Jump to content

Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Avatar which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —KelleyCook (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Awards Section Should Be Removed

The section called "Awards" on the page lists two awards, but these are awards that James Cameron has won for the body of his work over the years. Neither is a specific award for the film Avatar, and thus should not be on this page. Since the page is currently protected, I can't make the change. Someone should delete it, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.83.203 (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Taken care of. Betty Logan (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

There have been numerous edits lately that contradict previously established facts. I propose that the article be made semi-protected on a permanent basis. Gamaur (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the most expensive film ever made

FOX has confirmed it. I think we can freely place the lowest estimate to 300 million now? http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/07/avatar.gianopulos/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by AVATARia (talk • contribs) 16:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The interview makes it quite clear it's the most expensive film Fox has ever made. Since the likes of Spiderman 3 and Harry Potter etc were made by other studios then it doesn't automatically imply that Avatar is the most expensive. Betty Logan (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
That's true and I missed that the first time I read that article. However, I would like to point out that wiki has an article about the most expensive movies ever. The number 1 is pirates of the carribean at $300 million. So yes, if there is an article somewhere stating that the budget has hit/exceeded the 300 mill mark, then that's cool.

But also note that in the wiki article that lists the movies, it states specifically that only films that have been completed and released will be counted. But I see no harm (if you can prove 300 million) in stating it is slated to be the most expensive movie ever made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.199.81 (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The ongoing production cost is best tracked in a production section on the film article itself, where it can be continually monitored and updated. Betty Logan (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times says they estimate it at being $500 million now. $500 Million —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.95.33 (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That's an old story. If you read what its says you will come across this: "Published reports have put the production budget at more than $230 million....But the price tag would be higher if the financial contribution of Mr. Cameron and others were included. When global marketing expenses are added, “Avatar” may cost its various backers $500 million.". That $500m figure includes the marketing and distributions costs, among other things, but it clearly states the film's budget is $230m. Fox have since that article have confirmed the budget is $237m. The only cost that is recorded in the film infobox is the production budget, because this is the actual cost of making the film. Betty Logan (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Final Poster released

The final poster has just been officially released. Gamaur (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Official budget announced

A Fox spokesman has announced that the offcial budget is $237m (http://www.thewrap.com/article/true-cost-and-consequences-avatar-11206). Should the estimates be replaced by the official budget in the infobox, or is it common practice to retain third party estimates? Betty Logan (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC) The official budget according to the link you gave as reference is 387 not 237 read it fully. Syler.mi4 (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read it fully. The reference says the cost is $237m with a further $150m for promotion. Promotion costs are separate to production budgets. Betty Logan (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

RT wrong

It is incorrect. The freshness according to RT is not 91%, but 92%. And there were 36 reviews so far, and not just 32. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AVATARia (talk • contribs) 17:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It is obviously going to keep changing. Why not just put "The freshness rating is over 90%" and then it won't have to be altered everytime a review is added? Betty Logan (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Critical Reception

Shouldn't this be updated? Currently the film has no reviews and only lists the Rotten Tomatoes numbers which seem higher than the real reviews coming in. Here are a few other reviews that might be included:

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/talking_pictures/2009/12/avatar-3-stars.html

Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips says of the film:

"The first 90 minutes of “Avatar” are pretty terrific — a full-immersion technological wonder with wonders to spare. The other 72 minutes, less and less terrific. Cameron’s story, which has been kicking around in his head for decades, becomes intentionally grueling in its heavily telegraphed narrative turn toward genocidal anguish, grim echoes of Vietnam-style firefights and the inevitable payback time and sequel-set-up.

The movie really does look like fantastic, whether it’s dealing with flying prehistoric-yet-futuristic birds or fluorescent mushrooms or imagery perilously close to what Cameron himself refers to (in the Cameron biography “The Futurist”) as “fantasy van art.”

So it’s naive. So it’s simplistic. So was Cameron’s “The Abyss,” which tried to push visual effects to a new realm and didn’t quite succeed. This one does. (By all means, see it in 3-D.) Cameron’s a filmmaker to drive you nuts: “Titanic” may have been the worst-written film I ever willingly paid to see twice, but he’s not a lunkhead. Or rather, he’s an intuitive lunkhead, with real cinema in his blood. “Avatar,” perhaps too much in synch with Cameron’s previous walloper, gets waterlogged in the later going as well."


And here is Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly's take on it:

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20326743,00.html

"(The film) sprawls on for two and a half hours... Cameron is such a skilled nuts-and-bolts filmmaker that the story he tells is never less than serviceable; it has none of the nattering clutter of one of the latter-day Star Wars films. But it's never more than serviceable either... It's the story, and the characters, that could have used another dimension or two. At first, the Na'vi, including Jake, impress us with their fluid, prancing movements and the individuality of their facial features. But the more the movie goes on, the less expressive those faces come to seem, because there's no subtext to them.

In Avatar, his 3-D alien-jungle virtual-reality action-adventure epic, Cameron has the effects-driven visual awe part down, but this time he gives the heart short shrift. The result is less a movie for the ages than a quintessential movie of its time: dazzling and immersive, a ravishing techno-dream for the senses, but one that's likely to leave audiences simultaneously amazed and unmoved. Then again, for a great many moviegoers these days, that may be enough." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Critter09 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur; why are only the positive reviews cited?

TOP CRITICS

The Top Critics say 100% fresh. It should be in the article. --AVATARia (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

RT is not a reliable source for the reception of the film, and the text, "it currently has a rating of XXX" generates constant updates which make pointless and trivial changes for no value. The "current" rating is always out of date. What might be reasonable, is a statement "on such-and-such a date it had a rating of XXX", but only if it's not a constantly moving target with constant updates. And even then, a reliable source would need to be found for what a RT rating was at some point in the past. Critical reviews are excellent sources for the reception of a film, and it's reasonable to include multiple reviews from different points of view. Surplusage (multiple reviews saying the same thing) isn't a serious problem; just find the nicest phrasing and drop the rest. But Rotten Tomatos just doesn't pass the tests for reliable sources. Tb (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is a dispute over the legitimacy of a source you should take it up at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. I don't really know enough about it to offer an opinion, but the constant editing to update it destabilises the article. Betty Logan (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Tb, you are fighting WP:Consensus regarding Rotten Tomatoes being a reliable and acceptable source here at Wikipedia. How do you figure that Rotten Tomatoes is not a reliable source for film reviews, or for reviews of any genre for that matter? It has excellent critical reviews; some notable critics, such as Roger Ebert, even list their reviews there (as he did for this film). It does include multiple reviews from different points of views, and it is not a place where just anyone can list their reviews. Only the most trusted critics are allowed to list their reviews there, and that site cannot be cheated. Metacritic is just as reliable. Rotten Tomatoes' ratings constantly being changed at first is due to the constant reviews at first. It needing to initially be constantly updated here at Wikipedia does not make it unreliable. Additionally, we relay these scores with the type of individual reviews you are speaking of.
I will bring in other editors on this matter to further explain. Flyer22 (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are reliable sources for films released in recent years. The numbers will change, but they will not change much after a certain sample size. This is because of normalization, a concept in statistics. For example, with 100 reviews accumulating a 75% rating, 101 reviews won't budge that a bit. Both RT and MC stay. Erik (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It may change quite a bit now, especially since the film has not yet been widely released. For most films a few weeks/months after their release, the rating will stabilize and rarely change after that. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd be delighted to see the discussion and consensus. Mere frequent use doesn't make consensus; open discussion does. The sites do not pass the standards of Wikipedia's reliable sources in my opinion; if there is a consensus against it, you should have no trouble identifying the discussion. Tb (talk) 07:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
MOS:FILM#Critical response explains how to use Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. For example, I do not use the websites for Fight Club (film) because they were not around at the time and do not adequately reflect the consensus at the time. (Critics were polarized at the time, but today it's looked on more kindly.) A recent Featured Article using these websites is Changeling (film). Hope this answers your question. It's just a matter of updating the numbers fairly frequently. Erik (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes rating just changed to 86% —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peachypwnage (talk • contribs) 00:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I just changed it to that. But if you can edit this article in its locked state as well, you can go ahead and update it without reporting it here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Avatar is widely accepted as a groundbreaking film

The consensus amongst the critics who reviewed this film collectively agree the film is groundbreaking. Thus it's only logical to include this notable information in the article, perhaps in the article's intro as it's highly notable. I'll include this sometime next week. Glorythom (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Release Date

The article currently states December 16th as the release date for this movie. It is in reality December 18th. Requesting that this be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.119.56 (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The release date is the 16th, that is when it is first available to the paying public. It has its widest market release actually on the 17th but that is irrelevant - the 16th is the release date and all other dates are just opening dates. See WP:FilmRelease: Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release dates in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings. If other release dates are found to be notable, it may be appropriate to include them in the main body of the article Betty Logan (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm in France, and I will see the movie tomorrow, Wednesday December 16th 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.193.72.105 (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Release in Germany will be on the 17th, as the german "cinema-week" begins on Thursday (with some exclusions for worldwide releases with Avatar not being one of them) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.79.134.15 (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Golden Globes

Can the entry be more specific? Avatar has picked up four Golden Globe noms - Best Film (Drama), Best Director, Best Original Score and Best Original Song ("I See You" by Leona Lewis).86.150.96.171 (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Release date

The release date that is mentioned is december 16. But actual release date is december 18th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dearpurojit (talk • contribs) 16:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. See above. Betty Logan (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Roger Dean

Does anybody know anything about the involvement of Yes album cover artist Roger Dean (artist)? He seemes to have had a pretty strong influence on the look of Pandora (the rock arches, the floating rocks, the design of the flying animals, the forest pathways and so on) --193.196.8.102 (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Information

Regarding the plot there are several inaccuracies. Eyra is supposed to be Eywa. Tsu'Tey is NOT Neytiri's brother but rather the strongest warrior in the clan and therefore next to be chief and taking Neytiri as his mate. (Neytiri herself will inherit her mother's position of shaman or spiritual interpreter of Eywa for the Omaticaya).

And Jake and Neytiri were not out 'hunting' when the bulldozers appeared, Neytiri took him to some sacred trees where she informed him since he had become a part of the Omaticaya people that a part of his right of passage he could choose a mate, after a few misunderstandings, Neytiri and Jake consummate their love and become lifemates... To Tsu'Tey's displeasure. Please fix these mistakes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.102.41 (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to comment on the title of "American" 3D science fiction film. Considering James Cameron is the creator and producer of this epic, not to mention the over-all source of motivation for this project, I would say this is at the very least a joint Canadian-American film. It is sad to see that so many great Canadian icons in the film industry are always acknowledged as "American". —Preceding unsigned comment added by White Locust Storm (talk • contribs) 17:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

James cameron produced the film through Lightstorm Entertainment which is a registered US company. In fact the only non-US company involved in production is a UK one so it is technically a US-UK co-production. It might qualify as a New Zealand film as well under NZ law if over 50% of it was filmed there. It could only qualify as a Canadian production if James Cameron personally owned the copyright for the film, which I doubt. Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of title

In this section, we discuss what meaning James Cameron intended for the movie's title, since "Avatar" can mean a number of things.

Meaning of the term 'avatar'

Someone has put "The term "Avatar" comes from the Sanskrit word Avatāra, which means "descent"." in the first paragraph, with no reference.

Unless Cameron or someone has said this, I think it's much more likely to be related to the hindu 'incarnation' interpretation, [[1]] I just looked and the term comes from there but the way it's used should probably direct to the hindu meaning instead of it's root --It Figures. (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hindu uses sanskrit word avatar as incarnation,in short they interchangeably same.Alokprasad (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Just check out our Avatar article. There, you will learn that the literal meanign of the term is "descent", and that the concept is roughly similar but not identical to that of "incarnation" in Christology. --dab (𒁳) 10:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, neither of these is actually correct. The movies name comes from a new meaning of the word that was co-opted by Neal Stephenson's in 1993's Snow Crash. The new meaning i a representation of a real person in a virtual computerized world.

Ex: *

4. computer games computer game persona: in computer games, a character or persona of a player with a graphical representation[2]

-- KelleyCook (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Word Originates from Sanskrit/Hindu term of Avatar ,which is subsequently used in computer graphics/program and others.Alokprasad (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with the way this issue appears in the lede. The last sentence of the first paragraph reads: "The film's title refers to an avatar, a 3-D representation of a real person in a virtualized world." It is unsourced, and I believe it should be removed because we do not know what Cameron's intentions were. As we can see above, avatar has many meanings, beginning with the Hindu origin. To be honest, my intuition tells me (though this has no bearing on how the article actually reads) that Cameron had the Hindu version in mind, has the film as strong religious themes. But, my opinion means nothing. But in the end, if it is not sourced, it should be removed. JEN9841 (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it could be taken in two ways; the Avatar bodies are representations of their operators in the Na'vi world; or it could also refer to the humans being known as 'sky people' to the Na'vi. I'm going to go ahead and take it out, since there's no reference. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Avatar Reference

I have an issue with one of sentences at the start of the article.

"The film's title refers to an avatar, a 3-D representation of a real person in a virtualized world."

This is wrong for so many reasons, but I'm not trying to insult whoever wrote it.

An avatar is the physical representation of a God on earth, the definitioun was taken from Hinduism. It has changed in meaning to represent pretty much an incarnation or representation of someone else. This is used in virtual realities because it makes sense, but the name of the film here has nothing to do with video games or virtual realities, and even though it is a 3d movie the title isn't supposed to be a reference to the slack definition we've come accustomed to, but it references instead the bodies the humans use to integrate into the alien world.

They do use them remotely similar to a virtual reality of sorts, but it's still not what the title is referencing to and should be changed or removed.

I apologize for any gramatical or spelling mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.35.82 (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of "Avatar"

After correcting the sanskrit meaning and origin of the word Avatar with this edit,[3] that meaning was removed entirely here,[4] with a rather bitey comment about forcing a religion lesson on people with what is only a 'loosely related definition'. Yet Cameron himself, in a 2007 Time interview, answers the question "What is an avatar, anyway?" with "It's an incarnation of one of the Hindu gods taking a flesh form. In this film what that means is that the human technology in the future is capable of injecting a human's intelligence into a remotely located body, a biological body. It's not an avatar in the sense of just existing as ones and zeroes in cyberspace. It's actually a physical body."[5] I think it would be helpful for readers of this article to understand that Cameron is actually basing the concept and title on the original Hindu meaning of the term. Rather than getting into an edit-war over this (and possibly imposing religion on the article) I would rather let the regular editors of this article decide if this is important enough, and where it should go. Priyanath talk 02:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It probably doesn't belong in the lede. If you feel it's important to the article maybe you could elaborate on the origin of the term and its interpretation in the film in the main body of the text, for example under "Themes" in the "Production" section. Betty Logan (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't add it to the lede, but just corrected the mistake. But with its absence, I thought other editors here might be interested in knowing the origin of the movie's title and main concept, in Cameron's own words. As I said, I'll let others decide if such a thing is relevant. I won't be adding it back myself. Priyanath talk 05:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the sort of explanation that allows a useful statement regarding the meaning of the title to be made. Good stuff!! AniRaptor2001 (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

NPR source

This NPR interview might be helpful for the Production section (unless everything has already been covered). I haven't read whatever's on the site, but I heard the audio in my car.

  • "James Cameron, A King With A Soft Touch?". National Public Radio. 18 December 2009. Retrieved 18 December 2009.

rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And these might have some useful stuff on the language portion of the Production section (the first LL one is more on the linguistic structure of Nav'i—which is seems Kwamikagami has already found&mdah;, the NYT one is more on development):

rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)/Archive_2&oldid=1074609785"