Talk:The Last Airbender (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

$280m budget edits

There have been a couple of edits changing the budget from $150m sourced with this reference (LA Times) to $280m sourced with this reference (Cinema Blend). I changed it back but User:ChaosMaster16 reverted my edit with the advice to supply a "more up to date" reference. My concern here is both sources state the production budget is $150m, not $280m. The $280m figure is arrived at be incorporating the $130m marketing budget, but this figure does not contribute towards the cost of making the film. Some production companies don't even release their own films so don't even incur the marketing costs and for this reason none of the other film articles include the marketing costs as the cost of making the film. It's acceptable to document the marketing costs, but not to misrepresent the costs as part of the budget. Both sources make it clear that the cost of making the film was $150m.

The other issue is the source. The Cinema Blend article uses the LA Times article as its source for the information, so under no circumstances should the LA Times reference be replaced by the Cinema Blend article. The original source should always be used where possible, which is the LA Times article in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. The original source is the LA Times article which states $150 million as production costs. -Dylan0513 (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet again I have had to remove the $280 million figure as the "total budget for the film". The source does not state this; it gives a figure for the production budget and a figure for the marketing costs. The article does not state these are the sum total of the costs related to the film so it is synthesis to make such a claim. By the same logic, we could add the cost of the DVD manufacturing and the DVD marketing costs. If the director or producer or any of the actors have percentage deals then the film will incur further costs during its release since the studio will have to pay them more money! In short the source doesn't claim to know the full extent of the film's financial liabilities and neither do you so quit adding inaccurate information to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Again I agree. Budget should refer to production costs. -Dylan0513 (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Whats your problem with the wording? Its the same EXACT meaning. Please dont revert until its sorted out.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

If it's the exact same meaning then there is no reason for replacing the phrases the article uses. Your edits are unconstructive and incorrect for several reasons: i) There has been no official statement regarding the budget so it is not an "official budget" (SYNTHESIS); ii) the article does not state what the total/overall costs are - the production and marketing costs are only two aspects of a film's cost (SYNTHESIS); iii) Promotion and marketing is not the same thing - marketing includes the cost of the prints, the distribution and the promotion (SYNTHESIS); iv) I posted these comments days ago and alerted you to them, but you didn't have the courtesy to respond. Editing is done by CONSENSUS which means you must obtain the agreement of the other editors for your edits to remain in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I gotta ask chaosmaster.. did you revert yourself on the cinemablend source? xDD -Dylan0513 (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't realize that this whole thing was about that. If I did, this wouldn't have happened lmao. Its my fault for not reading correctly. Sorry guys. It looks good now that we have come to a consensus, if that is how Betty Logan feels also. Whats your opinion Dylan?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Honestly it seemed to me that you guys were just warring because of the other reverting you more than because of the wording. The way it is now is fine to me. I think the main thing here is that we don't get costs and budget confused. -Dylan0513 (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think thats what Betty Logan was pretty much upset about the budget word, rather than the overall costs wording.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

You should be commended for rectifying your edits, but you could have made life a lot easier for both of us by just coming to the talk page and discussing the issues when I asked you to. I shouldn't have kept reverting you last night but you make it difficult if you won't discuss the concerns other editors have. The issues with the dodgy reference and the synthesis have been resolved, anyway, so there's no hard feelings on my part. Betty Logan (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I should have, and I am sorry for not. There is no escuse for me not to have come here, and I won't make one up. Im glad we resolved this in a much nicer manner, and there are no hard feelings on my part either.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Edit request from 96.226.69.213, 30 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The film was panned for its very poor 3-D use, laughable dialogue and cast, and story confusion. But did note the visual effects were impressive. The 3-D mistake is made also with Clash of the Titans 2010 film 96.226.69.213 (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.213.198.205, 30 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} "The series from which it was adapted from" needs to have the second "from" removed.

74.213.198.205 (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Good catch, and thanks! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Numbers

It is fair to mention that the movie is hovering around a moderate 75% on "RT Community". Source: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/last_airbender/reviews_users.php

If it is universally negative, it is among major film critics and not general audiences. This number is subject to change once the movie has been released, but it is worth including at this time.

PS, Forgive me if I have broken the page guidelines.

There are currently 21,000+ ratings on the RT Community section for The Last Airbender. The movie hasn't been screen in enough theatres as of yet to make that number anywhere near possible. Considering that the majority of the ratings are full 100% ratings without accompanying reviews, I believe it's fair to say that the RT section isn't an entirely fair assessment of the movie. Jackal Killer (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Archived

Hope no one minds the archive. Thought the page was becoming increasingly difficult to navigate at 130k. Archived threads with no replies April 2010 and older, so last 2 months are still active. Akerans (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Appa & Momo

Shouldnt appa and momo appear in the cast section they may be animals but the are main characters, although i dont think momo has been confirmed if they have shouldnt we add them and those who provide their vocal effects? The Movie Master 1 (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess it could be considered once we know who does their vocal effects if anyone. I don't think we currently know how they are voiced. -Dylan0513 (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess thats fair but even if no one provides vocal effects they should be included The Movie Master 1 (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well they can be included in the character list, but you were talking about the cast section. Can't have it in the cast section if there's no cast for the character xD. -Dylan0513 (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats true but i think that section should be changed to cast and characters with an animals sub section or something if they dont have people that voice them The Movie Master 1 (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Do they vocal effects characters? either way they should be added Ghost07 (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Budget should be changed

The source linked to says the production budget was $150,000,000 and the ad budget was $130,000,000 for a total budget of $280,000,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.214.78 (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The field in the infobox is the budget for the film, not the marketing costs. Betty Logan (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The movie was released on July 2nd not the 1st. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.205.11.205 (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Not according to this: http://www.thelastairbendermovie.com/intl/releasedates/ Betty Logan (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

edit request

Please change the link of Admiral Zhao. It's wrong. Thank you. Jhenderson777 (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

conflicting protection templates

{{edit protected}}

This page has two conflicting protection templates on it:

• {{pp-protected|small=yes}}

  {{pp-semi-vandalism|expiry=July 7, 2010|small=yes}}

Page is currently fully protected and the icon should be:

• {{pp-protected|expiry=6 July 2010|small=yes}}

which is when the full protection is set to expire.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; all-good. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request / July 5, 2010

{{editprotected}}

• In infobox, change the gross from $32,950,000 to $70,500,000; and update the reference to <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=lastairbender.htm |title=The Last Airbender (2010) |publisher=Box Office Mojo |date=2010-07-05 |accessdate=2010-07-05}}</ref>

• In The_last_airbender#Box_office, change the first sentence and reference to the following. ''The Last Airbender'' opened with $16 million, which includes $3 million from its midnight showing, earned $40.5 million its three day weekend, and $53.1 million for its four day holiday weekend.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/thursday-box-office-eclipse-25m-the-last-airbender-16m-toy-story-3-8m/ |title=FIREWORKS FOR 'ECLIPSE': Can't Beat 'New Moon' But Still $280M Worldwide; 'Last Airbender' & 'Toy Story 3' Overperform |first=Nikki |last=Finke |authorlink=Nikki Finke |publisher=[[Deadline.com]] |date=July 5, 2010 |accessdate=July 5, 2010}}</ref>

Should be able to cut/paste these changes. Thanks. Akerans (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry, but edit protected requests are for minor, usually cosmetic, changes. I'm not going to risk continuing and edit war by-proxy. The protection expires in about 24 hours anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Post-Apocolyptic

In Roger Ebert's review, he mentions that the film was set in a post-apocolyptic future of Earth. But I talked to somebody who saw the film and they said there was no such scene. Was this an element of the film that was cut out, and if so can somebody provide a source to prove it? Frohike14 (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Ebert's messed up a bit there. The only proof is the show the movie's based off of72.184.129.252 (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ebert isn't the only reviewer to comment on this. It's really a big mystery and does suggest there may have been a deleted scene to indicate this. We may not know for sure unless an extended release comes out. Jackal Killer (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the film and nothing ever hits that it's set on Earth. Ebert's wrong. And unless solid material from the film itself turns up we should get that out of the article.Skyrocket (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, Ebert isn't the only one to indicate this. He may very well be wrong be he often isn't, and we have to realize that 25 - 45 minutes were cut from the theatrical release... Who knows what Ebert saw that we didn't? Jackal Killer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC).

"Maybe the critics saw a seen we didn't" is speculation and thus clearly doesn't belong in this article. And it's not as if critics are immune to misunderstanding stuff. Show some real evidence that can be sited.Skyrocket (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure they weren't just saying that metaphorically. The Last Airbender is kind of comparable to post-apocalyptic films in it's heavy use of CGI and the overall feel at times, so maybe their comments were inspired by that. Not to mention the fact they are mostly older and are not familiar with the story. If you haven't seen the show and have no understanding of the backstory, it's bound to be more confusing for you. Perhaps they just didn't fully understand the film. However I doubt M. Night would have actually tried to portray it as post apocolytic as it's just not there. It's no where in the storyline the film is based off, and it wouldn't make sense to try and add it. The film's world and backhistory goes back centuries, if not millenia. It wouldn't make sense to say it comes after our much more technologically advanced and much less organic world ceased to exist. It's very obviouslouy set in an alternate world, and likely, an alternate reality. Bliss 182 (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Get a dictionary and learn how to spell--we all know the editors are idiots. Don;t give them more ammo. 71.245.212.153 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC).

Individual articles for cast members

Wouldn't it be possible to seperate their live action characters into seperate articles such as Aang (Live-Action film). There is enough information to this. If people disagree now I think eventually it will be necessary if or when Shyamalan makes sequels to the next one. It might make the articles to long and this way we can add more details to the chracters like plot summarys and more. Ghost07 (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a bad idea. You don't need two articles about the same character - just add a "film depiction" section to the articles that already exist. Betty Logan (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -Dylan0513 (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

So you mean like an extention like some of the transformers articles where it has the cartoon and has the live action characters included as well?Ghost07 (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much the same way it's done with comic book characters with more than one incarnation (cartoons, dimensional counterparts, movie versions, etc.). 69.181.249.92 (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Information about the characters in film should be in the section of the characters article For example here. Jhenderson777 (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No character should really need more than one article, especially seeing as the film didn't explore it's characters particularly thoroughly, all they really need is a paargrapth or two added on to their animated counter part's aritcles. Anymore would be overkill, seeing as realistically the articles wouldn't need to be more than a few paragraphs long in most likelihood. Bliss 182 (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversy Section

Ok, new section because we need to figure this out now that the article has been locked. The Ebert and Marshall quotes are not something that is of that much dispute. What is of dispute is the possible controversy section. I think we already reached a consensus AGAINST a controversy section here: [1]. And because of that I think a consensus in favor of expansion will be needed in order for it to happen. As for my arguments against a controversy section, they are also stated in the previous talk section by several editors: the movie has not even hit theaters yet and even if it had the controversy is a very small part of the movie and it can be covered in the cast section. -Dylan0513 (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You did not want the Ebert and Marshall quotes, so I started the new section under controversy, which you then deleted.

If you use google and look for the last airbender controversy, there are 141,000 results. Any website that runs an article pertaining to the film, always end up with dissenting voices from pro-casters and the anti-casters. From the imdb page, Variety articles, youtube and even the websites.

It is not a "very small" part of the movie, as you want to assert. --Nemogbr (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Ebert and Marshall quotes are a separate issue: they aren't that big of a deal and can be worked out separately. Look, you don't understand what you're talking about. If you want a controversy section, you should be throwing 10 sources at me, not mentioning google results. You should be citing other movie articles with controversy sections that we can use as precedent, not talking about other sites that aren't wikipedia. You have no argument right now. -Dylan0513 (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My opionion on this issue is: Just give it up. Who REALLY cares about this? No one has even heard of the movie, wait until it comes out and put it under the CASTING SECTION!ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

"Not big of a deal" to the point that Frank Marshall had to defend the film to the fans of the series? Asian American rights groups contacting Paramount about their actions is not a big deal?

Within the last year there have been two films with controversy attached: 21 and Tropic Thunder. Dragonball Evolution also mentions it, however briefly. The quotes were added to the "Casting" section. You deleted it and then said you wanted it added to a "Controversy" section. When I created that section, you deleted it.

Data is not created in a vacuum, they have citations and links. Those other sites affect what is entered in wikipedia. Meanwhile, you advocate censoring the data entered. --Nemogbr (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you still don't get I'm ignoring everything you say not related to wikipedia. 21 and Tropic Thunder have controversy sections? Ok, 21 is a good example, Tropic Thunder isn't about casting. Now, the next step would be did 21 have a controversy section before the movie came out? And was the article then considered a good article?

I never said I wanted a controversy section. I don't. I deleted the Marshall and Ebert quotes because they were just that: quotes. Another editor may have deleted them for other reasons. Either way, it should be discussed here first before adding them. -Dylan0513 (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's funny that you chose to delete these quotes, yet there are all types of quotes scattered all over the page. If you want to be biased, at least be consistent about it.--98.207.58.247 (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have posted about those quotes above, but no one has responded yet. And when I deleted the Rathborne quote someone reverted it back. -Dylan0513 (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? "ignoring everything you say not related to wikipedia". What does that mean? We cannot have data in wikipedia articles without providing citations from other sites.

When you deleted the Ebert and MArshall quotes, you typed that they should be part of a controversy section. That's why I created said section.

Deleting the Rathbone statement would leave the page as a simple advert for the film. Ebert and Marshall both have citations and both hold more importance than Rathbone's statement.

As it stands, it looks like it was a minor complaint and that Rathbone was the only one who defended the film. --Nemogbr (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I didn't say that, but if I did then I misspoke. I do not think there should be a controversy section and as it stands there is no support for one.

So let's get to discussing the Ebert and Marshall quotes. I personally would be fine if they were integrated into the casting section not in quote form. If you do that I'll go through the rest of the article and put the quotes into non-quote form. -Dylan0513 (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

They are now integrated and not in quote form. --Nemogbr (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I took out the Rathborne quote and integrated the Marshall and Ebert sources better. I think it works really well this way. -Dylan0513 (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It reads like a person saying "yes you did" and another saying "no we didn't". Basically, no useful information on the matter. The reader will have to go elsewhere to do more research. Now it reads just like an advert for the film.

The film called Extraordinary Measures was the same. I added more reviews. --Nemogbr (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to spell out what the complaints are, we know it's about the casting because of the sentence before. Anything more than the way it is now makes it redundant. -Dylan0513 (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

For those making a controversy discussion without discussing it - you will be reported. The vandalism in this article is getting extreme. -Dylan0513 (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• When I see something about white washing Airbender on CNN then we can put a controversy section, but it's not gotten the publicity you think it has gotten. INternet publicity? Are you kidding me? A little quote that Roger Ebert said in an internet interview is not a big deal. A PRESS CONFERENCE is a big deal. A spot on entertainment tonight is a big deal. Writing a letter to paramount is not a big deal. Unfortunately racebending did not get the support it needed to make a big impact. And for the record I do believe it's absolutely ridiculous that they white washed the movie but we're talking about the article. I think no more then 4 sentences at most are needed in regards to the protest. Let's take James Cameron's Avatar for example. There is actually a protest against it because it didn't include any gay characters in the film! No where in that article did I see any record of it. It's because it's not needed. Whether you want to admit it or not, this is not an article about racebending. It's an article about the movie, and the production involved with it. There is already a couple of sentences about negative reaction about the last airbender. And unless your a complete idiot, everyone has the kindergarden ability to google search, "controvery the last airbender". and several links come up. I liked one of the comments up above, saying this isn't your sociology paper. lol. As "mean" as that might sound it's pretty true. You're letting your views about the casting blind your ability to edit the article properly and thoroughly per wikipedia's rules. --Jason Garrick (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

All films will receive reviews and some more than others. The recent film Extraordinary Measures was the same. There were several entries lauding the film, which were deemed not in keeping with a neutral point of view. The more critical of the reviews have now been included and it is now neutral.

The first was that the movie made Pompe Disease known to people. The rest were critical in that the film did not indicate the costs of the treatment, to the Americans suffering from the disease and that the movie let Big Pharma off the hook.

The last points were not part of the film and may be accused of bias against American healthcare, except that those entries were germane to the subject matter of the film.

Just as The Last Airbender controversy is becoming more known amongst Asia Pacific American groups. --Nemogbr (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, according to what?? I haven't heard ANYTHING about racebending anywhere and I am subbed to most every news source on youtube and follow over 100 accounts on twitter and I've not heard once about racebending in about 8 months... And even then it was only a subtle mention. --65.51.214.37 (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that not enough references have been cited. Here is a sample of what I've collected, having followed this issue: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2010/05/racebending.html http://www.manaa.org/lastairbender.html http://www.racebending.com/v3/ http://derekkirkkim.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-day-in-politics-same-old-racist.html http://www.geneyang.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090128-131008 http://blog.angryasianman.com/2009/02/more-casting-calls-for-last-airbender.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Publius314 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Those are pretty much all blogs. I'm fairly sure that Wikipedia policy discourages using blogs as references in most cases. I Feel Tired (talk)

I Feel Tired is correct. Blogs are largely not acceptable. The Los Angeles Times blog appears to be only source the fits the acceptable criteria. Akerans (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone mentioned that when they see the controversy is mentioned on CNN they'll add the section. Does a mention of the controversy here give enough justification to add it? http://edition.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/01/go.airbender/?fbid=RmDlJDenzDA --69.209.228.57 (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Racebending.com

This link should be kept because there's a whole section regarding the yellowfacing controversy surrounding the cast of the film. It is notable and readers will find it a helpful link. BrittanyLovesNuts (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I would support that view. fansites may be biased, but they can also be informative. This question only comes about when some editors do not like the information provided. Other wikipedia pages have these fansites and blogs and they are kept intact. --Nemogbr (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELNO is clear: "one should avoid links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. The number one rule is that it should be a unique resource beyond what the article would contain. Racebending.com would serve the unique purpose. --Nemogbr (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No it would not. -Dylan0513 (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

@Dylan:

Please give an answer like an adult, rather than an eight year old, in a school playground. --Nemogbr (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to be rude, you're going to be reported. You should have been long ago. First of all, the article already mentions the controversy. Second of all, where are you getting that exception from? Racebending.com is still not a notable source not matter what. -Dylan0513 (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Answering a point by typing "IT would not" does not help in making improvements in this article. You have already edited it to a bare minimum due to your POV that those who need information will have to go elsewhere. --Nemogbr (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that is definitely not the number one rule. If it was, every article would be overrun with links to special interest groups and/or commercial sites claiming to have unique content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea is that sites are vetted for commercial content. If the preponderance of the content are commercial, then they should not be included. racebending.com was a site for the fans and have now become more inclined towards criticising Hollywood casting practices.

AS it stands the page is very much biased towards the film makers, rather than concerns of some of the fans. Other films like U-571 (film) ended up with controversy sections as the largest part of the article. It was inevitable with all the complaints in the media available.

One way to prevent that is to ensure readers have access to other sites regarding the controversy or people will keep finding that article as too skewed towards Paramount. --Nemogbr (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• You're letting your extreme passion for the racebending movement blind your judgment about the necessary points needed for the article. Anyone with a brain can google search, "controversy the last airbender". And what up with the name calling Nemo? C'mon. It's not needed. Also, racebending.com is obviously very biased. I have an idea. Maybe we can link a part in the casting section to yellowface and then on the yellow face picture provide a link to racebending.com? What do u guys think? And not for anything but the submarine movie you mention is based on true historical events, not on a childrens marketed cartoon show... --Jason Garrick (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Again, that's not how WP:ELNO reads, "one should avoid links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." To use a different example, every major corporation has websites that are critical of it. We don't add links to these websites in their article nor do we consider the article biased or skewed towards the corporation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Okay thanks Neil. That did help enlighten the situation and now I have been informed so I take back what I said earlier. If we are not supposed to post blogs, then would shouldn't. --Jason Garrick (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Would Henry Jenkins be considered an authority? There's an article and interviews about Racebending here Oconel (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)oconel

I removed the link before reviewing this section, but removed the link for a few reasons.

1. None of the other sources in the section mention that site.
2. It advertises the site, and it's not Wikipedia's job to advertise sites.
3. Having external links in the middle of an article just looks bad. It looks better without it sitting there.
4. It shouldn't be there per WP:ELPOINTS
5. Most important, having a negative link there without a positive link made the section WP:UNDUE; and in order to help produce a more WP:NPOV section it needed to be removed.
   If I'm in error, please fee; free to ad the link, but, I think, for the reasons I've given it should remain out. Thanks. Akerans (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• I was thinking of making a page about the racebending.com organization. I am not associated with the group in any way other than the fact that we are both fans of the Avatar: The Last Airbender. Would this still be grounds for COI (conflict of interest)? I feel that I am pretty neutral about it, but of course, that is just my opinion. I haven't read very far into all the rules, so I don't know if there are other issues about me making the page. I'm posting this here because this group is greatly related to this movie. Kaylahawk (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:COI means you're personally involved with the subject you're writing about. If you don't work for them, then you're fine. However, they do not appear to meet general notability guidelines. Racebending.com is generally not the main subject of the articles in which they appear, rather the articles are about the The Last Airbender and mention how racebending.com is involved. Since the articles primarily discuss racebending's involvement, the Wikipedia article could not fairly represent racebending.com as a whole; without using racebending.com as a source, but then you run the risk of original research. That's not to say there are not independent sources that discuss them in detail, as I haven't check. If there are such sources, then have at it. Akerans (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Ishais, 12 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I've found a grammar mistake in the following phrase in the article:

The word "stlye" should be "style". I've marked the the misspelled word in bold:

In a New York's Vulture interview, Shyamalan admitted that his style and art-form of storytelling resulted in the negative reviews of the film and compared it to asking a painter to change to a different stlye, "I bring as much integrity to the table as humanly possible. It must be a language thing, in terms of a particular accent, a storytelling accent. I can only see it this certain way and I don't know how to think in another language. I think these are exactly the visions that are in my head, so I don't know how to adjust it without being me."

Best regards, Ishai

Ishais (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

suggestion

• Hi, I don't know much about Wikipedia's formatting or rules, but would MANAA be considered a reliable source? They are a legitimate organization, and they respond to Shyamalan's interviews and stuff. -July 4, 2010 (er, iono how to sign) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.71.149 (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe Manaa would be considered a WP:PRIMARY source, and anything written by Wikipedia about Manaa runs the risk of original research. Also, if not mistaken, the Los Angeles Times has written about Manaa's involvement with the movie, so that information can be used without the risk original research. Akerans (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait wait wait. Does this mean we have to go through ALL of the movie articles with a "Critical Reception" section on Wikipedia, and remove the first sentence?! WereWolf (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It means we reached a consensus for this article. If you want to dispute it, please do and try to convince others. -Dylan0513 (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question but alright. WereWolf (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The answer is no, we can't establish a consensus for all articles on the talk page for one specific article. -Dylan0513 (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The consensus isn't to not have a sentence; there currently isn't a consensus on how to phrase the opening sentence so it is being kept out until one forms. Betty Logan (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sequels

Why do we have a section on sequels when none have been confirmed to be greenlit? Shyamalan is just talking and there's no indication as of yet whether Paramount has any intention of going through with the sequels... If anything this should be clarified. Jackal Killer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC).

I think I agree. While sources do exist with quotes from M Night, that doesn't mean they are notable enough to be in the article. -Dylan0513 (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Because we are presenting the information that a sequel was possible. If a sequel ends up not being greenlit, we can take the information and move it to the lead in better wording. For now, a sequels section will do. (Similar to Avatar (2009 film)) ChaosMaster_Chat 02:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Name Mispronunciations

I think that the mispronunciations of Aang (Ayng) and Sokka (Sock-a) should be adressed. In the film, yet another mess up, the names are pronounced as "Aung" and "Sowka" respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.163.166 (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about addressing it, but they weren't a mistake; they were changed to the pronunciation of real-world Asiatic and/or Inuit names. Why these names have real-world counterparts, while the people themselves don't, however, remains unexplained. Kaylahawk (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Except they weren't really Asiatic names and the source material was in English and already pronounced them correctly. Just another example of M. Night being arrogant, thinking he's more correct than the source material.71.190.182.22 (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Kaylahawk, do you possibly have any reliable sources where we can state this in the article? Personally, I think it would be worth mentioning with a few reliable sources in the development/production section. ChaosMaster_Chat 02:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Source? How about every single episode? C Ronald (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There's an interview where Shyamalan explains why he changed the pronunciation of the names, and I've heard of an interview where the creators explain the pronunciations they chose. Both could be used if the subject is deemed relevant enough. Jackal Killer (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not the source I originally came by that explained this, but one of the times he mentions it is with indiemoviesonline in an interview: http://www.indiemoviesonline.com/news/m-night-shyamalan-in-his-own-words-on-the-last-airbender-race-controversy-250610 Kaylahawk (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Quote: "And I fought like crazy to have the pronunciation of the names to go back to the Asian pronunciation. So you say 'Ahng' instead of 'Aaang' because it's correct. It's not 'I-rack,' it's 'ee-Rock.'"

Aang and Iroh as pronounced in the show are PERFECTLY fine according to Mandarin Chinese.

Aang = "Ang" as in Ang Lee, which means "Peace". Iroh = "Ai - roh" from the characters given by the original creators.

I believe Shymalan chose to go with SOUTH Asian pronunciations of the names, considering he went so much out of the way to take away the Chinese influences on the show. (Chinese characters to random scribbles anyone?)

I've been racking my head over this as well-- the obvious example would be the very term "Chinese characters", written essentially the same (with some variations) but pronounced variously as: "Hanzi" in Mandarin, "Kanji" in Japanese, "Hanja" in Korean and "Hantu" in Vietnamese... not to mention the Chinese dialects!

So is Ong now of Thai or South-East Asian origin as in Ong Bak?

I mean, everyone speaks (American) English in the movie, but Iroh is pronounced Japanese, Aang is pronounce Chinese/Asian, etc.... when the actors for Iroh are Indian/Middle-eastern, Caucasian, etc.?

Nemogbr (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Diegesis question

It current reads "no diagetic dialogue, but merely narration." Diegesis means narration doesn't it? There is no dialog from the characters, you just hear the narrator speaking? Dream Focus 17:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Diegesis is a type of narration. I believe "no diagetic dialogue, but merely narration" means "the trailer does not use story like narration, but simple narration." Which is in reference to the narrator, not the characters. That is not to say my interpretation is correct, since I don't have access to the source and can not verify the claim made. Akerans (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Box Office

The box office tally listed isn't the same as that listen on the source Box Office Mojo. It estimates $70,500,000 not $32,950,000. Its actual weekend domestic box office tally was $40,650,000. The amount should be changed to reflect this. Puckeylut (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It will be changed when the article is unlocked. See above. -Dylan0513 (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The box office total for Monday was overestimated by as much as 10%, or $1.3 million. http://www.altfg.com/blog/movie/the-last-airbender-box-office-less-than-estimated/ Jackal Killer (talk) 06:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the reference to this film being Shyamalan's most financially successful release since his 2004 film, The Village. Financial success is a subjective term and given that the costs of producing and marketing this movie apparently exceeded 280 million dollars, it is premature to deign this film a financial success even when evaluated in a most favorable light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.108.192 (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference in claiming the film is a financial success, and then talking about the film's opening numbers. The article does the latter, not the former, and there is a source from the Washington Post for that information. Akerans (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference, which is why the article should just stick to the numbers, which it doesn't when it states that the film is Shyamalan's most "financially successful release." Citing a blog entry on the WashingtonPost.com website which asserts the same does nothing to change the fact that to make such a claim is subjective and mere opinion. The movie is still 9 figures away from achieving any net revenue so it is extremely subjective to attribute "financial success" to this film compared to any of Shyamalan's other films. Box office numbers are not equatable to "financial success." The use of the term really doesn't have any place here, particularly when coherent counterarguments can be made as to why the box office numbers don't signify "financial success." Further the only factual information alleged (box office numbers) in that blog entry is not even consistent with numbers presented in that paragraph in this Wikipedia article, so the citation's only purpose is to attempt to legitimize the placement of mere opinion in an area of this article which, as you stated, should stick to the numbers and not mere opinion. Therefore I am removing the citation as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.197.109.162 (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinions are acceptable for inclusion with attribution to a reliable published source. I believe The Washington Post to be a reliable source, they fall under WP:NEWSBLOG, and are acceptable in this case. And, perhaps your definition of release differs from most everyone else, but overall performance does not diminish what a film accomplishes during its release. Akerans (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not unusual for film articles to contain financial analyis, which is of course inherently subjective. Such analysis should be treated like critical reception though i.e. notable opinion and since "success" is a financial assessment then it should be clear it's an opinion, and it should be clear in the text whose opinion it is. If it's to be stated as fact then it should stipulate "highest grossing release since..." etc. Betty Logan (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the Box office section is to "[p]rovide a summary of the film's commercial performance (box office grosses), denominated in the film's national currency", not to provide random unsubstantiated opinions about the commercial success of the movie. To the extent an an assessment is to be presented about the commercial success of a movie in the Box office section, it's supposed to be determined by a "consensus from objective (retrospective if possible) sources about how a film performed and why." An examination of the current gross revenue to the production overhead alone defies drawing a conclusion of "financial success" and one would be hard pressed to find a consensus among objective sources supporting the notion that this film is "financially successful." If you want to state that the film has the highest gross box office receipts since The Village then why not simply do exactly that and cite an objective source like this rather then cite an opinion from a blog about how "financially successful" the film is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.197.109.162 (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I revised the section to keep the same indicator, but with a different source and more directly based on numbers. I used "highest grossing" instead of "financially successful" because of budget disparities, but the overall meaning is the same. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Casting Section - August 2010 reversions?

I added more information to the casting section on August 2nd but ChaosMaster16 keeps reverting the updated information. The updated information (revision 22:44, 2 August 2010) includes references to multiple RELIABLE sources such as the Boston Globe, the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post.

ChaosMaster16 's justification for the reversion is that they are "a great deal of unconstructive edits" and that "Racebending.com is not considered a source" but the added content does NOT source Racebending.com; it sources articles from well-established media outlets that mention the site's involvement in the casting controversy.

The added content was FACTUAL and relevant to the Casting section of the article discussing the continued controversy; with multiple reliable sources. (For example: "On July 1st, 2010--the film's opening date--Racebending.com, the Media Action Network for Asian Americans, the National Korean American Service & Education Consortium, and the Korean Resource Center organized a protest against "The Last Airbender." A demonstration of over 100 people in Hollywood, Calif. gathered in front of the Cinerama Dome to protest the movie's casting practices. [linking to KABC, Los Angeles Times, and Annenberg School of Journalism]") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.171.72.182 (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You made quite a lot of changes that substantially altered the article. People who have worked hard on that section might not be too happy about a blanket makeover. You have a right to add content though if it is sourced and relevant. Try introducing your changes in smaller chunks and more systematically, and then they can be accepted or rejected on a point by point basis. Betty Logan (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight, Betty Logan. I didn't feel the changes altered the meaning of the article (ala a makeover) since it only added more news (the section was only updated through May 2010; I updated through July 4th); but I understand the concern. I will try to introduce changes in smaller chunks in the future--just wish I didn't have to fight to include reliably sourced information since, the reasons for the reverts (eg: "unconstructive," unreliable source) did not seem strongly justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.171.72.182 (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of the stuff is good, other information just repeats what was already said. For example, the letter-writing and Ebert's take on the casting have already been covered; there's no need to mention that twice. The boycott stuff is new, and I think there's a place for it in the article. Akerans (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Akerans. Just want to put it out there that I plan to add more references and reliable sources to the casting section of the page. I will be adding a sentence detailing further fan reactions (additional information, not rehash) and statistics about the fan backlash, sourcing a Los Angeles Times article. I will also add an interview quote from M. Night Shyamalan and I have three reliable sources that detail the protest that occurred on July 1st. ( 64.171.72.182 (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC) )

Why don't you add the section below so we can all work on it (maybe in bold so we can easily tell what the new materil is?)? The edits you made were way too biased and deleted details that weren't. Also, racebending.com is not a reliable source and we should refrain from using/stating it in the article. ChaosMaster_Chat 20:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This is very furstrating. ChaosMaster16 has reverted my edits several times arguing that they are "biased" and "unconstructive" yet can't seem to justify why they are not worthy of being included in the article. I never said that Racebending.com is a reliable source; the fact is that it EXISTS and that several verified reliable sources--print media--have mentioned it playing a significant role in the casting controversy. I did not delete "unbiased" details. Each of my edits was done individually this time around explaining the exact reasons why I included them. (64.171.72.182 (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC))

Why don't you add the information below so we can work on it without causing an edit war or disrupting the article? I'll be more than willing to work this out. ChaosMaster_Chat 21:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Casting Revisions:

Current Language (August 2nd, 2010) Shyamalan originally offered the roles of Aang to Noah Ringer; Sokka to Jackson Rathbone; Katara to Nicola Peltz; and Zuko to Jesse McCartney. In an interview with People, Shyamalan claimed that he did not want to make The Last Airbender without Nicola Peltz, the actress who plays Katara, "I said that only once before in my career, and that was when I met Haley in The Sixth Sense auditions."

The casting of White actors in the Asian-influenced Avatar universe triggered negative reactions from some fans marked by accusations of racism, a letter-writing campaign, and a protest outside of a Philadelphia casting call for movie extras. Rathbone dismissed the complaints in an interview with MTV, saying, "I think it's one of those things where I pull my hair up, shave the sides, and I definitely need a tan. It's one of those things where, hopefully, the audience will suspend disbelief a little bit." The controversy wasn't well received by critics either, who say that the original casting call expressed a preference for Caucasian actors over others. Movie critic Roger Ebert was one of the critical voices against the casting. When asked about casting a white cast to portray the characters, he said, "The original series Avatar: The Last Airbender was highly regarded and popular for three seasons on Nickelodeon. Its fans take it for granted that its heroes are Asian. Why would Paramount and Shyamalan go out of their way to offend these fans? There are many young Asian actors capable of playing the parts." Jevon Phillips of the Los Angeles Times noted that despite Shyamalan's attempts to defuse the situation, the issue will "not fade away or be overlooked", and that this film exemplifies the need for a debate within Hollywood about racial diversity in its films.

In February 2009, Dev Patel replaced McCartney, whose tour dates conflicted with a boot camp scheduled for the cast to train in martial arts. Katharine Houghton and Seychelle Gabriel played "Gran Gran", the grandmother of Katara and Sokka, and Princess Yue, another of Sokka's love interests and princess of the Northern Water Tribe, respectively. Isaac Jin Solstein played an earthbending boy. Aasif Mandvi played Commander Zhao, Shaun Toub played Uncle Iroh, Cliff Curtis played Fire Lord Ozai, and Keong Sim was cast in the role of an Earthbender.

'My proposed revisions to the Casting Section (in bold), with justification below'

The casting of White actors in the Asian-influenced Avatar universe triggered negative reactions from some Avatar: The Last Airbender fans and Asian Americans, who accused the production of discriminating in the casting process. Because of the film's casting, the Media Action Network for Asian-Americans urged a movie boycott for the first time in the organization’s 18-year history. A fan website, Racebending.com, was created to counter the movie, calling for a boycott of the film organized through a letter-writing campaign, social networking, presentations at college campuses and conventions, and protests at the January 2009 casting calls and at theaters on film's July 1st, 2010 release date. Rathbone dismissed the complaints in an interview with MTV, saying, "I think it's one of those things where I pull my hair up, shave the sides, and I definitely need a tan. It's one of those things where, hopefully, the audience will suspend disbelief a little bit." The controversy wasn't well received by critics either, who say that the original casting call expressed a preference for Caucasian actors over others. Movie critic Roger Ebert was one of the critical voices against what he called a "racist casting.". When asked about casting a white cast to portray the characters, he said, "The original series Avatar: The Last Airbender was highly regarded and popular for three seasons on Nickelodeon. Its fans take it for granted that its heroes are Asian. Why would Paramount and Shyamalan go out of their way to offend these fans? There are many young Asian actors capable of playing the parts." Jevon Phillips of the Los Angeles Times noted that despite Shyamalan's attempts to defuse the situation, the issue will "not fade away or be overlooked", and that this film exemplifies the need for a debate within Hollywood about racial diversity in its films.

In February 2009, Dev Patel replaced McCartney, whose tour dates conflicted with a boot camp scheduled for the cast to train in martial arts. Katharine Houghton and Seychelle Gabriel played "Gran Gran", the grandmother of Katara and Sokka, and Princess Yue, another of Sokka's love interests and princess of the Northern Water Tribe, respectively. Isaac Jin Solstein played an earthbending boy. Aasif Mandvi played Commander Zhao, Shaun Toub played Uncle Iroh, Cliff Curtis played Fire Lord Ozai, and Keong Sim was cast in the role of an Earthbender.

In an interview with M. Night Shyamalan, Washington Post columnist Jen Chaney commented directly on the number of emails sent to journalists by Racebending.com readers concerned about casting discrimination in the movie. Shyalaman said the group was "misguided" and that he believes the film is "the most culturally diverse tent pole movie ever made. And the series will be, if we’re lucky enough to make all three, without a peer -- without a peer -- one of the most culturally diverse movies ever made. It doesn’t have, like, a token person."

Explanations for proposed changes:::

1. The original article writes that the situation "triggered negative reactions from some fans marked by accusations of racism, a letter-writing campaign, and a protest outside of a Philadelphia casting call for movie extras." The revision corrects the unclear antecedent in this sentence by explaining that the negative reaction led to accusations of racism, which led to a writing campaign/protests/etc. It explains the type of fan the "some fans" were (Avatar fans) and also clarifies that some members of the Asian American community (this was established in the Yang article that was already linked as a reference.) It explains, as reported by the media, the beliefs this group of people held--"who accused the production of discriminating in the casting process." I believe that including these clarifying facts improves the article; it will more accurately reflect what happened as reported by the media.
2. I added the sentence "Because of the film's casting, the Media Action Network for Asian-Americans urged a movie boycott for the first time in the organization’s 18-year history" because it was significant enough to be reported by the Boston Globe and ties back to several media reports (LA Times, Associated Press, the Release section) that the controversy was led not only by fans but also Asian American groups like MANAA, which took unprecedented action.
3. I added the sentence: "A fan website, Racebending.com, was created to counter the movie, calling for a boycott of the film organized through a letter-writing campaign, social networking, presentations at college campuses and conventions, and protests at the January 2009 casting calls and at theaters on film's July 1st, 2010 release date." and three sources (Daily Pennsylvanian, Associated Press, and Los Angeles Times.) The activities of this protest--in direct response to the casting--are documented in these three articles, especially the July 2010 LAT one. This information is more specific, current, and better sourced than the current sentence, which just reads "accusations of racism, a letter-writing campaign, and a protest outside of a Philadelphia casting call for movie extras" (with the most recent source from 2009 and a dead link.) Because new information came out around June and July 2010 about the fan activities around the casting controversy, I felt it would be important to include this in the casting section. It would also make the explanation of the protest under the RELEASE section of the article that Akerans dropped in make more sense because it would explain the history of that specific demonstration.
4. I changed the introductory sentence on Ebert to clarify his exact position on the casting. Original: "Movie critic Roger Ebert was one of the critical voices against the casting." This sentence did not have a source and is vague about his position. I found and referenced a direct source straight from the horse's mouth explaining that his position is that the casting is "racist." This is not speculation or bias, it is true that Roger Ebert has repeatedly said his opinion about the casting. I simply made what was posted on the wikipedia clarified and actually sourced (twice.)
5. Lastly, I thought it would be important to post an updated quote of M. Night Shyamalan's response to the casting controversy tying directly back to the two paragraphs above. The article from the Washington Post suited this purpose since it referenced both sides of the conflict--the fan organization and Shyamalan.

Obviously, my edits add more detail regarding the controversy to the article, however; I fail to see the argument that these details are "unconstructive" or "biased" when they are sourced and simply recount the series of events as documented by legitimate, verified sources of print media. While the involvement of racebending.com in the controversy is mentioned in my proposed edits, the site itself is NOT (and should not!) be treated as a verified source. References to Racebending.com's role in the casting controversy are documented by nearly all media sources covering the controversy in Summer 2010, which is why it is included.

If there is anything I can do to make the addition of these factual details more neutral, please let me know. I fail to see how their mere inclusion in this article is "biased" when the updates are primarily factual with the exception of statements from Ebert and Shyamalan. Every additional statement placed in the edit was substantiated by a print media source. (64.171.72.182 (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC))

Are there any references that you used? Or are the references the ones that are already there? ChaosMaster_Chat 22:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if read through my additions before the reversion, you would have seen that I added 5-6 new articles dating from May 2010 to July 2010. (64.171.72.182 (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC))

I think there is quite a bit of notable detail here. As a quick note I would like to say that RS criteria only apply to Racebending if they are being used as a source, not if they are being reported on. That is an issue of notability. I'll go through what I think and don't think should make the article.

The casting of White actors in the Asian-influenced Avatar universe triggered negative reactions from some Avatar: The Last Airbender fans and Asian Americans, who accused the production of discriminating in the casting process. - I think this is just a re-write of the first sentence without really adding anything.

Because of the film's casting, the Media Action Network for Asian-Americans urged a movie boycott for the first time in the organization’s 18-year history. - I think this relevant and should be incorporated into the article.

A fan website, Racebending.com, was created to counter the movie, calling for a boycott of the film organized through a letter-writing campaign, social networking, presentations at college campuses and conventions, and protests at the January 2009 casting calls and at theaters on film's July 1st, 2010 release date. - This is verifiable, but I'm not convinced a fansite is notable. Probably leave this bit out.

what he called a "racist casting." - This is sourced, and a strong statement from a very notable critic. No reason not to include it.

In an interview with M. Night Shyamalan, Washington Post columnist Jen Chaney commented directly on the number of emails sent to journalists by Racebending.com readers concerned about casting discrimination in the movie. Shyalaman said the group was "misguided" and that he believes the film is "the most culturally diverse tent pole movie ever made. And the series will be, if we’re lucky enough to make all three, without a peer -- without a peer -- one of the most culturally diverse movies ever made. It doesn’t have, like, a token person." - Racebending mentioned again, but I think this is a notable mention, because the Washington Post has raised their concerns with the director and he has responded to them. The director's response makes this notable for inclusion. Since I'm against the inclusion of Racebending.com above, their identity will have to be clarified in this section, perhaps as Washington Post columnist Jen Chaney commented directly on the number of emails sent to journalists by readers of Racebending.com – a website established to organize a boycott of the film – concerned about casting discrimination in the movie Betty Logan (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You wrote that The casting of White actors in the Asian-influenced Avatar universe triggered negative reactions from some Avatar: The Last Airbender fans and Asian Americans, who accused the production of discriminating in the casting process. is "a re-write of the first sentence without really adding anything." It doesn't "add" anything but as I said, it cleans up the unclear grammatical structure of the original sentence and distinguishes between the fan community protest and the Asian American community, which are separate entities. (64.171.72.182 (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC))

Re-write
The casting of White actors in the Asian-influenced Avatar universe triggered negative reactions from some fans marked by accusations of racism, a letter-writing campaign, and various protests. "To take this incredibly loved children's series, and really distort not only the ethnicity of the individual characters but the message of acceptance and cultural diversity that the original series advocated, is a huge blow," Michael Le of Racebending.com, a fan site calling for a boycott of the martial-arts fantasy, said. As a result of the casting, the Media Action Network for Asian-Americans urged a movie boycott for the first time in the organization’s 18-year history. "This was a great opportunity to create new Asian-American stars...[nonetheless,] I’m disappointed." fumed Guy Aoki, president of the organization. After a casting call specifically looking for “Caucasians and other ethnicities,” Shyamalan explained that “Ultimately, this movie, and then the three movies, will be the most culturally diverse tent-pole movies ever released, period.” Furthermore, Paramount provided a statement about the casting choices, "The movie has 23 credited speaking roles — more than half of which feature Asian and Pan Asian actors of Korean, Japanese and Indian decent. The filmmaker’s interpretation reflects the myriad qualities that have made this series a global phenomenon. We believe fans of the original and new audiences alike will respond positively once they see it." The studio also took the initiative to screen the film to boycotters at Racebending.com after the 3D conversion was complete.

M. Night Shyamalan commented on the issues reguarding fans' perceptive of the casting in an interview with Washington Post columnist Jen Chaney, saying, "Anime is based on ambiguous facial features. It’s meant to be interpretive. It’s meant to be inclusive of all races, and you can see yourself in all these characters...This is a multicultural movie and I’m going to make it even more multicultural in my approach to its casting. There’s African-Americans in the movie...so it’s a source of pride for me. The irony that [protesters] would label this with anything but the greatest pride, that the movie poster has Noah and Dev on it and my name on it. I don’t know what else to do." Rathbone was also one to dismiss the complaints in an interview with MTV, saying, "I think it's one of those things where I pull my hair up, shave the sides, and I definitely need a tan. It's one of those things where, hopefully, the audience will suspend disbelief a little bit." The controversy wasn't well received by critics either. Movie critic Roger Ebert was one of the critical voices against the casting. When asked about casting a white cast to portray the characters, he said, "The original series Avatar: The Last Airbender was highly regarded and popular for three seasons on Nickelodeon. Its fans take it for granted that its heroes are Asian. Why would Paramount and Shyamalan go out of their way to offend these fans? There are many young Asian actors capable of playing the parts." Jevon Phillips of the Los Angeles Times noted that despite Shyamalan's attempts to defuse the situation, the issue will "not fade away or be overlooked", and that this film exemplifies the need for a debate within Hollywood about racial diversity in its films.

In February 2009, Dev Patel replaced McCartney, whose tour dates conflicted with a boot camp scheduled for the cast to train in martial arts. Katharine Houghton and Seychelle Gabriel played "Gran Gran", the grandmother of Katara and Sokka, and Princess Yue, another of Sokka's love interests and princess of the Northern Water Tribe, respectively. Isaac Jin Solstein played an earthbending boy. Aasif Mandvi played Commander Zhao, Shaun Toub played Uncle Iroh, Cliff Curtis played Fire Lord Ozai, and Keong Sim was cast in the role of an Earthbender.

I think this could do? ChaosMaster_Chat 22:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel my edits looked "cleaner" but in either case, I would move the segment on the protests from the "Release" section to this section and include it after the part where you talk about the screening, since it seemed to be a follow up to that according to LAT article.(64.171.72.182 (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC))

Two things. 1) The Ebert Twitter quote is out of context, and shouldn't be included. The full quote, "The best writing I've seen on the racist casting of "The Last Airbender." Devastating. [link redated]", doesn't necessarily mean he's calling the "racist casting", rather it could mean he's pointing to an article about what someone else considers "racist casting." As the quote might not mean what we're presenting it to be, it should not be included. 2) Are we providing too much weight for concepts outside of the film? That is, mentioning that MANAA protested against the film is one thing. But, is adding details such as, "for the first time in the organization’s 18-year history" undue? Akerans (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Point taken on the Ebert quote. I think it is important to mention that MANAA protested (hence my comment above to Betty Logan about clarifying the difference between the fans and Asian Americans.) (64.171.72.182 (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC))

If it is even remotely possible that Ebert was commenting on the racism debate rather than making an accusation then we shouldn't put words into his mouth. As for the MANAA boycott, it's probably worth mentioning it hasn't called a boycott over a film before, just to provide a bit of context for its actions. None of my suggestions are "concrete", just initial views on my first reading. If you feel it is important to differentiate between the Asian backlash and other criticisms in the opening sentence and other editors don't mind, then I don't oppose the alteration. Betty Logan (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert's full quote: "Wrong. The original series "Avatar: The Last Airbender" was highly regarded and popular for three seasons on Nickelodeon. Its fans take it for granted that its heroes are Asian. Why would Paramount and Shyamalan go out of their way to offend these fans? There are many young Asian actors capable of playing the parts." - Its not from twitter. Can someone clarify what their talking about? ChaosMaster_Chat 23:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

@ 64.171.72.182. Mentioning that MANAA protested is fine, I don't oppose that. I was more concerned about getting off the "MANAA protested the film" path and straying down "The History of MANAA" path. So to speak.

@ ChaosMaster16. I was referring to the line Movie critic Roger Ebert was one of the critical voices against the "racist casting." with this source for "racist casting". Akerans (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The re-write doesn't state that source though.... How could we improve that version. ChaosMaster_Chat 02:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, but the quote is still there without attribution. So, change from Movie critic Roger Ebert was one of the critical voices against the "racist casting." to Movie critic Roger Ebert was one of the critical voices against the casting. Basically, remove the quote, is all. Akerans (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the "rasist casting". Should I go ahead and put it into the article? ChaosMaster_Chat 17:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections. If there's any issues with anything there, then I'm sure people will tweak it in mainspace. Akerans (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright then. Also, is there anyway a bot can Arcive some of the discussions on here? its really annoying to have to come to a page with so many discussions, not that that is a ad thing. ChaosMaster_Chat 17:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Archive Bot

Per ChaosMaster16's suggestion, and per User:MiszaBot's suggestion to establish a consensus that archiving is really needed here, should we set up an archive bot for this talk page? I agree we should. How about threads 30 or 45 days old? Comments and/or suggestions? Akerans (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd go for a couple of months. Issues can still pop up after a month or so. That first sentence in Critical Reception is still a point of contention. Betty Logan (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not like stuff builds that fast on this page. So, 60 days then? Akerans (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

OK by me. Give it a day to see if anyone has any objections though. Betty Logan (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Movie Moron

According to the bottom of the movie moron site, "Due to the amount of speculation and hearsay, site should be read for entertainment purposes only." The information might be correct, but since the site is admitting its information is "speculation and hearsay" I do not consider them a reliable source for information. Since the second statement was added to support the movie-moron.com statement, I removed that as well. Akerans (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

United States vs. Overseas

Let me say this in the most easiest way possible.

The US hated the movie but overseas the movie is a hit. Lets explore that...

Shyamalan's popularity is stronger than ever in foreign markets. mtv and vh1 have confirmed. "It was interesting, the reception with 'The Last Airbender,' because they did extremely well with the U.S. domestic box office and even better than expected overseas," Jackson Rathbone said. "Overseas, internationally, they still love him and think his work is genius."

Now rumors do say that people overseas have posistive reviews for the film that are going to go to war with the totally different reviews from the dominant USA.

All I'm saying is that this should be explored and researched. Maybe a review from Japan or Russia could prove these rumors right or wrong. But as of now there is alot of sources to prove that overseas love 'airbender' and the 'usa' just hates Shyamalan along with any film he makes. ExplosionsHurtPeople (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)ExplosionsHurtPeople

TLA did well in the US its opening weekend as well, but steadily and sharply dropped in the following weeks. Just because the movie has a good opening in foreign markets doesn't mean its "well-received". While the reviews I have seen seem to be more often positive, they are just as mixed as American reviews. Lets wait until this is actually relevant: after the final tally. Jackal Killer (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well since this profile is under the english language I don't think the United States is the only country whose critical reception is to be displayed since they are obviously prejudice and whatever towards this director. I'm not defending the movie's relevence. But since the movie opened in all of these countries>Overseas I think that other reception that was mostly positive overseas should be mentioned. Putting only the USA's reception would be like metioning only the Vatican City's reception on a film.ExplosionsHurtPeople (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)ExplosionsHurtPeople

We can mention overseas reviews, but we need the reviews to mention them. We shouldn't use Rathbone's quote from MTV as a source for this information. Akerans (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A russian critic tells all that he can in this review> Translated Positive Review ExplosionsHurtPeople (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)ExplosionsHurtPeople

The_Last_Airbender#Critical_reception

Please can the issue regarding the wording of the first sentence be resolved here. The constant alterations are getting the article nowhere. The wording should be factual and balanced. Some of the contenders:

• The film has earned overwhelmingly negative reviews.
• The film has earned few positive reviews.
• The film has earned mostly negative reviews.
• The film has earned nearly universally negative reviews.
• Reviews for the film have been almost entirely negative.

We'll pick one of them and then the wording in the article will be backed up by consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with any of those as long as it's something like "nearly universally negative" instead of "universally negative." -Dylan0513 (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Stating the film received negative reviews is factual. Emphasizing the negativity is POV. I'm not sure why we should have to reach consensus on a factual statement that doesn't emphasize the negativity. Per WP:NPOV, this is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. So, state the film received "positive and negative" reviews (which is factual) and give the reader the opportunity to assess the information for themselves. Akerans (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Saying "the film received negative reviews" is not factual. The film did receive some positive reviews which is why the "mostly" would be necessary there. -Dylan0513 (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV does not in fact state that you have to stress both the positive and negative reviews. You are to present the reviews in proportion to how they are presented in the real world. In this case, as almost all reviews are in fact negative, having most of the section about negative reviews and only a brief mention of the positive reviews, is in fact still complying with NPOV.24.190.34.219 (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The degree of negativity is a fact, not a point of view, so it's just a question of how it is presented without overstating or understating it. My preference would be the third or the fifth. Betty Logan (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not mean that as "the degree of negativity is point of view," rather "to deny the degree of negativity is point of view." I believe some of these phrases are POV because they're designed to overstate the degree of negativity; or to disavow the fact the film has received positive reviews. The third statement is fine. Akerans (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

We will remove this. It really annoying how on every page this statement end up on, everyone goes "ahh its totally wrong". Wikipedia isn't here to over or understate anything. Just because there is few good reviews, doesn't mean everyone thought it was bad. And vise versa. Its my fault the statement is in the article and I would apreciate if the block on editing would be removed, especially since its a current article (I was GOING to edit the gross and reception). Im goign to remove the statement so the article will not present subjectible point of view.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

I'm responsible for quite a bit of the "constant alterations." My primary disagreement with the accuracy of #3 is that it doesn't describe the extent to which the film was panned. Suppose RT has a film that is 30% rotten. At the very least, that's in the double-digits, and it's noticeably higher than 10%, a barrier that The Last Airbender touched but never overcame.

I'm casting a vote for my contribution, "The film has earned few positive reviews." It acknowledges that the film wasn't universally panned while highlighting that overall, the vast majority of the reviews were negative (hence "few").Erik-the-red (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. As long as the small portion of positive reviews are acknowledged. -Dylan0513 (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Saying there are "few positive reviews" doesn't really indicate the balance. A film that only has a handful of reviews of which are nearly all positive still only has a "few positive reviews", but yet it is technically being highly praised. That's certainly not the case here. The phrasing has to capture the proportion, which mostly/mainly/nearly all negative does. The only other alternative barring a compromise is just to follow Chaosmaster's suggestion and remove the sentence altogether. Betty Logan (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

How can the phrasing capture the proportion without violating NPOV? I find it ridiculous that only a film with 0% freshness can be referred to as having "universally negative reviews," while a film that is at least 1% fresh must be referred to as having "mostly negative reviews," or else NPOV is violated.

Think of it this way. A student who makes an A and a student who makes a C both answered "most" of the questions correctly. Yet, the former got at least 90% of the questions right while the latter got between 70 and 79% of the questions right. Is it fair to the former to claim in the name of NPOV that both knew "most" of the questions? No, that'd be absurd.Erik-the-red (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, but it'd be just as absurd (and flat out not true) to completely ignore the positive reviews. So we need to find a balance between the two. -Dylan0513 (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Then, just state the numbers and leave out the colorful commentary. Akerans (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand WP:NPOV. If WP:NPOV meant that all viewpoints had to be balanced equally then we wouldn't be able to have an article about Hitler. What WP:NPOV means is that if there is more than one viewpoint you can't be selective, you have to represent alternative views proportionally. If a certain opinion is in the vast minority (such as a positive review of The Last Airbender) then you're not violating WP:NPOV by saying so, you're presenting the view proportionally, which obviously comes down to editorial judgement. This discussion obviously isn't going anywhere so I agree we should just pull the first sentence and just state the numbers. Betty Logan (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV does not in fact state that you have to stress both the positive and negative reviews. You are to present the reviews in proportion to how they are presented in the real world. In this case, as almost all reviews are in fact negative, having most of the section about negative reviews and only a brief mention of the positive reviews, is in fact still complying with NPOV.24.190.34.219 (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct, but no one is arguing to give "equal validity". Obviously the film received more negative than positive reviews, but the problem is how to say that without sounding like Wikipedia is favoring one side. Some of the choices listed above, I believe, favor the negative side which violates NPOV. Others disagree. As such, as a few of us are already stated, not including the statement at all would be a good compromise. What do you think? Akerans (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not write something like: "Although the film has earned a few positive reviews the critics' reactions have been overwhelmingly negative." You would acknowledge that there are some good reviews but that - and that is a sad fact for this movie - the vast majority of critics hated it. --78.54.61.164 (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the way that's written suggests the article is talking about the number of positive reviews versus the content of the negative reviews. Unfortunately, it doesn't work. Akerans (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be globally negative? I doubt the rest of the universe has any opinion on the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.16.44.75 (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

August 4, 2010

New discussion, if anyone is interested. The contenders, plus one of the more recent additions.

• The film has earned overwhelmingly negative reviews.
• The film has earned few positive reviews.
• The film has earned mostly negative reviews.
• The film has earned largely negative reviews.
• The film has earned nearly universally negative reviews.
• Reviews for the film have been almost entirely negative.

I prefer "The film has earned mostly negative reviews." as it appears most neutral, and doesn't add unnecessary negativity. Comments, suggestions? Akerans (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So, since there hasn't been any discussion on this in weeks...what's the objection to "The film has received largely negative reviews", or "The film has received mostly negative reviews" at this point? Can anyone actually step forward and advocate for a different phrase, if any such advocacy exists?

Are people holding out for "this film has received overwhelmingly positive reviews" or "this film has not been reviewed", or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.189.203.163 (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. 98.189.203.163 (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with not using this at all. Whether its "standard" or not is not the question. My conern is that there are so many variations of the sentence (true or not) that we can use. Once we use one, some other user will lagitamately want to have the other. Not having any kind of subjective statement in the article will probably help and progress the article toward GA status. ChaosMaster_Chat 17:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with "The film has received largely negative reviews". It's a completely factual statement, I cannot see the problem with including this, every other negatively-reviewed film (especially ones this badly reviewed) have this statement in the reception section. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 18:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the building consensus that some sort of characterization would be stylistically helpful -- leaving out a characterization when the issue is not very gray makes it too cut and dry -- to write Wikipedia articles with an eye towards a literary style is part of its standards. Adding in some connective tissue here would be helpful. I don't agree with Chaos that because that there are so many variations is an obstacle. Every statement can be written in several ways -- it's the beauty of the language. I also don't agree that any of these statements are subjective -- they are descriptive; each variation is an objective, provable statement. The goal at Wikipedia is to meet WP:Consensus. Here, the consensus is clearly that some characterization would be helpful and stylistically interesting. Once a decision is made (I think any of the statements would be appropriate), then add it. If a particular statement is chosen and another editor later changes it, then they can be reversed and asked to come and come and argue against consensus per WP:BRD. (consensus can change). Right now, it appears that edit warring is occuring. Let's reach consensus instead! My one vote would be "The film has earned few positive reviews." because it emphasizes the positive -- it did receive some positive reviews. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 19:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with "The film has earned few positive reviews" for the same reason that we wouldn't put "The film has earned few negative reviews" for a nearly universally-praised film. The avoidance of the obviously factual statement about this film having been almost universally panned is compromising the NPOV of this article. Films with higher than 8% on RT have this opening statement in their reception section without controversy. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 19:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

My preference would be The film has earned mostly negative reviews. The language is moderate and factual. The preference is clearly to have a sentence. If people start to alter it again then the modifications will just be reverted. Betty Logan (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You make a great point, CIS -- I then agree that "earned mostly negative reviews" is a clear statement of fact. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 19:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be in agreement, so changed the text to reflect consensus. If anyone disagrees, then feel free to revert. Of course, that is not to say this is set in stone, as consensus can change down the road. Akerans (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could ask for protection so unregistered users won't change the sentence to "extremely" or "horrifically" bad reviews? I think that is my main problem. ChaosMaster_Chat 23:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection is an option, but that will be judged solely on how often we need to revert. 2/3 reverts a day probably won't cut it, 5/6 probably will, so it's just a case of seeing how it turns out. Betty Logan (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if we see more than 1 or 2 attempts to change it as it reads -- if at all. The main churning was because it said nothing which was an obvious editorial deficiency. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 05:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As a late comer to this discussion, it does seem that the statement "The film has received mostly negative reviews" is an understatement, and makes the article seem like it has been written by a fan. The film has an average RT rating of 2.8/10, compared to 2.7/10 for the hugely reviled "Freddy Got Fingered". It is clear to anyone who regularly reads a variety of film reviews, that simply stating "The film has received mostly negative reviews" is an understatement. I have not read any review in mainstream press which is anything other than a panning.Blibbka (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Universal is a strong adjective. Universal implies complete or whole. Stating that the film was "universally panned" implies there are no positive reviews. Fact, there are positive reviews. Fact, 8% positive is not 100% negative. So, stating the film was "universally panned" is incorrect and doesn't adhere to neutral point of view. Our job is not to take sides, rather present facts as accurately and unbiased as possible, and stating "universally panned" would not accomplish those goals. Akerans (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Akerans, and also saying something was "panned" isn't really encyclopedic language. However, this debate remains open and if a consensus builds for changing the statement then the opening sentence will be revised. Betty Logan (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. "Universally negative" would be untrue, as there are probably some positive or mediocre reviews. Panned is slang so doesn't belong in the article either (that was just my turn of phrase rather than a suggestion of wording). In my opinion the most accurate statement from the options provided above would be "The film has earned overwhelmingly negative reviews". That will clearly not be to the liking of anyone who likes the film - and they are entitled to their opinion - but with respect the aim here is to accurately represent the overall critical reception of the film, not make everyone happy.Blibbka (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, we have to accurately represent the overall critical reception of the film. But, we have to do so while following neutral point of view, which says that we have to represent all sides fairly and proportionately. Stating that the reviews were "overwhelming negative" is not a fair representation of the mixed and positive reviews. Rather, the statement favors the negative reviews while rendering the other views useless. Unfortunately, the phrase does not adhere to neutral point of view. Alternatively, we could say something like "The majority of the reviews were negative." I believe that statement is also fair and accurate. Akerans (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with your view that "overwhelmingly negative" is an unfair representation of reviews the film got. The reviews it has received were overhelmingly negative. The problem seems to be in quantifying the difference between "overwhelming" and majority. In my opinion, 60-70% negative is "the majority". 80-90% negative is overwhelming. Inbetween it's debatable either way. There's not going to be a hard and fast rule we can apply.

I also disagree with the statement that it does not adhere to neutral point of view. Out of 146 reviews, 136 are negative, and the overal rating is 2.8/10. Reporting that the film has got overwhelmingly negative reviews, is reporting a fact, not expressing an opinion. Opinion would be saying "the film is bad". If 136/146 reviews are negative, and that does not qualify as overwhelming, then what in your opinion would? Blibbka (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

When I said the phrase is not fair to mixed and positive reviews, I was referring to Metacritic's numbers. Metacritic's negative reviews are just under 70%, and I didn't think it fair to ignore their numbers in favor of Rotten Tomato. Sorry, I should have made that more clear in my last reply. When I ask myself, "what does 70% to 90% mean?", I answer "generally, mostly or majority." When I ask myself, "what does overwhelmingly mean?", I answer, "this isn't a contest. The reviews aren't competing with one another, neither side won." That's why I think "overwhelmingly" is the wrong word to use. Akerans (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing Metacritic statement

To Chaos: Could you please explain which part of WP:UNDUE applies to adding in the attributed statement that Metacritic characterizes it score as "generally unfavorable reviews""? It adds eights words, is verifiable, is attributed and is WP:NPOV. I was taken aback that you would reverse a statement that satisfies WP standards. Your mission to fight editors characterizing Rotten Tomatoes score may have some merit (my opinion on this is not relevant here though I believe you stand in the minority) but to remove a reliable source's characterization has no merit. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 18:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

My problem with this is that it generally isn't used on Wikipedia for Metacritic. ChaosMaster_Chat 23:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was confused -- I thought you had said it was an WP:UNDUE weight problem -- my apologizes. You say it isn't "generally used" for Metacritic. How do you come up with that conclusion? Is it in a guideline? An essay? A policy? Did you research to quantify this? I did:

• "The album fell within the "universal acclaim" range on the aggregate review website Metacritic," Axe_to_Fall

• "It received universal acclaim with a 91% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a score of 76 out of 100 at Metacritic" Shaun of the Dead

• "according to Metacritic, garnered "universal acclaim" Justified (TV series)

• "God of War III has received universal acclaim with a score of 92% on review aggregators GameRankings and Metacritic." God of War III

• "and received the "generally unfavorable reviews" distinction from Metacritic." The Haunting in Connecticut

• "Metacritic states that average scores below 50 indicate "generally unfavorable reviews" Sega Studios San Francisco

• "which indicates "generally unfavorable reviews", based on 24 reviews from mainstream critics" Paul Blart: Mall Cop

This was one minute of research. Should I get another 100 examples? In fact, I see this used frequently. More importantly, to repeat, it is an attributable, verifiable, NPOV characterization from a tertiary source which is exactly what Wikipeida demands. Exactly what do you see as the harm to the page to include this? It can't be weight nor is it "non-standard". Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 05:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)