Jump to content

Talk:The Last Airbender (film)/Archive 3

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

Collaborate on a Controversy Section

I'm looking to collaborate with people to create a neutral and informative section describing the racial controversy.

I've been following this controversy for a few months. It is prudent to give it its own section in this article. While I'm not confident in my ability to write the section on my own, I do offer my services in editing for tone. I can tell from the discussion that this is an emotionally charged subject, but it is imperative that a Wikipedia article present the facts from a neutral standpoint.

The fact is, many Asian Americans and other minorities have very few Asian heroes they can identify with. The casting of white actors in the main roles is of huge significance to them, even if it seems dismissible by the Caucasian majority. The controversy also has an important place in the history of racism in Hollywood and elsewhere. There is no sound reason to omit a "Controversy" section.

I stress again, however, that we must be careful to leave out emotionally charged statements, as an activist point of view has no place in an encyclopedia. Minetruly (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the controversy would best be covered under the Reception section, wherein the protests and boycotts would be the main focus. There's been a lot of media coverage on both, and nearly every review on the movie mentions the casting controversy, if only briefly. Jackal Killer (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The various controversies are already in the existing prose. The 'casting controversy' is in the casting section, the 'negative reviews mentioning the casting controversy' are in the critical reception section, and, well, no one has included the 'the film is performing better than expected despite its controversy' into the box office section. These sections are well written, and I don't see how removing, or limiting, these sections to create one new section improves the article. Unless, you're suggesting to add a section in addition to what's already stated, but that would be WP:UNDUE as the article is about the movie, not the controversy, and the various controversies are already covered. Akerans (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Please see the discussions above. A consensus has been reached several times not to give the casting controversy its own section and the the way it is now is well written and extensive enough. -Dylan0513 (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The consensus was reached before the movie opened and not many reliable sources were available. Now that the movie is out a lot of journalists pick up the story. I'd say a re-evaluation is in order.--80.171.228.163 (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
What new sources have you found? Do they provide new information that can't possibly be added to existing prose? Akerans (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, considering the movie was protested upon its release and actively boycotted, both of which wouldn't have sources prior to the movies release, I think the issue should be re-considered as long as we can find ample sources. If anything, Shyamalan has made further statements about the casting controversy which could be added under the casting section. Jackal Killer (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd add that there is more controversy regarding the film than just the racial casting choices; like, say, the fans of the series being so vocal about how it was mangled on the big screen, for example. I think a "Controversy" section is warranted for at least those reasons. Esprix (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Dragon

Who is the dragon in the trailer, and who provides his voice? Is this a major character and should it be listed as such? 75.89.129.153 (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

He is in the spirit world and gives aang advice, kinda like roku did in the show. I dont think he has a name in the movie.

Nope, no name was given.Just referred to as a dragon spirit, and the animation was reused when Aang (or Uung as the actors pronounced his name) went to see it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbmoyes (talk • contribs) 04:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Though speculation, it os possible the dragon spirit is related to Roku. But I can't say for sure at this moment.72.184.129.252 (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The Dragon spirit is likely in reference to Roku who had a dragon as his spiritual guide. Personally, I imagine the dragon is intended to represent Roku somewhat metaphorically, as the Dragon serves to cover plot points that were originally covered by Roku in the television show, however whether or not that will ever be officially explained remains to be seen. Bliss 182 (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The dragon spirit is the same as in the show! He is the first spirit to guide and help Aang in the spirit world even before the spirit of Roku. Watch Book 1, Chapter 7 (Winter Solstice Pt. 1). --Bisco (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Suki

Suki does not appear in the final cut of the movie. if someone could find a source that states that she was going to be in it, but was cut out for time or whatever, that would be the best

Shyamalan OK with Airbender critics 'up my ass all the time'
Undated section. Commenting here so this section gets archived. Akerans (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Critical Reception Change?

"The film has received mostly negative reviews from American critics. Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that only 8% of critics in the country have given the film a positive review based on 128 reviews, with an average score of 2.8/10.[83] Among Rotten Tomatoes' "Top Critics", which consists of popular and notable critics from the top newspapers, websites, television and radio programs, the film holds an overall approval rating of 7%, based on a sample of 29 reviews.[84] The site's general consensus is that "Despite flashy special effects, The Last Airbender squanders the potential of its popular source material on an incomprehensible plot, laughable dialogue, and a joyless sense of detachment."[85] Another aggregator, Metacritic, gave the film a "generally unfavorable" weighted mean score of 20 based on 32 reviews." (They are slight changes that can hold peace while opinions from the rest of the world weigh in. Also could we mention that Shyamalan was currently the most (how can I put this) hated director by critics around the time of its release? ExplosionsHurtPeople (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I was never a fan of the current language. I voted against it, though as anyone can tell, I was outvoted. With the inclusion of the Australian and New Zealand reviews, the RT rating has dropped to 6%. And yet, we still call that "mostly negative." After reading RT's best comic book adaptations countdown, I saw that the RT rating for The Dark Knight was 93%. Curious, I went to the Wikipedia page for The Dark Knight, and lo and behold, what did I see? "...the film received universal acclaim."
So let me get this straight. A film with a 93% RT rating can be characterized as "receiv[ing] universal acclaim," but a film with a 6% RT rating can only be characterized as having received "mostly negative" reviews? Unless someone would like to change the wording in The Dark Knight to say "mostly positive reviews," I am changing TLA's wording to be a parallel of TDK's wording. For those who have issues with this, remember that the TDK page is considered to be a "good article."Erik-the-red (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

English, please

Any chance we could have this sentence translated into English: "Arriving to Southern Water Tribe, Zuko demands the elderly under the impression that Avatar is an old person until Aang is found."? Cottonshirtτ 10:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Be bold and do it yourself rather than being patronizing on the Talk page. Jackal Killer (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Did some expanding for clarification, hope it's not too much now. --Bisco (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sequels

The longstanding text in the "Sequels" section read like it came straight out of an M. Night fan page. In my opinion, given that the sequel has not been greenlit yet, at this point, all you need to know are three things: (1) he's got a rough draft of Book II, (2) he would like to make it if it's greenlit, and (3) he's not sitting at home waiting for the call. It's not his top priority now; making his next thriller is.Erik-the-red (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

At this point, we should give all of the available information on the sequel section. If we had 50 references with multiple pages of information, we would use all of it (as long as it was reliable). Why should we erase "history", relevent in the present or not? Obama ran for president in 2008, but its not relevant now because he is president, by your logic, we should remove this? ChaosMasterChat 00:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you understood my logic at all. A sequel has YET TO BE ANNOUNCED. So what's the point of all that detail? We should include it because it came straight from the horse's mouth? It is not relevant AT THIS TIME. Like I said, until a sequel is greenlit, all you need to know are three things: (1) he has a rough draft of Book II, (2) he'd like to make it if the studio permits, and (3) it's not his top priority now. I'd be happy to put it back if Paramount announces that Book II will be in production.Erik-the-red (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
So what if a sequel has yet to be announced? Its sourced, by a reliable source. Its not like its made up. Why on earth would we not have this? Maybe we need a third opinion? ChaosMasterChat 00:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
My take is that since this film was planned to be part of a franchise from the beginning, then it is worth reporting on the most recent statements. If we had no post-release sequel information in the article, readers would not know anything at all about the franchise's continuation. We can certainly present the information differently since it is mainly talk. Possible approaches are to use the heading "Planned sequels" or to merge the content somewhere like "Release" to play down the importance of the news. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I changed the heading to "Planned Sequel" and included the Azula and Kyoshi Warriors information. If people are going to semi-revert the wording, could they at least recognize redundancy?Erik-the-red (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
planned sequel implied that it has been greenlitted by not in production. I think we should revert it back unless you got claims.--75.34.154.50 (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I hope there ARE sequels soon as i think this is one of the best films ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.105.116 (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This article does not make sense!

"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."

Noah Ringer is not White so what is this sentence talking about? Noah Ringer is American Indian. >>> http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/11/03/noah-ringer-last-airbender-cowboys-aliens/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.142.189 (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

that sentence is talking about other actors besides Noah ringer. for example both katara and sokka have significantly lighter skin in the film than in the animated series.Rody1990 (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
In any case, Ringer was not marketed or publicized as Native American for The Last Airbender. Every indication was that he was white. Besides, Ringer could very well still be white with a "1/16th" Native American heritage that they're simply exploiting to justify his role in the upcoming Cowboys Versus Aliens. Who knows. Jackal Killer (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Last Airbender/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: − Jhenderson 777 18:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I would probably close this debate myself. With all the IP editor contributions definitely in the reception section, my faith of this staying a good article is getting less slim. Opinions on how it can be a good article are still welcome though. − Jhenderson 777 20:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're concerned about stability, then patience is definitely a virtue :) Either way, however, here are my comments:
  • Lead:
    • Don't think the listing of producers is really important enough to mention. ("Other producers include Frank Marshall, Kathleen Kennedy, Sam Mercer and Scott Aversano. ") The time could better be spent discussing the production aspects of the film.
  • Body:
    • The plot section doesn't adequately explain many aspects of the film, such as what bending is. At the same time, other parts can be easily compressed. For example: "On the ship, Aang is tested by Zuko's Uncle Iroh (Shaun Toub) to confirm him to be the Avatar. After being informed that he is to be their prisoner for passing the test, Aang escapes using his glider and flies to his flying bison brought by Katara and Sokka." can be worded to "Zuko's uncle Iroh confirms Aang is the avatar; Aang escapes Zuko's clutches" or whatnot.
    • I happened to watch the film yesterday, and it seems like there are discrepancies in the plot; "Seeing the light that appeared from Aang's release, Zuko and some Fire Nation soldiers arrive at the Southern Water Tribe to demand the villagers hand over the Avatar. "—as I recall Zuko gathered up all the elderly; finding the Avatar was largely coincidental. The lead notes "Aang, a reluctant hero who prefers adventure over his job as the Avatar", but in the film Aang only complains about not being able to have a family.
    • There's definitely enough content in the article to pass GA requirements for comprehensiveness, but once again the prose can be simplified and condensed in places: "According to an interview with the co-creators in SFX magazine" is entirely unnecessary, for example (it should be footnoted anyhow!) Similar phrases pepper the article, and it should be entirely cast in past tense throughout save for non-historical developments. Other things that I noticed in my read-through were comma splices, typographic quotes and contractions.
    • Apparently unsourced: "It shows multiple scenes from the film and is an expanded version of the first TV spot. McDonald's sold Happy Meals to promote the film."
    • The promotion section gets a tad too detailed, especially quoting the comic press release verbatim.
    • Because what "the audience" actually thinks is pretty hard to do, I would drop the reference to mixed reception. You've only got one measure of that (CinemaScore, you should axe the RottenTomatoes user ranking entirely) and without a reliable source explicitly saying so, it's a dodgy claim to make.
  • Images:
  • References:
    • Most look reliable, but the use of lesser publications and blogs like io9 and Ain't It Cool is questionable considering there are far better print and web publications to use.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest closing this review soon if the editor doesn't respond, 20th of Jan now.. it's been on review for a good length of time in any case before hand, there are plenty of articles waiting for review in which editors will correct and improve on the same day.RAIN..the..ONE HOTLINE 01:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok I will respond. To be honest I am sort of trying to train myself to stop being a wikipediholic lately because I feel it's life consuming sometimes. And some of those things I could probably fix but some of them I am not sure of what to do (Images and references to be example). And I am not sure of what axing images together mean. But due to being not in Wikipedia a lot and due to what Raintheone's suggestion closing this might be appropriate if it isn't good article quality already. Anybody else can fix the article if they feel like doing more than just reviewing and they know they can fix it. Jhenderson 777 02:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Real-life takes precendence over Wikipedia any day. I'll archive this review then; if you want me to look at the article sometime, just leave me a note on my talk page and I'll go further in-depth. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fire "bending"

In the series, the characters were able to actually create fire. However, in the film, they had to have fire on hand in order to bend it. They were not able to actually create it. Although, according to Ozai, it was possible with the power of Sozin's Comet. I have searched high and low (no pun intended) on this article and there is no mention of this at all whatsoever. Please, tell me if you thinkk this should be added. I, for one, think it's crucial.

Monster Rancher the Great (Play Monster Rancher!) 00:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Monster Rancher the GreatMonster Rancher the Great (Play Monster Rancher!) 00:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monster Rancher the Great (talk • contribs)

It's not like I've actually seen the film, but I don't think we should mention it. The change in firebending turns magical kung-fu into less sensible magical kung-fu. I gather that it doesn't stand out from amongst the mispronunciations, the joyless main character, the spectacle of "Earthbenders! The ground is made of dirt!", the way intense physical battles are replaced with people standing there and throwing stuff at each other, and the other problems with bending coreography.

There's little reason to single out a particular change, and listing the lot seems unlikely to work. A list of the differences between the series and the film would prove unmanageable without a way to draw the line between a significant difference and a detail, or a pragmatic adaptation and a flaw. We could mention some of the changes if we added a full-fledged section about fans' reactions, but that would take reliable third-party sources - a rarity with fandom matters. --Kizor 18:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hrmm...good point. The differences are endless. However, I stick by my belief that this one stands out especially. If this one is not added, however, there is one that I think is unquestionably improtant-they start a rebellion to take back captured Earth Kingdom towns. In the series, there is NONE of that. As a matter of fact, the only time I can remember a town being taken back in the 1st season was in "Imprisoned," and that was not even done by Aang, Katara, and Sokka. That was done by Haru and Tyro. That's just the only time I can think of. I'm sick, tired, and my brain is barely functioning. Anyways, reply, respond, dispute, whatever. This is just my 2 cents.

Monster Rancher the Great (Play Monster Rancher!) 22:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Monster Rancher the GreatMonster Rancher the Great (Play Monster Rancher!) 22:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monster Rancher the Great (talk • contribs)

Differences between the animated series and the film

Copying this over from the main article, as it's both WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

Aang's airbending tattoos are different in the film. In the animated series, he has an all-blue arrow and line running down from his head to his back, while his tattoos have strange designs in the film.
The film is based on eight episodes from the animated series:
1. The Boy in the Iceberg
2. The Avatar Returns
3. The Southern Air Temple
4. Imprisoned (Episode 6 in the series)
5. The Blue Spirit (Episode 13)
6. The Waterbending Master (Episode 18)
7. The Siege of the North I (Episode 19)
8. The Siege of the North II (Episode 20)
Jet, Suki, Jeong Jeong, King Bumi, the Freedom Fighters, and the Kyoshi Warriors are not shown in the film.
In the animated series, Commander Zhao kills the moon spirit Tui with fire, while in the film adaption, he scoops it up in a bag and stabs it with a dagger.
When Aang joins with the Ocean Spirit, he uses both his and Laa's powers to destroy half of the Fire Nation fleet. In the film, he does not do this.

Clconway (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Do not see the problem

Why all the hating? In this movie Slimealien finally joined epic fail with epic suck. Isn't that enough achievement in itself? --92.202.1.6 (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC) That's not exactly an acchievement anyone should be proud of. I haven't seen the movie, but I wonder what the makers of the movie were thinking. WHy in god's name would you choose M. Night Shamalan for the director when he hasen't made a single half-decent movie since 2004. He started with such promise, but he's basically become another Ed Wood. Lots of enthusiasm, but not a whole lot of actual talent. If he had talent he wouldn't be overusing the "twist" plot device in every single movie. 74.198.151.58 (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


Award Section Screw Up

In the Award Section, under the Golden Raspberry Award for "Worst Eye-Gouging Mis-Use of 3D" it has the works of Philip K. Dick... I do believe that this is an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.206.253 (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Lack of fan reception

Admittedly I could have missed this because I only scanned the "Reception" section, but why is there no mention of the movie-goer reception to the movie? Or reception from fans of the TV show? CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 07:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sequels

On Avatar Wiki it says that Shyamalan is also writing and preparing "The Last Airbender 2", despite negative criticism. A 3rd movie is also planned. So should the sequel section be updated? --124.169.226.110 (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You see what the name of this site is? It's called WIKIpedia. WIKI means you can EDIT. If you feel something should be added in, add it. Putting it in the talk page just wastes your time.--198.209.161.201 (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

At the time the article was protected so I couldn't edit it. --58.7.232.156 (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Reception format change

I changed up the order of reception block in order to make it easier to read. I also added some reviewer's comments to show more of a balance between critic's and average people's reviews. I'm not sure about the format after each review comment. Anybody have an idea to spruce that up?Dive7 0 (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you please add "The Last Airbender" movie in "The Worst movie" article?

There's a worst movie The Last Airbender movie missing in The worst movie section. I have been trying to add The Last Airbender 2010 movie in Films considered the worst but every time I do add it on, it gets deleted. But I know for sure that The Last Airbender movie was rated the worst in film history and it won many razzle awards. I tried to make it professional to a neutral viewpoint but I'm not used to typing professional articles. I need help in adding The Last Airbender to be included in Films considered the worst I really want it included in Films considered the worst because The Last Airbender was criticized by both movie critics and Last Airbender cartoon fans. Please work out a deal with the wikipedia user that's in charge of films considered the worst or at least type an acceptable article on The Last Airbender and include it in Films considered the worst because all of us wikipedia users are ready for it to be included in The worst movie article and I'm ready for it. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed The Last Airbender cartoon TV show but I was disappointed with the movie changes because it felt boring and too serious. I did like James Newton Howards music it was great but the movie itself could've been better. CrosswalkX (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Section 6.2.2 :: Viewer Reviews

Not too sure if that section on the article is entirely relevant -- perhaps a summing up of that section (or maybe even the Reception section) is enough? --Adrian Dakota (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Success!!

I know that many people have been trying to add "The Last Airbender" to the "List of films considered the worst," and it has finally been accepted as such. Should we add a "See Also" section to this article? 76.173.178.162 (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Last Airbender (film)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

2 images. 108 citations. We don't say that the film is bad. JJ98 (Talk) 10:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Last edited at 10:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 20:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 01:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


The Last Airbender → The Last Airbender (film) – Move this page to The Last Airbender (film) or The Last Airbender (2010 film) and redirect The Last Airbender to the main show Avatar: The Last Airbender. The Last Airbender is used to refer to the main show Avatar: The Last Airbender like how The Empire Strikes Back is used to refer to the main film Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. The 2010 film should be titled The Last Airbender (film) or The Last Airbender (2010 film) (for if they were to reboot the Avatar: The Last Airbender film series). Light2Shadow (talk) 07:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support While the show was not called The last Airbender (on its own) I believe that more people typing that will be looking for the show than the film. Also, if this is moved, can someone please move the redirect The last airbender since it currently goes here?--174.93.163.194 (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I would also like to add that there is no reason to use The Last Airbender (2010 film) since the year is only need if there are more than one film of the same name and I am not aware of any other film titled The Last Airbender. If there is a reboot the title can be changed again once it's announced. In short it should be The Last Airbender (film).--174.93.163.194 (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with the statements made above. I would also say that "The Last Airbender" would refer to the entire franchise, which includes the film, but is not wholly the film. "The Last Airbender" should direct to the original source of the franchise. 76.173.178.162 (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Barring evidence that people who type in "The Last Airbender" (minus the "Avatar") are looking for something besides this article, I don't see this move as necessary.--Cúchullain t/c 14:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
While it would not exactly be evidence it should be noted that both Last Airbender and Last airbender have redirected to the series article for some time and I question whether or not someone adding the would be looking for the movie specifically.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reception from Konietzko & DiMartino

There should be lots more in this article about the reaction from the series creators. They don't talk about it often, but they did an interview here: http://www.nerdist.com/pepisode/nerdist-writers-panel-154-legend-of-korraavatar-the-last-airbender/ where they discuss it at length, describing how they had a major falling-out with Night, gave minimal input which was always ignored, and called it a "catastrophe". But I can't tell who's who when they're talking together. Maybe someone else can add some of this in? Staecker (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Modifying 2nd paragraph in Casting section

Modifying the sentence that talks about Noah Ringer studying Taekwondo. Since TKD is a martial art of of BOTH North and South Korea, it should be be noted as "Korea", not North or South.

Rayghost Use way as no way; Use limitation as no limitation (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ages

Peach114 has increased every character's age without explanation. I don't know if that's valid or not, because I don't know where the existing ages in the article came from. If there are sources for the character's ages, those should be included. If not, the ages should be removed. Reach Out to the Truth 16:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced production companies

The production companies were unsourced, so I added a citation for them (diff). This is to the American Film Institute. Crazybob2014 blanked the source and restored the unsourced production companies (diff). I reverted him (diff), and he reverted me back (diff). I would like to restore the reliably sourced production companies and remove the unsourced ones. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This says, "A Paramount release presented with Nickelodeon Movies of a Blinding Edge Pictures, Kennedy/Marshall Co. production." Paramount was the major studio involved, but not sure about the extent of Nickelodeon's involvement. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The problem with Variety's reviews is that they don't explicitly identify the production companies. One of them could be a production company, another could be a financier, another could be contractually obligated to appear in the billing block. We don't know exactly which ones are the production companies, though I often use Variety reviews when I can't find anything else. It's certainly better than nothing. AFI, Screen International, and The Hollywood Reporter all explicitly list the production companies, which I think is more useful than looking at the billing block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The BFI credit it as a Paramount/Nickelodeon presentation that was produced by Blinding Edge Pictures and Kennedy/Marshall Co. Both Paramount and Nickelodeon are owned by Viacom, so I doubt Nickelodeon would have been involved in the film's production because that is what Paramount does for Viacom. It looks to me that the two independents produced it for Paramount who funded and distributed it; Nickelodeon is likely just in the credits for licensing reasons. It's really a question of how you interpret the credits: either just the two production companies should be included in the production company field or all four companies should be included. I favor the latter because it relies on less editorial interpretation. Betty Logan (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The important thing is that it gets sourced. I think the AFI is a perfectly legitimate source for an American film, but if the BFI disagrees, fine, we can go with that instead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I think both sources are legitimate for any film regardless of the country they are made in, so the real question is how to handle the inconsistency? Betty Logan (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. I think I was feeling a bit tired and grumpy when I wrote that. What you suggested sounds fine to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw an IP editor screwing with the production companies and went back to the AFI's database entry, which was already in the article. I forgot about this discussion on the talk page, since there was no source for the production companies. Once I remembered, I cited the BFI source above for the production companies, which seemed to be the consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on The Last Airbender. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Parts of the article read like promotional material for the production companies

The Special Effects section sounds like promotional material from ILM. Should be cleaned up and shortened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.10.80 (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Clarifying that the Golden Raspberry Awards are parodies

I recently made a small edit, adding the word "parody" before the phrase "Golden Raspberry Awards" in the second paragraph of the lead section. I did this because, when I read the lead section for the first time, I personally found it confusing and had to click on the blue link to Golden Raspberry Awards in order to understand what was actually being said. But this edit was just reversed by an anonymous editor (109.77.209.211), on the grounds that "parody is not quite the right word," even though we currently call the awards a "parody" in the main Golden Raspberry Awards article. I think 109.77.209.211's reversal of my edit was rather silly and that the lead section reads better with the clarification. If there's no objection, I'll undo their reversal in the next day or so. Montgolfière (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm surprised you don't already know what the Golden Raspberry Awards are, but even so the award titles such as "Worst Picture" should be more than enough to make the context and nature of the awards clear. Further details are better left to the Golden Raspberry Awards page. -- 109.77.209.211 (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
"I'm surprised you don't already know what the Golden Raspberry Awards are."
I'm not a movie geek; I just happened across this article. I'm not sure why you're so insistent on NOT including this one word, but I can tell you that it definitely makes the article easier to read for people who aren't familiar with obscure parody film awards. Yes, the phrase "Worst Picture" gives you a clue that the awards are parodies, but since awards usually aren't parodies, it makes the average reader have to backtrack and re-interpret what they just read. That's not a good reading experience. And the fact that the awards are parodies isn't a "further detail," it's essential to understanding what they are. Montgolfière (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I get what you're saying but also editors have a tendency to think the introduction absolutely needs to explain the thing they think need to be explained when the introduction or lead is only supposed is introduce and summarize things, and any more detailed explanations belong in the article body. That's how it is supposed to work, but I might be overreacting a little because people are front loading much bigger things in the intro on a regular basis. I did consider changing the wording to satirical awards rather than parody, but ultimately I thought it was better to leave it out entirely and revert. Even those words seem too heavily weighted, it often seems like the Golden Raspberries seem like they're just punching down at easy targets and not saying anything insightful with their awards. Anyway, I wanted you to know I wasn't just reverting without having given it any thought. -- 109.77.209.211 (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
You could change the clarifying word from "parody" to "satirical" if you like. I don't really care either way. Montgolfière (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Dead not dead

There were a lot of dead links in the article. At some point these links were replaced with Archive URLs from the the Web Archive. Unfortunately someone thought these references were dead and a whole lot of them were removed from the article.

It is possible that this was an honest mistake because sometimes the Web Archive can be very slow and it is possible that people might not have been able to connect to the archive copy at that time, but in any case the archive copies are working now.

I restored a small part of what was erroneously deleted[1] but there is so much more that should not have been deleted and should be restored. -- 109.78.211.26 (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The scan of the page by this bot produced nine dead links tags, that is why I removed the ones I couldn't find new sourcing for. Rusted AutoParts 01:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Don't trust bots, verify. As I said above I suspect the fault was due to slow connections and the links were not really dead at all. It was very strange, many of the supposedly dead links already had Archive URLs added.
Bots used to be even worse, but even though they have improved the bots and automated tools continue do dumb things like using "Archive Copy" as a reference title. You have to check their work.
I hope you will take some time to restore some of what was deleted, and don't trust bots. -- 109.78.198.192 (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Last_Airbender_(film)/Archive_3&oldid=1163211774"