Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Language creator

The article states that Cameron developed the Na'vi language. However, at the end of the movie the credits are given to Whatshisname, Ph.D. (whose name I forgot, and you may have understood.) This deserves either correction or enlightenment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.34.188.206 (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right. It was Paul Frommer. You're welcome to make the appropriate correction. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

See more on the Na'vi language development here, from Cameron's own mouth. Cinosaur (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

50th highest grossing

The article says:

This now makes the film the second-highest grossing of all time worldwide;[20] it is the 50th-highest grossing film of all-time worldwide when adjusted for inflation.

This is inaccurate because it is the 50th highest grossing DOMESTIC film when adjusted for inflation. The source is clear about this. Avatar's worldwide adjusted rank is not forthcoming.

Dante2308 (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

They worked out Gone With the Wind's adjusted worldwide gross in 1989 and it came to $6000 million, which would be over $10,000 million in 2009 dollars. Avatar has some way to go there! Betty Logan (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A piece in the Financial Times about how Avatar is a poor performer when adjusted for inflation: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9a26665c-fe11-11de-9340-00144feab49a.html. It may be worth incorporating that into the article, it's not often we get a reference as strong as the Financial Times analysing adjusted box office figures. Betty Logan (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Betty, that doesn't change the FACT that it is 50th highest grossing film domestically when adjusted for inflation. It is absolutely lower than Gone With the Wind domestically and worldwide but there is zero proof that its domestic and worldwide adjusted rank are exactly the same. The article should be changed to represent factual information. Proof Here: http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htmDante2308 (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Poor performer is a bold statement, by the standards of almost a century ago it may have been so but by today's standards it is not. I have also read articles that take into account the fact that there were no home-media in those times or availibility of small portable cameras, the internet, and DVD burners for pirating. The films of the past era would also enjoy a much longer theatrical release time because of not having the home-media option as well, sometimes well over a year. DrNegative (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I just thought it brought an interesting new angle to the story. Betty Logan (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It is an interesting angle, but if Avatar is a poor performer, then all movies since 1999 are in the same basket. Taking into account the fact that several movies premiered during Avatar's run, Avatar is an original non-sequel movie, and the competing forms of entertainment, then I would say that Avatar performed very well for a modern movie. That aside, the correction still needs to be made. Dante2308 (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to include any reference to the film's inflation-adjusted performance; as you can read here, it is extremely difficult to calculate an adjusted gross, and comparison between films based on inflation-adjusted receipts is of dubious value. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think including the number is fine as long as the appropriate caveats are included. It is up to the reader to discern the significance of such a value. It is Wikipedia's job to present the facts in their proper context.Dante2308 (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The majority of box office analysts do not go by the inflation adjustment for the reasons AniRaptor2001 linked to. The numbers are by no means precise, they are interesting speculation at most, not pure facts. Analysts do at times mention "unadjusted for inflation" after the number which is what we have done in the article and noted as such. DrNegative (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Themes

This article could be made better if it expanded on the underlying environmentalist themes in the movie. I mean, James Cameron mentioned it has an environmentalist attitude. Or at least make this stand out more in the article? thnx 76.180.165.34 (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"Too real?"

This from CNN might be a noteworthy addition if the trend continues. Some fans seem to be getting emotionally attached to the world of Pandora due to the realism of the special effects and its portrayal of a utopian society. Might be something to keep an eye on. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh. My. God. lol Also on that news report, the picture at the top. Why is there someone recording the film? :-\ —Mike Allen

They're all wearing some sort of credentials. It looks like a special screening. Woogee (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha, wow. That is very interesting. --haha169 (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone added it to the article. But the question is, should it be in the article? —Mike Allen 04:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a fluff piece about a film forum. It's a absolute joke that's allowed in but some editors wouldn't let Cinosaur cover the Avatar controversy in the mainstream Indian press. This just confirms my suspicions that 'notability' doesn't extend beyond the US press on this article. Betty Logan (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that it should not be allowed, be bold and revert it, then discuss it here for consensus as Cinosaur did. DrNegative (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There really is no point when it comes to US/international notability. I'll say it's not notable and before we know it there will be half a dozen US editors saying it is claiming a consensus. Given the fact that two thirds of the box office is international meaning that the film's audience outnumber the US by 2:1 and yet 100% of the critical reception is attributed to US sources pretty much indicates there is no desire by the regular editors to abide by WP:WORLDVIEW. Betty Logan (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If you do not wish to challenge it, then that is your consensus. Keep in mind the "Worldview" article you quote is not any form of policy or guideline. It is merely an essay of "advice or opinions" as noted at the top of the page. I too questioned its notability and reliability to the article when I first saw it, but the source was a "CNN headline" and it graced their front page for a short time. Doing a quick search, I already found the article mirrored on other US sites and several notable Canadian and UK news sites as well. This however doesn't mean I support its inclusion in the manner that its displayed here though. DrNegative (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

FallenAngelII removed the CNN part about the Pandora health effect, as seen in this edit. And Hopefloat007 removed the part about people feeling nauseous while watching the film, as seen in this link. I personally find the CNN source more notable for inclusion, and do not understand FallenAngelII's reason for removing it while leaving in the Daily Mail source about a person throwing up after seeing the film. FallenAngelII feels that people feeling that Pandora is real while watching it and getting depressed after the film is over is "hardly a notable health effect" because "[p]eople get depressed and suicidal over the most ridiculous of reasons. This isn't real!" and "It's a Sci-fi/Fantasy epic!)" I disagree that it is not notable. If people are having that kind of reaction to this film, it is a health effect. A serious one, in my view. But I want to point out that depression is often about a combination of things. Most, if not all, of these people likely already had life problems significantly stressing them out...and used Avatar as an escape from that. But once the film was over, they felt incredibly worse. The film successfully took them to this other world and made them forget about all their problems for a few hours, and when it was over, it hurt even more to go back to the real world. That is my analysis, but we cannot use mine (of course). This story would be more notable if coming from a psychologist who has interviewed a few of these people. Either way, I feel that this story is worth a mention. Yes, Pandora is not real; we know that. And that is why people believing that it is...is even being reported.

I feel that all this should be discussed more, in case it comes up again. The Daily Mail source has come up more than once on this talk page. There is also an ABC source backing that up. And I definitely feel that people believing that Pandora is real so much so that they have gotten depressed from accepting that it is not should be mentioned somewhere in this article. Perhaps, in the Critical reception section. And, no, the Critical reception is not just for critics. We have reviews from fellow directors, for example. Maybe this Critical reception section needs to be expanded in the way that the Changeling (film) article's Reception/Reviews sections are. I was thinking of waiting until this article is up for Feature article status before expanding the reception section in that way, though (so that that the article would have some significant difference when wanting to upgrade it). Flyer22 (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As an alternative, this information could be incorporated into the Filming and effects section somehow (maybe even as a subsection). But I'm not sure I like that idea, since mention of this pertains to the film's release. Flyer22 (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I was asked why I removed the references to people becoming depressed and having suicidal thoughts due to the movie being too "believable" and thus, a lot of stupid people became depressed when they realized the lush surroundings weren't real. Why? Because it's stupid! People get depressed and have suicidal thoughts over all kinds of things! Unless it's a widespread phenomenon, it's not noteworthy! A select few idiots does not a noteworthy fact make! I'm sure people got depressed after watching The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter (any of the currently 6 existing ones) or any other Sci-Fi/Fantasy. I mean, that's the deal here, it's a Sci-Fi/Fantasy epic! Of course it's not real! And of course a few idiots will feel down after watching it, realizing that it's not real! If I go out and watch "Sherlock Holmes" today and then get a newspaper to cover an interview of myself saying I got depressed after watching it since I realize it's no longer 1902 or whenever the story is set to play out, will that make it a noteworthy fact? NO! Yuna-chan (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

FallenAngelII, I find your reasons to simply be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. They are not founded in any of Wikipedia's policies, and are downright rude. Calling people stupid and idiots because they have gotten depressed or suicidal (or both) after watching this film not only shows your lack of tact but also your lack of experience in dealing with topics of depression and suicide. Besides that...you act as though it is a no-brainer that you are right; your reasons were delivered in a condescending manner, I feel. What if consensus had been for keeping that piece, since it was in an obviously well-watched article? If anything, you should have checked this talk page first to see what the thoughts on this matter were. And if nothing was on this talk page about it, then you should have started a discussion about it before or after your removal. Going around removing reliably sourced information from articles, simply because you do not like it is not how things are supposed to work here...unless you give valid reasons for the removal on the talk page. And by valid, I mean, not simply calling it stupid or idiotic. But, yes, consensus is currently with you on the removal. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it should not be in the article until there is a statement by a mental health professional that it is actually a problem. Note that CNN could have gotten the opinion of a mental health professional, but it didn't. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully concur with that. If the Daily Mail or CNN were to include a formal medical opinion in their articles then it would be notable enough for inclusion, but without that it's just puff journalism. Betty Logan (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. But if consensus is against inclusion, there is nothing I can do. Although, I was not for the Daily Mail and ABC sources being included anyway, because some people or a single person being nauseous during the film is minor. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As later stated by Bob K31416 and Flyer22, it is not notable. It has not reported by any health professionals. In other words, all we have now are unconfirmed (reports by some major news outlets =/= confirmed) rumors about a small number of people. Unconfirmed and insofar insighnificant. This is the TL;DR version of what I said, however. I just called them idiots as well. Yuna-chan (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that it was not notable. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(←)Someone deleted the section that was in the article on fans who are depressed after seeing the film because Pandora is not real. This sounds silly, but it has been reported on by major news sources. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/6977817/Avatar-fans-suicidal-because-planet-Pandora-is-not-real.html and Piazza, Jo (January 11, 2010). "Audiences experience 'Avatar' blues". Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. CNN.com. Retrieved January 11, 2010. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete it but I think we should discuss it here as to how to implement it into the article instead of creating a whole new section for it. Anyone else have any thoughts? DrNegative (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Part of a new section/subarticle on cultural impact? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The best part of the internet is it gives everyone a voice. The worst part about the internet is that it gives everyone a voice. A great many of the positive and negative sourceable comments about Avatar fall pretty firmly under WP:WHOGIVESASHIT (it doesn't exist, I know, but by God it should). The article would be cumbersome to the point of unreadability if every single idiot who has internet access gets their opinion on the movie put into the article. The criticism section alone would be longer than the entire article is now. Obviously, we aren't going to do that, which means whittling the article down to the most widespread criticisms of the film and ignoring the writings of Joe Sixpack writing an op-ed piece for the BFE Kansas Herald. In this kind of situation, we are forced to rely heavily on WP:UNDUE. It's important not to spend half the article bringing up ever single criticism made about a movie that has received overwhelmingly positive reviews. I mean that for this particular issue as well as all the others brought up in the last few days, most of them are ridiculous to the point that I can't figure out how their writers actually gather up the brain power necessary to breathe. Trusilver 05:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

NY Times, UK Telegraph and CNN are not "every single idiot", they are major media. It seems like there should be a Criticism section that summarizes the criticisms of the movie that have been widely discussed in the media. That does not mean it will be terribly long. It should present the criticisms that have received widespread coverage in major media and a reliable source or two illustrating each. Otherwise the article is not balanced; it is promotional. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me try this again. If we included every single criticism that has been levied against the film, the criticism section would be three times longer than the rest of the article. That's why we follow policies like WP:UNDUE. A wikipedia article is not a laundry list of EVERYTHING that has ever been said on a subject, it is a broad and (god willing) succinct overview of a subject. This eventually happens to pretty much every article about a movie during its first few months, especially very popular movies; someone is on the internet and find a story that hasn't been at all mentioned in the article and then runs up eagerly like a little kid who just found a nice shiny rock and says something to the tune of "ZOMG! I found a story about a woman who said that The Golden Compass made her fall away from Catholicism, this NEEEEEEDS to go in the article!!!!111one1!" There are plenty of criticisms about the film that have widespread coverage and discussion on, we don't need to worry about the minor ones. If you can find a way to include something in a way that actually shrinks the bloated "critical reception" section, then lets hear it. If you look over the last seventy or eighty items in the archive, you will find that if we included every single bit of criticism that everything thinks should be in the article, the critical reception section would be twice the size it is now, maybe longer.

I'm totally aware that it's more interesting to find and post negative criticism about a movie, but when we currently have a criticism section that has 12 negative quotes to 9 positive ones (and a smattering of neutrals), on a movie that gained 80%+ positive reviews from critics, could you point out where balanced is rearing its head?Trusilver 07:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it should not be in the article until there is a statement by a mental health professional that it is actually a problem. Note that CNN could have gotten the opinion of a mental health professional, but it didn't. The Telegraph article had a statement by a mental health professional.

"Stacy Kaiser, a psychotherapist, said obsession with the film was masking more serious problems in the fans' lives. 'They’re seeing Avatar, they're lonely people, a lot of them don’t have a lot going on in their lives right now,' she said. 'The movie opened up a portal for them to express their depression.'

So according to the only mental health professional's opinion reported so far, it doesn't seem like there is anything to the idea that Avatar causes depression, but rather those people were already depressed, in the opinion of a psychotherapist. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because one psychotherapist said something (their personal opinion, most probably) does not mean it's notable. Or that we need another mental health professional's refutation in order to deem it unimportant enough to disregard in the Avatar article! How about this, since no one else has mentioned it, let's assume no one else agrees with her! Silence =/= Agreement. Yuna-chan (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I basically agree with her, with the exception that I believe Avatar made it worse, and I stated something similar above: "Most, if not all, of these people likely already had life problems significantly stressing them out...and used Avatar as an escape from that. But once the film was over, they felt incredibly worse. The film successfully took them to this other world and made them forget about all their problems for a few hours, and when it was over, it hurt even more to go back to the real world."

The woman knows what she is talking about. All psychotherapists base their professional thoughts not only on opinion but experience, or at least they should. It is not about guessing. And, no, silence does not always equal agreement. But, yeah, since Avatar most likely did not make these people depressed, but rather made their depression worse, it does not seem as though it needs to be mentioned. This type of thing could and does happen with other stuff as well. Flyer22 (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I agree with Trusilver's more general comment that just because there is an article about the film, doesn't mean that it should be included in the Avatar article. With the relatively large number of articles on this film, there is bound to be a large diversity of quality, accuracy and bias, and some articles may not be worthwhile. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to remind people to check the talk page for already discussed matters. This topic, for example, is already discussed above at #"Too real?", and I am not big on rearranging talk pages to keep similarly discussed topics together. My feelings on this depression/suicide matter is above. I am for the inclusion, but am not too keen on it having its own section...unless it actually becomes a bigger issue. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted, and  Done. About this: I think it's absurd and should not be included just because a few notable websites reported something on it. It didn't really go into detail, and I think we should wait and see if this does become an "issue". Right now I think it's a non-issue and will probably pass. Probably. —Mike Allen 01:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As has already been established, it's not just about notability. Notable news sources report on fluff and unconfirmed rumors/opinions all the time. For something to be confirmed and important, it has to be widely reported and have multiple original sources. 3 major news outlets reporting on the same issue using the same original source = 1 source. Yuna-chan (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I would not say that for something to be confirmed and important, it has to be widely reported, but I get your point and thank you for coming back with a better attitude. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Template

The number of articles related to Avatar is growing. It might not be such a bad idea for someone to start working on an Avatar template. If there's anyone who is good at creating templates, maybe that's something you would be interested in working on. I could do it, but my template skills are monumentally bad, it would take me ten hours to make what should be done in one. Trusilver 16:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to confess ignorance. Could you clarify what you mean by "Avatar template"? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There have been two templates for it and they have both been deleted. Honestly, I don't think six articles is enough to warrant a navigation box. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 18:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, bugger, I've done it. If it gets deleted, whatever. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Link is here. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a good looking template. DrNegative (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. That's only my second constructed. ^.^ --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That looks great, what do you think about also including the starring actors? That seems to be a kind of hit and miss issue for movie templates, but what does everyone think? Trusilver 20:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. I'll think about it. Consensus? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus has already been reached regarding adding actors in the nav box. Good luck around that one. :) —Mike Allen 03:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thejadefalcon, the template looks good! I wouldn't worry about it getting deleted as there are six articles; although it isn't a large number, I've seen some with less. And with the talks of future films, there may be opportunity for more articles to be made. The actors definitely shouldn't be in the navbox, there is a standing consensus it across the film, television and actor projects. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Template has been nominated for deletion here. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism - the Vatican?

Should we include information about criticism from the Vatican, particularly about the environmental message[1][2], in the article? ~AH1^(TCU) 01:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, AstroHurricane2001. I already proposed Vatican's criticism for inclusion above, but this is pending the outcome of a broader discussion on international coverage in general, which you may want to take part in too. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible sources must be included

Given the obvious similarities, it is inconceivable that the Wikipedia article does not mention the above-cited SciFi novels that might have been sources of inspiration for the 'Avatar' plot, e.g. Call me Joe, The Word for World is Forest, ore Disquiet. More subtle sources include movies like Dances with Wolves, The Last Samurai or even Solaris. Finally, we should notice the similarities between Avatar's Pandora and Blue Moon from National Geographic's special Extraterrestrial (most notably, an Earth-sized moon orbiting a gas giant, lower gravity and a toxic atmosphere that is denser than on Earth, giant trees, etc.). 200.168.20.215 (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll quote what Bonvineboy2008 said right above "We only can provide information that is backed up by sources. If you have one, put the url here and someone will add it, or feel free to do it yourself." —Mike Allen 12:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There are at least two possible "sources" as defined above: the aforementioned novels themselves (whose plot significantly overlap with Avatar's) and, in some cases, the authors of the alleged plagiarized novels themselves. The only "source" who refuses to acknowledge the inspiration behind his script is James Cameron himself.

Anyway, this website [3] for example describes several possible references in classic Sci-Fi that may have been merged in the Avatar screenplay. 200.168.20.215 (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Until there is reliable sourcing establishing that the movie -is- based on those sources, you're talking about theories, not facts, and consequently material that is inappropriate for inclusion, as MikeAllen said above. Doniago (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The novels themselves are primary sources so are only eligible for plot details etc, not the interpretation of those plot elements. To say that certain works of fiction have influenced or drawn influences from others is an interpretation of that text and requires a reliable third party source. If the New York Times observes that Avatar has copied plot elements from other stories, that can be mentioned in the article. If some bloke on Wikipedia thinks the film has similarities with other works then that can't be included in the article. As for the "Dark Roasted Blended" site I don't know to what extent that is a reliable source. If it employs professional writers it would probably qualify, if it is just an amateur site run by one man his dog then it is no different to a blog which are not reliable sources. I suggest you enquire at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Betty Logan (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, those works of fiction in the above-mentioned website, that have repeated sci-fi themes of humans colonizing other worlds etc., somewhat vindicates the filmmaker since they seem to indicate recurring ideas and themes in the sci-fi genre, and thus it isn't worth noting every source that they are in. It may be like noting for a western that includes a scene of the fictional style of gunfight known as the quick draw, every previous work of fiction that includes a quick draw gunfight. For Wikipedia, we should report notable connections and this has been done in the sections Critical reception and Themes and inspirations. Since connections have already been mentioned in the article, it's not clear to me what the purpose of this discussion is. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The 1982 episode of Doctor Who - Kinda (Doctor Who) has a LOT of similarities to Avatar. That episode even links to The Word for World is Forest as being very similar. What I find interesting is plot details that Avatar and Kinda share which the book doesn't appear to contain - the human controlled mechs for one. Zenex13 (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Did that observation appear in any reliable sources? If not, the best you can get is congratulations for your original research, as some compensation for it not being acceptable for the article, according to WP:NOR. Cheers, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

http://io9.com/5390226/did-james-cameron-rip-off-poul-andersons-novella The similarities between Call Me Joe and Avatar are clear: a crippled man mentally linked to an avatar goes native. Nitpyck (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)