that all apples may be found on Earth? No? Why not? I'm sorry you got hung up on me mentioning other planetary systems, I only mentioned them in order to illustrate that question. Please don't get hung up on me mentioning apples now too. Now, finally, why is the "distant" version better than the version I suggested? You still haven't given a rationale. Ben (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you're thinking in terms of the language of logical rigor instead of the common use of the language. Also, if there were no adjective, "a planetary system" could include the solar system. If the adjective used was "another planetary system" some readers would not understand what the first planetary system was. "Distant planetary system" seems to work the best, in my opinion, and people in general would consider 4 light years distant, in comparison to distances that they are familiar with. And Alpha Centauri introduces a needless complication detail for some readers, which I don't think is appropriate for the lead, and I'm not sure that it was even mentioned in the movie. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As you took the liberty to illustrate your question, I only mentioned the number to illustrate my answer. In the end, it would be the mainstream view of the term that would fit best. Forgive me, I am no longer arguing over something so trivial. DrNegative (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(←) (ec) I am thinking in common use of the language, and the term "distant" is highly dependent on context. For example, I would say an atom is distant from another if one resides in this room and another next door, yet I would say two people are close if one is in this room and another is next door. We can go as "big" as you like: two countries are close if they are next to each other. In terms of planetary systems, a planetary system at AC would be the closest possible planetary system to us (next to us), so I wouldn't use the word distant, instead I would just specify the system and leave it at that. I do think your suggestion of 'another' would also be fine, but if you truly think this would confuse people, then simply mentioning AC is still my preference. Ben (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the ec, note AC added in my last message. Trying to write for a general audience when one is used to discussions with peers in a math/science discipline may sometimes be difficult. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record I do understand your logic Ben, I'm just trying to imply this term for the general reader. Take Star Wars for example, George Lucas says a galaxy "far, far away". But if that galaxy where Andromeda he was talking about for example, by your logic we shouldnt tell the reader that it was far away because it is the closest galaxy to the Milky Way, even though its many light years away. Thats all I was trying to imply. DrNegative (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob, personally I don't think mentioning AC is a needless complication, it's fairly well-known and there is a wikilink. Also, it avoids the issue of distance and it can't be picked on for being ambiguous. DrNegative, The Star Wars example is different since we're not told where the galaxy is. In this movie's case, we're told exactly what system the planet resides in, and it's the closest system not counting our own. Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also say 'distant' is a subjective word, and one that should be avoided. It could easily be re-written as "the closest planetary system to Earth", which actually makes more sense in the context of establishing a mining operation. Since the exact location is actually given, then the exact location should be used instead of a vague geographic term. Betty Logan (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem with 'distant' in this context. This adjective can be used both in describing relative remoteness of objects (A is distant and B is close), or by itself, as "far off or apart in space; not near at hand; remote or removed (often fol. by from): a distant place; a town three miles distant from here", which is incidentally its primary use according to Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. While some here prefer the former comparative reading, others read it as simply qualifying, which is its primary meaning. If you really want to be a perfectionist here, go for 'extrasolar planetary system': "Extrasolar - outside, or originating outside, the sun or the solar system" (WUD) However, IMO 'distant' is just as fine. And make no mistake about it -- 'Alpha Centauri' will get many more readers stuck than 'distant' Cinosaur (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well there isn't any problem with 'distant' but by the same token there isn't any problem with 'close' either, and there lies the problem. The scale you apply is entirely subjective, which I believe is the point Ben is making, and Wikipedia should endeavour not to use subjective terminology. Personally I can live with either but the objectors here are using subjective bias to over-rule someone who wants to make the location explicit which I don't agree with because it's not our place to re-interpret plot elements in the synopsis, just to relay them as accurately as possible. Betty Logan (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There does not appear to be a consensus for the change from "distant", so I have restored it. Please do not revert without consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And just out of curiosity, where did the notion that it was around Alpha Centauri come from? I don't remember that being mentioned in the film. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And BTW, Proxima Centauri is the closest star to the earth (other than the sun of course), and Alpha Centauri is two stars. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

http://news.discovery.com/space/avatars-pandora-could-be-a-reality.html ! Anyway, check out the video here: http://www.pandorapedia.com/doku.php I feel like this is something that was in the press releases, because I've been hearing that Polyphemus orbits aCen from the very beginning. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That link gives us a reliable third party source that Pandora is 5 light years away. This dispute should be wrapped up now, the exact distance should be incorporated into the text and the source included to validate the claim. That's how things are done on Wikipedia - through verifiable sourcing! Betty Logan (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Betty, Was Alpha Centauri mentioned in the film? There's all sorts of details that can be put in the lead, e.g. Alpha Centauri, but so far there isn't a consensus that it is a detail that should be there. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that neither Polyphemus nor aCen are mentioned in the film; Polyphemus is in the script, but its name is never stated by a character. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Pandora's specific location in the Alpha Centauri system is stated (among possibly other sources) in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBGDmin_38E from the official Avatar YouTube account (and was released a week before the film was). In addition, the significant reason for choosing Alpha Centauri is the very fact that it isn't "distant" when it comes to star systems. Its status as the most "nearby" star system serves to help suspend disbelief that travel there could occur in less than 150 years, as well as the fact that it's such a well known system among the public (specifically for the fact that it is near Earth). Removing the name of the specific system (of which the name takes up nearly identical screen space) and calling it "distant" is confusing and misleading. How is this supposed to make the article easier to read or understand? SlimX (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Re "the fact that it's such a well known system among the public" - Perhaps you think that the general public knows it because you have become familiar with it? I suspect that when Alpha Centauri appears in a news article it is usually explained what it is because the general public is not familiar it. Maybe Cameron didn't put Alpha Centauri in the script because he thought it is not a familiar name to most people. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I went looking for news articles in prominent newspapers, starting with The NY Times,[2] LA Times, [3] and found that when Alpha Centauri was mentioned it was explained. But then I found in the Boston Globe in an article about Avatar, "Set in the year 2154 on Pandora, a moon in the Alpha Centauri star system."[4] Looks a lot like the sentence in the article, if Alpha Centauri was there. So perhaps Alpha Centauri is OK. I think "distant" is OK too, but I'll be flexible on this if people strongly want Alpha Centauri. Also note that the Globe article didn't find a need to use "fictional Earth-like". --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I put the Globe sentence in the article with citation. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. Cheers, --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

References to New Zealand

Has anyone else noticed quite a few references to New Zealand within the film, no doubt due to the involvement of Weta Workshop? The forest in some parts resemble those found in New Zealand, although not quite so extreme obviously. Ferns and also the Home Tree bears a remarkable resemblence to NZ's Kauri Treet.

Also the two main characters share what looks like to me to be a Hongi, a traditional Maori greeting whereby noses are pressed together and a breath shared. In Maori folklore this shared breath changes the person from a visitor to a person of the land, and they become part of the land and responsible for its upkeep and protection. See Hongi on wiki for clairification, but this seems to fit very well with the overall themes of the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.233.80 (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can find reliable sources, any such edits would be original research. Woogee (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't those "reliable sources" be someone else's original research too?202.74.194.57 (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:RS. Woogee (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I lknow all about references and hence my thoughts appear in the discussion section and not the main article, i thought someone else may have heard it referenced? The things i'm talking about are present, i'm positive of that, but very subtle. unless you are a Kiwi you would miss them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.215.227 (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Then surely some NZ-based reliable source will have reported it? Woogee (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)