Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Soul vs. consciousness revisited.

FLyer22 -- the reason why I changed "consciousness" to "soul" was to be consistent with the first description of this ritual done on Grace. Now this looks inconsistent, as if the Na'vi did something else to Jake than what they had attempted to do to Grace. Besides, "soul" is 3.25 times shorter than "consciousness". :) Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I get why you changed it; I did read your edit summary. But the main reason the word "soul" is used for the first part is so that it is clear that it is from the Na'vi point of view, which is why it should go back in quotation marks. I was going to do that earlier when I saw that an editor had removed the quotation marks, but I was like "whatever" after a bit. Did you read all of the discussion about using the word "soul" at Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 9#Editing the "plot" section? Not everyone believes in the concept of "soul" when it comes to the physical spirit sense, of course. This is why some people kept and will keep changing "soul" to "consciousness," if "soul" is left plain...especially if left plain twice. To implement some sort of compromise, it was decided that the first mention of "soul," at Tree of Souls, would stay "soul" and in quotation marks so that people could see that this is from the Na'vi point of view, but that the second and final mention of "soul" is relayed as "consciousness" because it is more so being relayed by us. I prefer the word "soul" because that is what the Na'vi believe, it seems. But when we put "soul," some people get all bent out of shape about it...simply because they are not religious or spiritual in that sense. Thus, I suggested "soul" be put into quotation marks. But putting it into quotation marks both times seems offensive, as if we are saying "soul" in the physical spirit sense does not exist. I feel that putting it in quotation marks that once is not as offensive, though, because it is making it clear that it is from the Na'vi point of view and that "soul" is a debatable topic. Flyer22 (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this change because this is how the Na'vi viewed it. DrNegative (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the word "soul" in this case as well, as I just stated right above in this section, but my explanation for the revert is also included. Flyer22 (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Cinosaur on this one. If we are going to use one term, we should use it in both instances. The way it stands now, it seems as if one were different from the other and as presented in the film, this clearly isnt the case. This could mislead the reader into believing that Grace's transfer was different from Jake's, which I do not believe is the case here. DrNegative (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

On another note, the force could be challenged because users don't believe in it. It is however, a work of fiction, and our personal beliefs go right out the window when it comes to these topics. We must stay in-universe. DrNegative (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agreed Cinosaur as well on the word "soul" being the better word to use, but not on it seeming inconsistent with what is happening. With the word "soul" in quotation marks for the first mention, I am not seeing how it can lead people into believing that Grace's transfer is different than Jake's. If they do not know already what "soul" is/can mean, the Soul article makes it clear that "soul" can also mean "consciousness."

In any case, I have pointed out the issue with "soul" being used plainly or both times. The previous discussions about it clearly show that people have a problem with using the word "soul." Simply putting "soul" back in twice, either plainly or in quotation marks, will not solve that problem. If this discussion is really being had again, then further or past suggestions for solving this problem should be given. Flyer22 (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, there was one editor who felt that the Na'vi do not believe in souls in the physical spirit sense, despite the Na'vi having a Tree of Souls. Flyer22 (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And as for "the force," that is completely different; that is a made-up expression used throughout that series. With Avatar, they do not once say that they believe in "souls" in the physical spirit sense; it is rather implied, and there are other words that can be used in place of "soul." Flyer22 (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That may be true but the transfer occuring at the "Tree of Souls" supports my argument a lot better than labeling it as a consciousness. "Physical spirit sense" is once again our interpetation of it, not the Na'vi's. In fact, I would like to debate this editor. We cannot relate this film to anything in real-life. Like I said, this is a work of fiction, the evidence within the film itself clearly steers toward the term "soul". As permitted in Wikipedia policy, consensus can change. I would like to get a fresh consensus on this matter. DrNegative (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"Physical spirit sense" is our interpretation? It is clearly the correct interpretation, if you go by the Tree of Souls and its transfer ability. What else is "soul" supposed to mean from the Na'vi point of view? If we say the "mind," well...yeah, "soul" also encompasses that. We can indeed relate this film to things in real-life; it has real-life concepts, themes, etc. among all the fiction. "Soul" is clearly one of those, or else there would not be so much debate about using the word "soul" and trading it out with the words "mind," "consciousness," etc. And while Cinosaur prefers the word "soul," Cinosaur also originally felt that it is best not used at all...due to it being "too religious." Cinosaur may still very well feel that way. You do not have to debate me about anything on this matter; I have already stated my points, with a link to the past discussions about it...showing that using the word "soul" plainly both times will be a problem. I personally do not want to have to revert back to "soul" every time it is changed to "consciousness" by some IP, and I doubt that other editors will keep up with reverting IPs and others every time it is changed. But, yes, I am all for a fresh consensus on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22 and DrNegative -- sorry for making you both rehash this topic. I did read the archived thread but was not convinced by the reasoning for 'consciousness' because, personal preferences aside, at the end of the day the article should be clear and consistent throughout -- which unfortunately it is not with 'soul' in one place and 'consciousness' in the other.

May I suggest that we rewrite the sentence under question as: "The clan perform the ritual to permanently transfer Jake from his human body into his Na'vi avatar with the aid of the Tree of Souls" and let every reader stick his/her own philosophical tag onto what they transfered. Otherwise there will be no end to it. What do you both think? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm for it. So we leave the Grace part as "soul" in quotation marks? Flyer22 (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I am for it as well. It seems like the most neutral way of phrasing it without someone taking it out of context. DrNegative (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep.  Done Cinosaur (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

But be on the lookout for a reliable source that uses soul or consiousness, which would trump Wikipedia editors. I thought that I had found one here, but I don't think it would be considered a reliable source since that synopsis seems to have been constructed by users who visited that site, somewhat like the Wikipedia. In any case, if anyone finds a reliable source for whether to use consciousness or soul, we should go with that, unless there is another reliable source that says the opposite. . --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah thats a good idea Bob, I'll be looking. I admit that in the end, its not what we think, but what we can prove/cite. DrNegative (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A reliable source using soul or consciousness would simply be from some columnist's or summary writer's point of view...unless it is coming from Cameron himself or a book that elaborates on this story. It would still be what a person thinks. What Cameron thinks, though, since he created this world, is the only source that we can fairly cite on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be a reliable source vs wikipedia editors' opinion. Hmmmm, which should we choose? --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Clearly neither. Because where you can find one reliable source that says "soul," another person can find a different reliable source that says "consciousness." Unless it comes from Cameron or an expanded book on this fictional world, also by Cameron (in full or partly by), then it is merely opinion. Cameron may even feel that his take on this matter is opinion, since he sometimes leaves things open to interpretation. I do not see the big deal with trading out one word with the other on this matter, anyway, except that some people seem to always relate "soul" to being religious (when "soul" can simply mean a person's personality or values typically cherished by human beings, considering that non-religious people also use the word "soul"...such as when saying, "That movie has no soul.") Flyer22 (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22, you have just had to undo yet another "soul'-revision. I am sure you understand this is not the last one. I think the only way to stop it is to find and insert the exact quote from Mo'at explaining the meaning of the ritual. I do not have the movie's script at hand, but remember her saying something like "putting [Grace] through the eye of Eywa" or something and walk away from any easily contested terminology altogether. What do you think? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I missed this conversation earlier, while noticing the one below regarding prayer. They're similar, in that each is our own interpretation of the situation. I favored the use of Jake "praying" to Ewya, and would also favor the use of soul here, though I don't recall the term being used at all during the film. Mo'at commented on Grace having to "pass through the Eye of Ewya", and earlier Neytiri commenting on how their "energy must return to Ewya" (the scene during Jake's training, where they came upon a ritual burying of a deceased Na'vi). Maybe "energy" is the better word, here? (Though ultimately, a printed source is still better than editor speculation.) -FeralDruid (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We could insert one of those commonly used notes next to it that is invisible to the main article but would notify the editor of consensus. DrNegative (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just read this part in the original script and it does not use the word 'soul'. I believe the film does not either. Why not change the Grace's transferal part the same way we changes Jake's:

The clan attempts to transfer Grace from her dying body into her Na'vi avatar with the aid of the Mother Tree, but she dies from her injuries in the process.

Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I am okay with using the Ewya explanation as an alternative. As for "energy," that does not give the same feel as "soul." At least "consciousness" or "mind" just about does. And I would not really call any of what we have stated about the transfer "speculation." We know that Jake's mind/personality is being transplanted into his Avatar; it is just that some people would simply say "soul," but some others prefer not to use the word "soul." But then again, by "speculation," I suppose we mean whether or not "soul" in the physical spirit sense exists to the Na'vi...even though we are pretty sure it does (they even have a Tree of Souls, as we know).

DrNegative, your suggestion of a note is definitely a good suggestion as well. Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Cinosaur, your most recent suggestion is good, and I was thinking of basically the same thing. Go for it. Flyer22 (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I will leave it for DrNegative to put the invisible note. Cinosaur (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the invisible note is no longer needed...unless we start seeing people putting "soul" or "consciousness" again. Flyer22 (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam war? Westerns?

There was a section, now deleted pointing to inspiration by vietnam movies such as Apolcalypse now, and western cowboy / indian movies with bows and arrows, more modern conflicts like blackhawk down with helicopters and automatic gunfire. Why is there is there no mention of the vietnam war or the indian wars portrayed by hollywood. Designers of the VTOL aircraft specifically mentioned the vietnam war, and the skids clearly resemble the form of the Huey helicopter of Vietnam war fame.Bachcell (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Who cares? There were people wearing shirts in the movie, too. Should we have a section discussing the thematic elements of shirt-wearing and the influence that shirts had on the movie? At some point have really have to limit the amount of sheer ridiculousness that goes into an article. Trusilver 08:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please try to avoid insulting earnest suggestions, as it often offends. Anyway, Bachell, there's a "themes and inspirations" section that seems to cover such things. If there was something else, can you remember the date when you saw it? --Kizor 12:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Box office Mojo data

The article currently says that Avatar is the 34th highest grosisng film of all time, adjusted for inflation, with its gross standing at $511,583,800 (actual gross at $504,868,451).

Clearly this is incorrect since common sense tells us that there has been no discernable inflation over the last month. This can actually be clarified on the site itself because BoxOfficeMojo allows you to set the year, and clearly states that the average ticket price for 2010 is currently the same as it is for 2009: $7.35 [1] By that logic Avatar has earned $511 million at 2009 ticket prices. Clearly impossible.

It is pretty obvious that BoxOfficeMojo has miscalculated the adjusted price so I adjusted its true position to 36th which is where it would place had BoxOfficeMojo used the correct value, but DrNegative believes that this clear error should be retained on the basis it is a reliable source: [2] My question is should clearly erroenous information be reatined when it is very obvious the amount has been miscalculated. Betty Logan (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Betty I believe this falls in the category of WP:SYNTHESIS. —Mike Allen 18:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is because we are just dealing with a single source here. If you set the adjuster to 2009 ticket prices Avatar has earned more then than it has done now. Unless ticket prices are falling that doesn't make any sense, and clearly isn't consistent with Box Office Mojo's formula where it says the ticket prices for 2009 and 2010 are the same. If the ticket prices are the same then the grosses should be the same. The gross for Avatar at 2009 and 2010 pirces stands at $511 million (the fact that they are the same is correct if the ticket prices are the same) but its 2009 gross should be its actual gross: 504 million. Something has obviously been entered incorrectly. Betty Logan (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Betty but your asking me to discredit a reliable source (accepted in policy) in lieu of your own thoughts or opinions. Your breaking a common pillar of Wikipedia by even making the notion of it. BOM does not make any note of what "part" of the year any particular film on the list was released in relation to the inflation adjustment, so why should we do it with this one? If we were to change it, should we cite your User page as the reference? DrNegative (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, cite my user page as a reference. I am a clearly more reliable than Box Office Mojo in this instance. Betty Logan (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"I am a clearly more reliable than Box Office Mojo in this instance." I am in awe that you were brave enough to say that on here. So sometimes Box Office Mojo is more reliable than you? Thanks, Ill make a note of that. DrNegative (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DrNegative, the crassness of suggesting your opinion (see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH) are more valid than a highly regarded source is so amazing that I honestly thought you were joking the first time I read through this. Trusilver 19:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Avatar isn't like the other films, since it was released in regular theaters for one price, and in 3D theaters at a higher price. You can't be accurate unless you add in both of those figures. Dream Focus 18:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

How about dispensing with mention of the adjusted gross altogether? As I've pointed out before:

No one as of yet has calculated a truly precise and definite referential adjusted gross for a film, since doing so would have to take into account most (or all) of the following:

• Box office gross on initial release
• Ticket price at time of release, or its relative price to other commodities in a given year, in relation to general inflation and gross domestic product. Related to that:
• economic conditions that may help or hurt the entertainment industry as a whole (theaters in 2008 lowered ticket prices to attract more viewers though the average ticket cost $7.00)
• Population at time of release—to be used to calculate:
• Per capita ticket purchase number
• Availability of movies (number of theaters and screens, number of prints)
• Competition of other media (television, internet, home video, film piracy)
• the total number of movies in the marketplace at a given time
• Screen quotas (no influence on U.S. box office)
• Price differences: matinee and evening tickets, roadshow tickets, or difference between rural and urban cinemas
• Length of release (number of weeks)

Most adjusted-gross lists, such as those on Box Office Report[3] and Box Office Mojo[4], simply multiply the number of tickets sold (usually including re-releases) with the current average movie ticket price.

The above can be found in our own article List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada. It is clear that any sort of adjusted-gross value is little more than an interesting curiosity, especially when it's simply tickets sold multiplied by average ticket prices. Tickets sold would probably be a more useful figure to include in the article.

Also, I believe Betty was using WP:SARCASM. Notice that she doesn't even have a userpage. ;) AniRaptor2001 (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that might be a better solution since the notability of the adjusted gross hasn't really been established. If Variety or NY Times run a story like "Avatar now the 10th most successful film of all time adjusted for inflation" then it can be incorporated into the article as their opinion (since there are so many different ways of calculating these things), but to just plonk it in as an unqualified 'fact' like we do with the proper gross seem to be ignoring the context slightly. Betty Logan (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'll notice while reading articles from the NY Times or Variety on this ranking, 99% of the time they cite the exact same list we are citing. DrNegative (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I know, but it certainly won't be making my column in the Wall Street Journal while its figures are wrong. Betty Logan (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Does Jake pray, or contact‚ or what?

There was a revision in the Plot section saying "Jake attempts to contact Eywa, via neural connection to the Tree of Souls, to intercede on behalf of the Na'vi in the coming battle". I first changed "attempts to contact" back to ”prays" as more faithful to the plot, but then, agreeing with another editor that the word "prays" may be taken by some as loaded and too religious, changed it to " Jake entreats Eywa" as more neutral yet conveying his mood of urgency and humble dependence better.

Besides, the proposed wording "Jake attempts to contact Eywa... to intercede on behalf of the Na'vi in the coming battle" is ambiguous as it may be read as either "contacting her to to make her intercede" or "contacting her for being able to intercede". Cinosaur (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The main antagonist referred to her as a "deity" in the film so I would think "prays" would be appropriate. However, if neutrality is the issue, why not just say "speak to"? Technically thats what he was doing. Just my opinion. DrNegative (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"Speaks to" is definitely more neutral, but too much so. Jake clearly came not for a chat with Eywa, but in order to humbly and helplessly ask for her intervention -- something that even Na'vi had not dared asking of her, as Neytiri pointed out to him. In my opinion, whatever verb we settle on should be the one that conveys not just the fact of Jake's one-way communication to Eywa, but also his earnest and urgent appeal to her. Synonyms are: "appeals", "petitions", "implores", "begs", "prays", "pleads with", "beseeches" will all do. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I'll have to go with prays since the true definition of it is "an active effort to communicate with a deity or spirit." DrNegative (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

'Prays' is my preference too, as was 'soul' elsewhere. But even my short stint editing Wiki taught me to be conscious of some editor's being allergic to religious terms or alleged religious agendas. ;) Shouldn't we for this reason alone settle for a non-religious synonym of 'prayer'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinosaur (talk • contribs) 00:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh I agree some other input would be great on this matter. It is consensus on a matter of preference being a "Plot" section really. DrNegative (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We, the observers, learn that Pandora holds some sort of vast neural network, and that some entity known as Eywa exists -- be it a deity, a computer, or a post-singularity consciousness (my personal opinion). But from the perspective of the Na'vi, and by extension Jake, Eywa is a deity. I don't think it's at all inconsistent to refer to his communication with Eywa as prayer. -FeralDruid (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done I have reverted it back to 'prays' then. Cinosaur (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Box office changes

I've made some changes to the layout of the box office section, I'll break them down here. I think it helps structure the film's performance much more chronologically and allows for a better understanding of its week-by-week performance, domestically and internationally.

Under "opening weekend", we have a paragraph discussing the domestic opening, and one for the international opening.

Under "further release", the discussion of each weekend is separated out into its own set of sentences. I feel that this reads better than a large chunk of text. The large amount of numerical values make it confusing to look at.

"Totals" consolidates all the figures that must be continuously updated, such as total gross (and how many days have elapsed since release). Overall box-office records also go here. I've placed the inflation-adjusted box office ranking here and noted that it's BOM's particular calculation.

Finally, since this film's box office performance is special (#2 and possibly #1 highest grossing), I've elevated the "Performance Analysis" to the same level as "Box Office" under "Release"

I hope you all agree with these changes, I believe it makes this part of the article a better, clearer read. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, IMO, some of the "paragraphs" (I don't think two and three sentences is a paragraph) could be merged to make at least a five sentence paragraph. Too much white space and unused room. Other than that, it reads good and chronological order is the way to go. :) —Mike Allen 01:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagreed with these changes, AniRaptor2001. There is no reason that a Wikipedia article's Box office section should be split into this many subsections, not even with this film, which is why I removed them. There is no reason that this article cannot summarize the numbers in the same way that The Dark Knight (film) article does. We should not document every weekend this film is in theaters. And no Wikipedia film article documents every weekend a film is/was in theaters; we would have a pretty long Box office section if we did. If we start seeing things like..."In the 7th week," "In the 8th week," etc., we should eliminate that. This article's Box office section (excluding the Performance analysis section) is close to the same length as The Dark Knight (film) article's box office section; I am not seeing how it is too long or had become "unwieldy," but it does not need to be much longer than that; having all those subsections is inviting it to be longer than that, for each section to be expanded upon. And the Performance analysis section is a part of the Box office section; it is about the film's box office performance, so I am not getting your reason for eliminating that as a subsection of the Box office section. Because this film's performance is special is one of the main reasons it should be a subsection of the Box office section.

And, Mike, I am all for you merging some of that stuff. Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw a need to separate the chronological account of the film's box office performance from discussion of the records it has attained, etc. I feel like that is still preserved, so I can agree with the way we've got it set up now (without subheadings). I also agree that it's not the best idea to keep adding weeks to the section, but weeks in which the film achieved significant goals should be preserved separately, IMO. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

DrNegative has reformatted the section, to cut down on small lone paragraphs, and I appreciate the change. But are you against this? Flyer22 (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, I think where we stand is a good solution. I wasn't completely happy with the subsections either, but it felt like the best solution at the time. I feel like there should definitely be a logical separation of topics within the section, and I think we've achieved that now: Domestic release, International release, long term performance, current status. I feel like I should've just put it like this in the first place! AniRaptor2001 (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)