Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

There should be a section on abatap.

There should be a section (here in the discussion not in the article itself) or maybe a separate article on the notorious /tv/ troll abatap. Here http://ohinternet.com/Abatap is a link explaining some of the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.204.51.159 (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Go away, abatap — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.12.245 (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No credit to Anderson?

You don't have to read very far into Poul Anderson's "Call Me Joe" (1957 Street & Smith) to see where the "gimmick" for Avatar came from. I would like to see credit given where it is due! 72.148.57.150 (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Avatar#Critical reception says: "Parallels to the concept and use of an avatar are in Poul Anderson's 1957 short story Call Me Joe, in which a paralyzed man uses his mind remotely to control an alien body."

I don't know whether James Cameron has read the story and used it for inspiration. The film has been compared to a large number of earlier works. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Not only "a paralyzed man uses his mind remotely to control an alien body": The tank-grown alien is blue and has a prehensile tail and lives in an environment where humans can't survive. The human controller eventually opts to shed his crippled human body and reside full time in his avatar's body. I'm willing to concede that it's a great film and that Cameron probably didn't remember at the time he was writing it the source of these important details. Yet and still!72.148.57.150 (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh for the love of Pete! This comparison has been made within the article. It is not plagiarism. End of story.--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC))

Disney World

It has just been anounced that Walt Disney World will soon have an Avatar World in Animal Kingdom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.66.14 (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Avatar and Disney World

I'm not sure if this is relevant to this article, but see 'Avatar' Themed Land Headed to Disney Parks. -Legaia (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops sorry I didn't see the post above :) -Legaia (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

LA Times Noteworthy enough for a sentence or two in my opinion. Where would we put it though? Marketing? DrNegative (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Most pirated film of all time

Can someone add the fact that Avatar is the most pirated film ever as per the hollywood reporter? Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 16:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 13 November 2011

mrrobertkelly I would like to edit Avatar film page so i can protect it from vandalism and update the page with new information that relevant. Mrrobertkelly (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC) thank very much

Please be more specific about the information you wish to change. The instructions for using this template are very clear: This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Betty Logan (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

why

is this article so fuckin big?

Rather than simply criticizing its length, why not offer suggestions for improving it? Doniago (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)/Archive_8#Length_of_Plot_section and the section below that. There is a search box at the top of this page and it gets sad whenever someone doesn't use it! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 06:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The IP isn't talking about the length of the plot section, though, which is currently shorter than it's been in a long time.[1][2] He or she is talking about the length of the entire article. I was the main one complaining about it back then. But with everything that is in it now, and after reaching GA (Good article status), I don't see anything that should be cut or needs significant cutting. People are always surprised by film articles being this extensive, even though we have much more extensive/longer articles on other types of topics.

To answer the IP, the reason this article is "so fuckin big" can mostly be attributed to the fact that this film is the highest-grossing film ever, grossing more than 2 billion at the box office; so it's pretty easy to see that it's not going to be around the size of most Wikipedia film articles.

Barts1a, if you were talking to Doniago, Doniago is already aware of those discussions (seeing as he or she is in the one right below the one you linked). And I must say... Jeez, how time goes by fast. Seems like it couldn't have possibly been that long ago since those discussions. Flyer22 (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I'd finally managed to repress my memory of that discussion, and now you've gone and dragged it back up...(shakes fist) Doniago (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to apologize, LOL! But I remembered that it wasn't me who brought it up; I simply pointed out that you were there at the time. Flyer22 (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 26/12/2011

Please change the Release date(s) on the sidebar of avatar from December 18, 2009 (United States) to December 16, 2009 (United States premiere). HiGaby (talk) 16:06, 26/12/2011 (UTC) (HiGaby (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC))

Can you provide a source backing up this change? Thanks. Doniago (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Typo

In "Critical Reception", it says that Metacritic gave it an 84% out of 100. Metacritic doesn't use percentages, it just says a number out of another number instead, so basically as a spelling/grammar error, the % should be taken off the 84. DETHREAPER (talk) 10:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured Article

Why hasn't this article been checked/nominated for the standards of FA I really feel it has the potential to do so. Does anyone agree?--Eddyghazaley (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It usually takes a lot of work and is usually very stressful to get an article to FA status. As one of the main contributors to this article, I'm not prepared to deal with that at this time. Not now and maybe not months from now. Also, this article pretty much looks the same as it did when we got it to GA status. It would be best to wait until more scholarly information is out there for this topic so that we can include significant scholarly analysis. Not having that is what kept the Titanic (1997 film) article from reaching FA last year. There's a lot of scholarly analysis that can be added to the Titanic (1997 film) article, but I didn't have time to add it and still haven't gotten around to adding it. Some information would need to be cut from the Avatar (2009 film) article before adding such information here, though, since this article is already so big. Or we'd make an article just for that material, like we did for Themes in Avatar. Flyer22 (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

disambution with cartoon

or film "the last air bender" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.196.32 (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 January 2012 - About the real mountains inspiring Hallelujah Mountains

Please change the photo caption
Pandora's floating "Hallelujah Mountains" were inspired in part by the Chinese Huang Shan mountains (pictured).
under subtitle: Themes and inspirations
to
Pandora's floating "Hallelujah Mountains" were inspired in part by the "South Pillar of the Heaven" (Also named as "Pillar between Heaven and Earth") located in Zhangjiajie, Wulingyuan, China(pictured).

And please also replace the photo of it with File:Zhangjiajie-Hunan.jpg

As it was believed that Hallelujah Mountains were actually inspired by the South Pillar of the Heaven in Zhangjiajie instead of Huang Shan Mountains.

Source as follow:
Avatar's Hallelujah Mountain in real life
http://www.danwei.org/tourism/hallelujah_mountain_in_real_li.php

Find Avatar's "Hallelujah Mountain" in Zhangjiajie
http://www.prlog.org/10504114-find-avatars-hallelujah-mountain-in-zhangjiajie.html

張家界乾坤柱更名哈利路亞山
http://society.people.com.cn/BIG5/10841390.html
- This is a website in Chinese, yet talking about the vigorous discussion about whether the Hallelujah Mountains are actually inspired by Huang Shan or Zhangjiajie, while experts later on concluded that the Hallelujah Mountains are actually inspired by Zhangjiajie as they looked almost identically the same.

Tokbutt (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, your request makes no sense at all. The current line in the article is drawn directly from interviews with the film's designers, who are the strongest available sources on what inspired them. Indeed, James Cameron himself publicly stated that Huangshan was the inspiration for the Hallelujah Mountains (as the prlog.org source expressly acknowledges, which I recall was widely reported in the U.S. press when the movie was first released). --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Please come back to request when you have a specific request in mind. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 January 2012

In paragraph 2, the word "Summer: is erroneously capitalized in the sentence that begins "Work on the language of the film's extraterrestrial beings began in Summer 2005...." Please fix! Thanks! 24.20.46.157 (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done - thank you for taking the time to do this request for a small edit. Things of this nature is what gets the encyclopedic tone correct is is very needed. Again thank you for your time.Moxy (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Avatar grosses

If anyone is curious about this sequence of edits that have changed the grosses, here is the long and short of it:

Our article previously stated the original run (OR) had grossed 2740m, the SE 20 mil and in total 2780m. Clearly at least one of those figures are wrong. It turns out that (OR) was about 2750m, the SE was about 30m and the total was correct. Obviously BOM has corrected its figures, the total has been updated but whoever did it didn't correct the splits between OR and SE.

The second thing I have done is combine the two BOM references. The main Avatar BOM ref documents the overall total for both runs (OR+SE), the overall foreign total for both runs, and the overall domestic figure, and the OR domestic figure. The SE reference provides the figures for the SE domestic and foreign. The problem here is that neither source gives the OR total or the OR foreign, you basically have to deduct the SE totals from the totals in the main reference, which needs to be referenced to both sources.

The third thing, is that the OR totals have been replaced by formulas, that subtract the SE totals from the overall total. They can be left as formulas or replaced with the actual figures (it is the same to the reader), but I've left in the formulas so that at least as editors you can match up the totals to the figures in the sources, in case you are wondering where the new figures have come from. Betty Logan (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

For the first paragraph I didn't get anything.???. However, for the second paragraph I got what is the problem. You have to subtract the total international value($2.02 billion which is inclusive of the Second release by the second release's international gross($22 million) in order to get international value of the first release by itself. But, why is this a new problem when I checked it before it was just fine.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess BOM has revised its figures at some point because the figures no longer matched—we were missing 20 million; the overseas totals for the original run and the special edition have increased, so I guess they've got more box office data from somewhere. It often happens with overseas box office because some international distributors don't release their figures. Betty Logan (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 February 2012

ajaysferrari I would like to edit Avatar film page so i can protect it from vandalism and update the page with new information that relevant.

Ajaysferrai (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This template is for requesting specific changes to the article, if you want to edit it yourself you need to be autoconfirmed. And  Not done on adding the content below, doesn't seem notable--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Avatarizer

File:Avatarizer pic.jpg File:Avatarizer pic1.jpg Avatarizer is a java based html widget made by McDonald.It is Human-Na'vi Generator, so you can generate your avatar very easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaysferrai (talk • contribs) 12:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Motion capture as descriptor in lede

Apparently using motion capture in a film makes it a motion capture film? Though there is no such thing. It's an effect or an aid to an effect. Uncharted 3 isn't a motion capture game because actors are used to model the cutscenes. You would mention it USES motion capture, to call it a motion capture film is bizarre and incorrect. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen how Avatar was made? Almost ALL of the scenes were shot by actors wearing motion capture suits and by a camera with no lens (It was just a markered screen that the motion capture system "sees" as a camera)! Avatar would be IMPOSSIBLE without extensive use of motion capture technology. I feel that making such extensive use of motion capture throughout makes this VERY MUCH a motion capture film. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 00:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Motion capture is not a genre and it is not a type of film no matter how much it is used. You can't make up film types based on your quantifying of employed film-making techniques. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Then why does "Silent film" have a genre separate from sound-enabled films? And why are Computer Animated movies in their own genre? Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 01:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith an epic space opera CGI film? And Silent Film is an actual type of film not a special effect, that's why there is an article called Silent Film and not one called Motion capture film Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith Did not make NEARLY as heavy use of CGI as Avatar did! In Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith they had several shots where there were no CGI or other effects visible in the shot. However EVERY shot in Avatar has at least some CGI ranging from background elements to the entire shot! The extensive use of motion capture and the camera with no direct means to record an image itself puts avatar into a whole new genre of film due to the new technologies developed to make this film possible! Comparing Avatar to Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is like comparing James Cameron's Titanic to the original King Kong movie! Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 01:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What? Star Wars 3 is nothing but CGI. Regardless, you would need to actually source something like that, you can't make up genres and film-types based on your own opinion of how much motion capture it used. You've yet to actually say how it is a motion capture film, you're just saying it IS a motion capture film, which I've said multiple times, does not exist as a thing. It's a visual technique used IN the film, it does not define the film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"You've yet to actually say how it is a motion capture film" Facepalm . To reiterate: Almost ALL of the scenes were shot by actors wearing motion capture suits and by a camera with no lens (It was just a markered screen that the motion capture system "sees" as a camera)! Avatar would be IMPOSSIBLE without extensive use of motion capture technology.. Do you actually read things before you respond to them? Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 01:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Also: This article has gotten MANY GA awards and to win that many the article has to be PERFECT! The "Motion Capture" in lede as the type of film was in the article when it won EVERY ONE of it's GA awards! Therefore removing it can be seen as reducing the quality of the article itself Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 01:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I read it, that doesn't say how it is a motion capture film, it says that they used motion capture to make the film and hten makes an unsubstantiated claim that the film couldn't have been made without it, discounting makeup, prosthetics, puppets and CGI. So it doesn't actually answer the question. As for GA status (not an award), it is entirely down to the editor assessing the article, I've seen worse things pass, and if it was perfect it would be locked and no longer open to editing. It also kind of falls apart as an argument since it passed GA saying "Avatar is a 2009 American science fiction epic film" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avatar_(2009_film)&oldid=340506696). Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, GA status does not require perfection (FA does). GA only requires adequacy. GRAPPLE X 01:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. "Motion capture" is a special effect technique. The sentence that currently uses the phrase does so in a manner implying it's a genre, which is simply incorrect. Tron is not an "American CGI film", Videodrome is not a "Canadian prosthetics film" and Robot Monster is not a "science fiction man-in-a-gorilla-suit-and-diving-helmet film". It's just not the correct using of the term. It deserves to be mentioned, yes, but in a manner that treats it for what it is—a technique, not a genre. GRAPPLE X 01:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree, this is a technique not a genre of film. I've never been a fan of the term "epic" either, but at least it's typically attributed to being a type of film, not a technique. As for the "GA awards". There's only one GA assessment. After that, the other projects just put GA in the project quality status.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine! Are you happy with the change I made now or do you just want to remove mention of mocap entirely? Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 02:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not something that should be in the lead sentence. That's not generally been what the lead sentences have been for. It's an important part of the film, there's no question about that, but it should be mentioned in the part of the lead the summarizes the production aspect of the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

How about now? Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 02:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to be funny about it, the second paragraph covers production information and it could go there Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

As it has now. GRAPPLE X 02:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've given the wording a little tweak to clarify that it was used in the end product. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 02:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Since English isn't Barts1a's first language I've taken the liberty to re-phrase the sentence for him. I've also merged the sentence in the 3D commentary, because the motion capture/3D was all part of the same technological innovation behind the film so we may as well have it together. Tagging it on something Cameron said years ago seemed to imply he was waiting for motion capture to be developed, but he was most likely speaking in general terms. Betty Logan (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Betty Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 February 2012

In the second introductory paragraph, this is written:

"Development of Avatar began in 1994, when Cameron wrote an 80-page scriptment for the film."

Investigation of the source leads one to this link: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20007998,00.html

The article is dated "Jan 15, 2007".

In the article, which is an interview with Cameron, it says:

"How long has this been in your head?

I wrote an 80-page treatment 11 years ago. We were working from the treatment in designing the world and the creatures and so on. I wrote the script the first four months of 2006."

But subtracting the 11 from 2007 gives 1996, not 1994.

One might argue, though, that Cameron was referring to 2006 when he made this statement, and I would like to address that also. If indeed he was referring to 2006, subtracting 11 gives 1995, and so the page as it stands now is still incorrect. However, in the last sentence of the quote, Cameron says: "I wrote the script the first four months of 2006." Because Cameron is referring to the year by number and not simply as "this year", we might infer that this interview was conducted some time within the first 15 days of 2007 before the article was published.

It is because of these, that I propose the following edits:

In the introduction, change

"Development of Avatar began in 1994, when Cameron wrote an 80-page scriptment for the film."

to

"Development of Avatar began in 1996, when Cameron wrote an 80-page scriptment for the film."

Under the section 3.1, change

"In 1994, director James Cameron wrote an 80-page scriptment for Avatar."

to

"In 1996, director James Cameron wrote an 80-page scriptment for Avatar."

Cburke91 (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I oppose the edit in the form you propose. It is clearly WP:OR to conjecture a date when he doesn't mention one. I propose simply changing it to the "mid 1990s", which is about as accurate as we can be given the timeframe he gives us. If you are ok with that I will go in and change it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, and disagree with that choice.

I understand why you might consider it WP:OR, because no exact date was given.

That said, the only thing we can be totally sure of is that 1994 is incorrect.

I would prefer that it be changed to something like, "Sometime during 1995 or 1996, director James Cameron wrote an 80-page scriptment for Avatar."

But I will accept "mid 1990s" if you are still not persuaded.

Cburke91 (talk) 00:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(edited from my original post) I endorse Betty Logan's solution, as I can't see that 1994 can be ruled out. Note that if someone's talking in early 2006 (for example), then something that happened in late 1994 could still accurately (although not precisely) be said to have happened 11 years ago.

Minor point: "mid-1990s" not "mid 1990s". Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Done I implemented what seems to be the consensus. I also corrected "scriptment" to "treatment", to match the source. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Cameron specifically states at 0:10 from the video in this source "I started writing the film in 95". DrNegative (talk) 19:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe that source can be added in for the date then. No-one is actually disputing the date as such, just rather how we interpret the current source for it. A source that gives a concrete year would be better in my view. Betty Logan (talk) 23:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Avatar spaceship

They use a antimatter powered, slower than light starship design based on Project Valkyrie http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/01/spaceship-technology-in-avatar-is.html --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Academy Awards Snub

I was wondering if any critics or publications thought avatar was snubbed at the academy awards, puticurly for Best Picture and Best Director ?

--111.220.194.126 (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Lachie Bennett - Lewis

John Carter

See this: http://thejohncarterfiles.com/2011/12/john-carter-inspired-avatar-not-vice-versa-lets-set-the-record-straight/

“With ‘Avatar,’ I thought, Forget all these chick flicks and do a classic guys’ adventure movie, something in the Edgar Rice Burroughs mold, like John Carter of Mars—a soldier goes to Mars,”

According to James Cameron, he created Avatar based on John Carter. From the horse's mouth. He says so in several interviews. It should be in the lead, I would think. 123.2.223.96 (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This is already documented in the inspirations section, which is where it belongs IMO, with all the other works that Cameron has acknowledged influenced his film. Betty Logan (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

lawsuit

Worth mentioning? Avatar director James Cameron copied B.C. man's script, he says in possible $100M lawsuit Karl 334 ^{☞Talk ☜} 15:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, not until legal action is actually invoked. If a judge permits the lawsuit to go ahead then we can document the legal process; until then it is just an unsubstantiated claim. Betty Logan (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I've just read through all of the article. It's quite interesting and quite possibly could be mentioned. But like Betty said when there is more going ahead we could mention it. Charlr6 (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There are already copyright allegations mentioned in the Critical reception section. There have been various claims that Cameron stole others' original work to create Avatar; the only difference this time is that it's a "He stole my script!" claim. So maybe it's okay to add it to the similarity and copyright paragraph as is, but I also feel that it shouldn't be added until there is actually a legal case to support it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

From the link, Cameron's company said the script for the film came before Malak in 1996.

"If it was written in 1996, then it was divine intervention," Malak said of the uncanny similarities of his work and Cameron's movie.

Here's a similar case where Cameron's company made the same argument.[3]

In his suit, Ryder alleges he complained to Cameron's people in 2009 -- but when they finally got back to him earlier this year, they told him to kick rocks, claiming J.C. had written the story before 1999.

Ryder says Cameron's people are lying -- claiming there are way too many similarities between the two projects -- including Ryder's idea for one of the characters to be played by Sigourney Weaver.

Regarding the argument of there being too many similarities to be a coincidence, one plaintiff could use that argument against the other plaintiff's work. This suggests that the "too many similarities" argument may be fallacious in this case. One explanation might be that all three of the writers, Cameron and the two plaintiffs, were inspired by the same body of works from the past.

Seems like the only thing left to do is for one of the plaintiffs to sue the other for plagiarizing the lawsuit. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Big paragraphs in Critical reception section

The paragraphs in the Critical reception section are too big. One solution is to have subsections. Then the big paragraphs can be broken up into smaller ones without losing their cohesiveness. Thoughts? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Inspiration

In addition to "Call me Joe" by Poul Anderson (1957) cited as inspiration -- it introduces the idea of an alien avatar to withstand a hostile environment. Even the point that the Avatar operator is crippled is included in this novel. Likewise, the idea of permanently implanting the operator's mind/soul into the avatar is featured here -- there's a second novel which Avatar bears a striking resemblance to, but which is not featured in the list of similarities:

This is "Midworld" by Alan Dean Foster (1975), describing a somewhat sentient world where tribes live in Hometrees and every life is interwoven up to the point that "memories" of deceased are stored. What is called "Eywa" in Avatar resembles the process of "emfoling" in Foster's novel. Avatar's main plot, i.e. human invaders trying to strip a planet from its resources just to be fought by the natives and nature is basically the plot of Midworld. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.170.230 (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Have any third-party reliable sources made note of these alleged inspirations? If not, this constitutes original research and we can't include it in the article. Doniago (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

spelling error

In the accolades chapter, the word 'for' has been spelt 'fpr'. That is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.131.211 (talk)

Thank you. I have corrected it. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There is another spelling error -- it's in the 2nd sentence of the article. "Unobtanium" should be "unobtainium". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.131.211 (talk)

Not in this case, per Wilhelm, Maria; Mathison, Dirk (November 2009). Avatar: A Confidential Report on the Biological and Social History of Pandora (James Cameron's Avatar). p. 15. ISBN 978-0-06-189675-0. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Avatar as Noble savage

I wrote some about the lot of critical where written Avatar work with idea of Noble savage but it was removed. I know it is literary term, but some critical was mark that that is an week point of the story. In the real not so happy everything. Some people was depressed by this paradox! So it is a critical! Let search in google about "Avatar and Noble savage" there will be over 300.000 hit but in this article no one sentence about it! --Szente (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Forexample not so hard to see the connection between Avatar effect and Noble savage sory. --Szente (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying that Avatar is not a "noble savage story", but I meant to say in the summary that if "Avatar is a noble savage story" is a fact, it could not belong in "Critical reception" because it cannot be disputed. If you mean to talk about how that is used negatively, then that needs to be explained as well. Your edits did not contain any information besides the fact that it is a "noble savage story". The "Avatar effect" article you pasted does not seem to have anything to do with "noble savage" and trying to connect that to it would be original research. It might be possible to work the term into "Critical reception" where it would make sense, but where you placed it made the paragraph jump topics. The term alone could belong in a section talking about themes, but there is no talk of Jake's "heroism" in "Themes and inspirations" and that section is already well developed with Cameron's own reasons and inspirations.

Also, if you're using Google hits, avatar + film + noble savage gives 1.77 million while avatar + film yields 494 million, so "noble savage" is mentioned in 0.358% of the pages containing both "avatar" and "film" and I don't see how that could help your argument. (An argument which I am not arguing with, might I add.) – Jonadin93 (talk) @ 00:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So if I see the connection between "Avatar effect" and that fact the Avatar film is a "noble savage story" that is an original research? Maybe as much like 1+1=2.

What is a Noble Savage? "...There are several problems with the noble savage myth. The first is that it bears no basis in reality; many “primitive” cultures have the same problems that Western civilization does, including brutality, war, lying, over-exploitation of resources, and selfishness, suggesting that these characteristics may be more innate to human society than goodwill..."

Many criticism say Avatar is a "noble savage story". And if for you clear what is the noble savage, you know that is romantic term and as well have some negatív meaning too about reality. So it could be a complete criticism when I say "that is a noble savage story". I have just wanted write this not more. --Szente (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

About the numbers. I think follow your thinking way we have to delete Qatar from wikipédia 'cose it population less than 0.358% compare to world population. --Szente (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

First off, you are getting a bit too worked up over this. All I said was that I believed where you placed the sentence was incorrect, not that I did not think that it belonged in the article. However, yes, that is precisely what original research is. This is directly from the first paragraph of WP:OR: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." If you placed the equation "1+1=2" into an article, you would need a source for that because this is an encyclopedia. You are surmising that the article is referencing a "noble savage story" because it does not mention the phrase. Even though it may be known, you do not have a source explicitly stating that the information is true.

The "article" from wisegeek that you reference is talking about "noble savage" applying to civilizations throughout history, not its literary usage used to describe a work of fiction. Also, you completely misinterpreted my reference of the page hits. You attempted to justify that the mention of "noble savage" belongs in this article using page hits that are not significant, and all I did was show how you did not help your (nonexistent) argument because they are insignificant. Opinions held by an extreme minority are not notable because all of them cannot possibly be covered reasonably in an article. Although only 0.358% of the pages about Avatar that come up on a Google search mention "noble savage", I am not saying that it is not notable even if it is a minority opinion. If it's a literary term and is simply labeling the movie as a "noble savage story" then this is all irrelevant! – Jonadin93 (talk) @ 08:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not understanding the point you are trying to get across by adding your sentence to the article. If it is possible for you to work the sentence into the article so that it allows for smooth progression between points in the section it is placed in, I think that you should just add the sentence to the article and I will leave it alone. This argument is going nowhere, and by doing so, we will hopefully see whether or not other editors believe it is a constructive addition. – Jonadin93 (talk) @ 08:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry I don't want to do big argument about this. My goal was only that to note that this is a "noble savage" story. In fact this film is the most "noble savage" movie in the last years. There are many article by sites about this, but here wasn't any sentence. I just wanted a short note, not any more. I don't want to over explain. I choosed the critical section, because this is a fact and criticism too.

All Right I will think over this and try find out something to write this into the article. --Szente (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Billion box office

Hello everyone, I'm wikipedist from Spanish Wikipedia and I came here to search information about the box office between this film and The Avengers. In the section of "Box office" states: "On the 19th day of the film's international release, it crossed the $1 billion mark worldwide, making it the fastest film ever to do so", at this point, Avengers is in fact the fastes film to achive that title, considering its realese at worldwide range. Since 4th May to 13 of the same month -being only 9 days-, Avengers has collected $1 billion in tickets. I let this to your information and complete this article. Regards, Gtr. Errol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtr. Errol (talk • contribs) 04:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gtr. Errol. Thank you for letting us know! However, the first source for the sentence (in addition to the actual sentence) on The Avengers (2012 film) says that the record is tied between the two films in addition to the last Harry Potter film. So, I have adjusted the sentence (around here) to reflect that source. – Jonadin93 (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Avatar named one of the 100 greatest films of all-time by the TIME magazine.

http://entertainment.time.com/2012/05/17/movie-masterpieces-richard-corliss-expands-times-list-of-cinematic-greats/#avatar ....... All-TIME 100 Movies

http://entertainment.time.com/2012/05/17/top-10-movies-of-the-millennium/#avatar-2009-u-s ......The 10 Greatest Movies of the Millennium (Thus Far)

I think the first link should be in the introductory paragraph. Time has the second most reputed "greatest" films list [After Sight and Sound]... It think that is a decent achievement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmystewart1991 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I updated the sentence about Time at the bottom of the critical reception section using your sources. DrNegative (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

HFR Interest

Should mention James Cameron's interest to shoot the film in 48 fps or 60 fps?--88.111.116.8 (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Small plot error

Tried to make a small correction to the plot summary but kept getting a conflict error. I'm pretty sure the army chap (Quidich, or whatever his name is) ejects from his own helicopter-like aircraft and not from the huge bomber as is currently stated. Mr Morden76 (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder why you kept getting a WP:EDIT CONFLICT message. Although this editor edited not long before you did, you were the only one editing when you made the following changes: [4][5] Flyer22 (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless it was some type of other edit conflict you were getting; like you stated "conflict error." Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Avatar 3: The Na'vi's Final Stand???

The opening line of this article gives the film's full title as "Avatar 3: The Na'vi's Final Stand", but having googled this phrase, the only place it is mentioned on all of the internet is on this page. Surely it has to be wrong/made up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.43.155 (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Note for archive: It was made up indeed, and was reverted with this edit. Having the opening line (and other parts of the article, but especially the opening line) titled that, despite Avatar 3 not having been made yet, if it is to be made at all, and therefore this article not being the Avatar 3 article, was pure stupidity on the vandal's part. That is, if he wanted his vandalism to last longer than it did. But then again, vandalism isn't a smart thing to do to begin with. Flyer22 (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it was a rumour?--88.111.123.155 (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"Home media "

There is a date of "home media release. It should be added also in this category or other date of TV release e.g.:

"First release of Avatar in TV varied by countries. For example in Poland first "small screen" projection was on 4 march 2013."

Reasons:

• The date of TV release is in many articles on Wikipedia about films or TV series.
• The countries are especially showed on, because date vary.
• It can give some calculations to known when will be release of next Avatar films.
• It shows still achieved great differences(e.g. there is about 4 years!) just because of company politics.
• Despite gaps, some TV companies buy this, so the audience must be quite great, and it show how popular is film, how many can see, how it raise/lower the income from film.
• Especially because many people still just only watch TV, or don't go to cinema,
• In this case it also shows some interesting premiere plays - e.g. Avatar was first aired on the... Monday in Polish TV.

I don't understand. What change do you say needs to be done?--Launchballer 16:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: I think the general way this is done is to include the first date of release. Mdann52 (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Fringe "rip-off" reviews

I am slightly concerned about some recent additions to the film criticism section of this article (as well as at Firekind), as well as some of its present content. The reviewers and the publications in question are:

• Eddie Lazer of Heavy.com
• Caleb Goellner of ComicsAlliance.com
• Charlie Anders of io9

As with all published opinion we have a duty to observe WP:WEIGHT; that is, we record representative opinion and significant minority opinion. The critical reception section does not exist to bung in every opinion we can find. Personally I think the section includes too much from fringe publications. Websites like Heavy.com and io9 are pretty common and don't carry much weight compared to major publications so they should only be used judiciously. For example, of the three people mentioned above only Charlie Anders seems to have had a serious career in journalism; I can't find much info on the other two. Also, non of them are listed at Rotten Tomato critics, so if their work doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion there then is a legitimate question mark over referencing them here. I think we should perhaps look at stripping away some of this fringe criticism from less-notable reviewers; yes, obviously plenty of other films and books have been influential, but not to the degree that it is notable. I'm sure that a Sci-Fi fanzine can find plenty of parallels with other work, but we should perhaps stick to notable critics (or at least on the credited RT list) and major publications rather than these fanzine type websites. Betty Logan (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Here are all the edits in question:[6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. I agree with Betty, except that I am fine with the way that the Critical reception section has been before the recent changes by Richard75 (changes that Betty reverted). If we remove some of that material, I would rather it be replaced by text from better-quality sources. What is there now has mostly been thoroughly worked out; for example, before that section became stable, editors would add that material, but too much of it and/or with poorer sources. Betty likely remembers that, since she has worked on this article for years as well. It's currently at the point where it summarizes all the significant comparisons, and therefore, with the exception of Richard75's addition, there is no desire (or usually no desire) for editors to add a comparison that they feel should be mentioned there. I was also thinking about reverting Richard75. However, as the second diff-link I provided shows, I decided to tweak his edit instead; this is because I didn't consider the addition to be a big deal (at least it was a very small addition) and because I didn't feel like getting into a WP:Edit war (whoever feels like getting into one?). But I was definitely thinking that there are enough reviews and we shouldn't just keep piling on to that section; not every review out there can be included (or rather should not be included), maybe not every comparison either (if that section doesn't already summarize all of the comparisons, except for what Richard75 added). Alternatively, there is the Themes in Avatar article...which includes extensive review information, and can be used to add further reviews (though we can't, or rather shouldn't, include every review in that article either; WP:WEIGHT also applies to that article). Furthermore, there is a hidden note in the Critical reception section (which I added years ago) that states: "THIS ARTICLE IS BIG ENOUGH. RECONSIDER ADDING MORE TO THIS SECTION." Yes, reconsider. And all those additional sources that Richard75 added weren't needed. Flyer22 (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that you think that that section was just the right size as it was but that one more sentence tipped it over some critical mass into too bloated... But nothing expressed above explains Betty Logan's reversion of my edit at the Firekind article (which only added a source to the material which already existed there). I wonder what your agenda might be. Richard75 (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Over 25% of the criticism section compares it to other work, and many of these comparisons seem to be sourced to fringe publications. I am pretty sure that 25% of the mainstream criticism devoted to the film's reception wasn't devoted to comparing it to other works so why are these comparisons monopolising the section? We should be summarising the whole spectrum of criticism rather than skewing it to one particular aspect. I think readers get the message, it is derivative of other sci-fi films and books, so let's try to keep it representative and balanced, and let's try to steer clear of fringe media. Betty Logan (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Richard75, I did not state or (in my opinion) imply that your addition "tipped [the section] over some critical mass into too bloated." After all, I stated that "I didn't consider the addition to be a big deal." But the problem is that steady additions similar to yours will cause that section to be out of hand. Where do we draw the line, other than sources that are not WP:Reliable? That is the main point that Betty and I are making on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I can see why you think the section is big enough. I didn't notice the hidden warning because I immediately scrolled right down to the bottom of the edit window (consider adding another warning at the bottom). But Betty Ligan still hasn't explained her edit to the Firekind article, where different considerations apply, and I don't agree that these sources are not reliable ones. Richard75 (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Science fiction books

Comment The article says In 1994,[15] director James Cameron wrote an 80-page treatment for Avatar, drawing inspiration from "every single science fiction book" he had read in his childhood as well as from adventure novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs and H. Rider Haggard.[14]

Does this article point out which books such as comic science fiction books have a number of similarities with Avator? QuackGuru (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That would be original research unless reliable sources were provided. But...why are you asking when you can read the article for yourself? DonIago (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

QuackGuru, the article discusses similarities in the Critical reception section. Doniago, it seems that QuackGuru wanted a quick answer and/or wanted to make sure that he or she wouldn't overlook something and/or didn't want to read the entire article (or significant portions of it). Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Dark Roasted Blend

I've dug up some info regarding this edit. It seems to be done and dusted now, but since I have the info I will record it here in case it becomes an issue later down the line:

Dark Roasted Blend seems to be run by someone called Avi Abrams. Checking up on this guy, the site seems to be a self-published blog, and Abrams himself seems to be a graphic designer with no background in journalism or film analysis. As such I stand by my assertion that his blog is unsuitable for inclusion. Betty Logan (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, Betty. Clearly a non-WP:Reliable source (both the site and the author). Therefore, this and this revert you made are justified. Flyer22 (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Plot Gap

The plot description leaves a major gap at the end. If most humans are expelled from Pandora and mining is stopped, Unobtanium ceases to be available and humans on Earth face extinction. Is this gap left as a point of departure for a future movie or is it meant as a repudiation of the principle of Manifest Destiny that allowed white Europeans to conquer the Americas? Is Avatar merely full of sound and fury with no real substance or does it have a deeper meaning? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The plot summary section of the article should only detail what is seen in the film. Speculating as to what occurs beyond the end of the film is beyond the scope of the summary. DonIago (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

$2B Fact incorrect

It also became the first film to gross more than $2 billion.[31]

No. Titanic was. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.47.199.254 (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2014

Please change the film from being called American to British-American or American-British as the film is clearly stated on the BFI and even in this pages "Country" box as being from United States and United Kingdom. I hope you look in to this matter as it indirectly undermines all the people from the U.K.' S work on the film. If you need anymore evidence of the UK's work then let me know. Thanks. 217.44.26.127 (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: see above discussion Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)#Country Cannolis (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Country

Both the United States and the United Kingdom are listed as countries, I included Britain along with America with a reliable source yet you still reverted it. Why? Anarchistdy (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

See the previous discussion at these two locations: [13], [14]. There may be more discussions in other archives, but as I and others have said, this has been discussed before and a consensus has been reached before. It's not hard to search the archives to find evidence of such discussions. I managed to do it in less than 15 seconds. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 09:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No consensus was reached on those archives, other than not listing either 'American' or 'American-British' which is what I suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchistdy (talk • contribs) 10:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Anarchistdy, WP:Pipelinked my username in the heading; see here. I have removed it with this post of mine, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages.

The first discussion GSK linked to above is about using "Cinema of the United States" as a WP:EGG and "American" vs. "U.S."; the second discussion GSK linked to above is about "American" vs. "American-British." The consensus in that latter discussion, based on the weight of the arguments, is to list the film as American. And if some see no consensus there for that, it would be more accurate to state that the consensus was to list the film as American, to not list it as American or British, or that there was no consensus on anything regarding this. There might also be other discussions about the topic in the archives; though I've been at this article for years, I'd have to check the archives to see if there are any other discussions about this in them. Like I told Anarchistdy in one of the reverts shown at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard about edit warring over this county matter, WP:FILM is there to contact about this country-listing topic. Flyer22 (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

There should be no American or British-American as like I have said Wikipedia: FILM LEAD says if there is more than 1 country of production then the nation isn't listed in the first sentence. That is fair. I have removed the switched the sources for American and added them to the United States in country section. Do not add American or British-American or American-British as it is not necessary. Thank You WARNER one -9999 (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

See here on my talk page for where I point out that WARNER one (9999) likes to WP:Edit war over country listings for film articles, especially if it means that "British" is represented (which is why he doesn't want "American" in the lead). He is apparently incapable of applying the country-listing matter on a case-by-case basis, cannot see when "British" does not belong (such as when WP:Edit warring with Masem at the Memento (film) article or with Canterbury Tail at the Aliens (film) article), and cannot discuss before making edits; from what I see, he doesn't respect WP:Consensus and seems to think that things should go his way or no way; notice above that he uses the words "Do not." Oh, and here is his latest edit on this matter, which is grammatically-challenged and should be fixed if it's to stay. I don't have the patience for WARNER one's problematic behavior (problematic behavior noted on his talk page), and I suspect that he edited Wikipedia before as a registered editor before being indefinitely blocked, so I have instead let this matter go. But for future notice, I would support only "American" being in the lead, per that being the the long-standing WP:Consensus due to past discussions on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22 is intent on trying to ignore other countries involvement and using me as reason for his actions. I admit I have made mistakes in the past on Memento which I have learnt from. However on Alien I have been right and provided references. I have succeeded in changing Alien and have came to an agreement that puts USA and UK fairly in it, this was not decided by me alone. In Aliens UK is mentioned on BFI and Lumiere. How can that be denied?. I have never been blocked before. This is my first and only Wikipedia account. I support many countries such as Australia in The Matrix and Others such as Canada in Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters and Taiwan in Life of Pi. On Wikipedia the fact is USA involvement is almost always glorified ignoring other countries. I do support making countries fair. I use references. I do not attempt to admit being perfect though do not call my actions "problematic behavior" s please point out where it suggests that on my talk page. I use reasons set out by Wikipedia, which you know cause I have told you many times by even leaving the reason on your talk page. I am not overshadowing USA involvement. US is still before UK in country section. Your just stubborn and are ignoring facts. I love USA and still think there are many films that should be labeled "American" there are however many co-productions that should have no label. I am a serious editor who can not be bothered to keep dealing with this rude person. I work on other areas of Wikipedia such as World Wars and Rotten Tomatoes (I am currently monitoring Michael Bay's critism. How come when it is an Australian or British film the rules apply differently to when it is an American film. It is wrong and should be stopped. Thank you. WARNER one --9999 (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict; Betty's comment below came before my reply to WARNER one; I got briefly sidetracked before replying]: WARNER one (9999) , I am female, as many at this site know. And I'm not trying to ignore other countries' involvement; I am trying to get you to see reason with regard to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and that it's those policies and guidelines I was abiding by. You cite WP:FILMLEAD, and yet completely disregard WP:Consensus, which, unlike WP:FILMLEAD, is a policy. You were already told by Erik and by me that the "listing British" aspect is a case-by-case matter and that you should not be going around enforcing your personal preference (whether it's to list "British" in addition to "American" or to remove both listings) on Wikipedia film articles. You did not "succeed" at the Aliens (film) article; "American" is still currently the only country listed there in the lead, as it should be. And it's not about "making countries fair"; if you notice, the WP:Neutrality policy has a WP:Due weight section, which is another policy you should be following. And don't pretend that you actually discuss anything on Wikipedia in a productive manner; you simply WP:Edit war, make a note on the article or user's talk page and think that doing so settles matters because your word is final. You are a WP:Disruptive editor, as also recently seen by your edit warring with TriiipleThreat at the X-Men: Apocalypse page (seen, for example, here), even as he pointed out the WP:NFF film guideline to you; so I take it that you are selective in which film guideline you follow. I stand by everything I stated above. You won't last long here as an editor if you keep editing in the way that you have. And removing problematic sections like this one, which show that you also edited as an IP, will not help you. If I'm rude to you, it's because I "cannot be bothered" with someone who refuses to even discuss a contested matter that was previously settled by WP:Consensus and simply thinks that his word is law. Flyer22 (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that here on my talk page, WARNER one has stated that he's done with this discussion. I told him that we can and should hold off on the WP:Civility violations and instead work toward a new consensus, and that I don't mind much at all not having any country listed in the lead; it's his approach that I took more objection to. Flyer22 (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment there is a standing consensus not to include Britain in the lede but that does precede recent revisions to MOS:FILM. I am not sure to what extent the old consensus stands, but I think the status quo should probably remain in place and a new discussion started if there is an existing consensus in place. I should also point 9999 to WP:BRD which you should follow even if you believe you are right, except in cases of possible libel regarding living people, and constant deviation from BRD is likely to conclude with a block. On the issue at hand I think LUMIERE and the BFI are reputable sources, but let's not forget they are European centric sources too i.e. the BFI has a mandate to promote British film, and the American Film Institute may not agree with their findings. In the case of Avatar the BFI and the AFI do seem to concur it is an international co-production; on top of that it was filmed in the United States and New Zealand and written & directed by a Canadian so it does seem to be a bit churlish for us to refer to it as just an American film when not even the American Film Institute regard it as such. I know in other cases similar to this we refer to the film as an "English language film" and just have the two production countries in the infobox which I think would be a sensible compromise in this instance. Betty Logan (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Huge Similarities to Indian(Malayalam) Film Vietnam Colony..

Its seems funny but true that Avatar has huge similarities to Indian (Language:Malayalam) film 'Vietnam Colony'.

But Vietnam Colony is a ordinery drama,comedy film.

Similarities: In Vietnam Colony, Hero Krishna Moorthi comes to Veitnam Colony to Capture that colony for a company. But The hero convince the native people that he is among the native people.

In Avathar, The Hero comes to Pandora to exploit the land, and he convince the native alien that he is among them.

... In Vietnam Colony, The Hero didn't know the real intention of the Company, in Avatar also. ...

In Vietnam colony, Initially Heroin is an enimy to Hero, also in Avatar. ...

After knowing the brutal intention of the Comapny, Hero become wise and switch his side to Native people. In Avatar. its same.

...

At Climax, both film hero become a real native boy. ...

There are many other Similarity to of them. ...

https://m.ak.fbcdn.net/sphotos-h.ak/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t31.0-8/10662123_639550809492419_3053161795618461372_o.jpg

The above is the photo: The First time Krishna Moorthi Comes the colony, Some people comes to attack him. But all of them fear and go back after saw the man backside the hero. But Hero didn't know that he is in back side, He think they fear him. Same incident in Avatar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.76.235.236 (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if serious or if troll. gsk 20:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it's not about improving the article. Yworo (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2015

Please change "Avatar (marketed as James Cameron's Avatar) is a 2009 American[8][9] epic science fiction film directed....."

to "Avatar (marketed as James Cameron's Avatar) is a 2009 American/British[8][9] epic science fiction film directed....." Withitnow (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: see above discussion. Not a simple edit request Cannolis (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Mistake

Avatar 2, 3 & 4 will be released between 2017 and 2019, not 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.193.41 (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Strong plot resemblance to "The Word For World Is Forest"

Please include a section indicating the derivative nature of Avatar's plot. The relevant section in The Word for World is Forest can be lifted virtually verbatim for this purpose, complete with references. "Pocahontas" and "Call Me Joe" should also be referenced. - Tenebris 198.91.170.20 (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems a little disingenuous of you to ask that we add information here based on content included in another article which you specifically added to that article. I would recommend that editors review that material for potential synthesis issues before adding here. DonIago (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Pandora's atmosphere is unbreathable, not poisonous

There is nothing to suggest that Pandora's atmosphere is actually poisonous, only that it cannot sustain humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.241.199.21 (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably just too low presure to breathe. It'll probably be like Mars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha3031 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello -- besides being low pressure, Mars is mostly carbon dioxide, with less than one percent oxygen! So yes, it counts as "poisonous". JustinTime55 (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

CO₂ isn't poisonous.Alpha3031 (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

editrequest: Toruk

Please add a hatnote for Toruk, since Toruk redirects here, while we already have an article on the stageplay TORUK - The First Flight.

{{redirect|Toruk|the Cirque du Soleil show|TORUK - The First Flight}}

"Toruk" redirects here. For the Cirque du Soleil show, see TORUK - The First Flight.

-- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Done Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 08:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Production --> Origins --> Citation #52 Error

The page currently says "The project would cost $100 million and involve at least six actors in leading roles "who appear to be real but do not exist in the physical world"" the link to this reference is dead and it's unclear what or who this sentence is quoting. I believe that the correct number is $200 million dollars. See below for article that could properly cite this sentence.

ManhattanBeachAvatar (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC) ManhattanBeachAvatar

Done Inomyabcs (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Citation 149 Dead Link

The citation for the following sentence yields an error message. "A series of toys representing six different characters from the film were also distributed in McDonald's Happy Meals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, the United States and Venezuela."

I found a possible new citation, though it doesn't include all of the countries that this sentence does. The sentence would need to be restructured in order to display the correct countries.

ManhattanBeachAvatar (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC) ManhattanBeachAvatar

Done Inomyabcs (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

A.O. Scott's Review unfindable

I've searched for the original review that A.O. Scott is quoted in citation 225 but cannot find one. There needs to either be a citation from this review or this quote needs to be taken down.

ManhattanBeachAvatar (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

ManhattanBeachAvatar

There's an archived version still up: see the Archived-link next to the original source. --Fixuture (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The link may be broken, but there is enough there to verify the actual quotes by accessing the "Buena Vista" television archives (owned by Disney) if one desires. Inomyabcs (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Citation 320 and 322

Citation 322 and 320 - No where in the AMA (which is the source for 320 and a source in the source for 322) is there talk of Sigourney Weaver coming back for all three movies. If I am mistaken, please clarify the citation more so that the source is easy to find.

ManhattanBeachAvatar (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC) ManhattanBeachAvatar

Not done. The appropriate citation that has that information is 324. Inomyabcs (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Resources Development Administration

An article was created about the fictional organization, but it underwent AfD as seen here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resources Development Administration (RDA). While the article did not reflect it, I thought there were a good number of sources to indicate notability. This, to me, did not seem recognized by other editors, and with the discussion have progressed so much, I wanted to develop it outside the mainspace to see if I can bring it back as a well-sourced article. The article is currently at Draft:Resources Development Administration. The link to the AfD has some sources that can be used as well. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Mistake

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

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation?

Hi,

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

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

This article is called Avatar (2009 film), so why would anyone come to this page thinking it would be about the Hindu concept? Betty Logan (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Tiger7253 (talk · contribs), I reverted you per what I stated in my WP:Edit summary, and per what Betty Logan explained above.

On a side note: Remember to sign your posts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

"the title of this article is already disambiguated" means there is already "(2009 film)" at the end of the article title to show which meaning of "Avatar" the article is about. Per WP:NAMB, Wikipedia does not use hatnotes when the title is already disambiguated and cannot be confused with other articles. For comparison, the article Avatar does not have a disambiguated title so in that case there are hatnotes. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I'm a bit new to all of this so I got confused. And I didn't mean that people would come to this page thinking that it's about the Hindu concept - all I said was that it is quite hard to find the other Avatar page, because only this one in particular comes up in google, so I thought it'd make sense to include a link to the other page on top for convenience but that's apparently against wiki policy so yeah. Cheers Tiger7253 (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to be honest, that is something I have never considered before. I wonder if this happens on a lot of disambiguated pages? If it does it could be worth considering adding a link to the main disambigation page on all disambiguated pages. Betty Logan (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I have seen it suggested to test Google searches and base hatnotes on the result but it didn't get support. Some of the reasons against are that Google results can change, people may use different Google searches, there are other search engines and ways to reach articles, if somebody clicks "Avatar (2009 film)" on a search engine page then they are probably looking for the film, and we have a search box on every page where undisambiguated titles like "Avatar" should give access to meanings we have articles about. It has also been suggested, without getting support, to make hatnotes on all articles with disambiguated titles. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that basing decisions on the ephemeral results of search engines would not be a very good idea, but if this kind of scenario is commonplace I think there would be some value in placing a single disambiguation hatnote on all disambiguated pages. We shouldn't be going out of our way to make things difficult for people who don't use the "front door". But as you say, would people looking for the Hindu Avatar click on the film link in google? I honestly have no idea. Ideally we need to get some data; one way would be to create a special redirect exclusive to this article that redirects to the main disambiguation page, and then we could see if a statistically significant number of people landing at this article were looking for another Avatar article. Betty Logan (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to general policy discussions like Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 44#Proposal for regular use of hatnotes on biographical articles to provide links to the topics of "others" who have a shared or similar name. I don't think individual articles should start making their own systems. Some users (like myself) browse Wikipedia and click interestingly sounding links without having planned to go there in advance, so data may not be simple to interpret. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.moviemaker.com/directing/article/avatar_james_cameron_jon_landau_20100119/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hindustantimes.com/rssfeed/cinema/Avatar-fastest-film-to-break-1-billion-mark/Article1-494182.aspx

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/avatar-director-slams-bandwagon-jumpers/story-e6frf96f-1225905342936

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)