Talk:Avatar (2009 film)

Story

The following are discussions regarding the origins, inspiration for, and possible plagiarism in the creation of Avatar's story

Original story?

Is Avatar an original story or is it based on another work? Livingston 10:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want contemporary stuff a bit like Fern Gully and Independence Day, only here the humans are the ones who have basically exhausted the resources of their own homeworld(s), and are now unpleasantly seeking amends. Koyae (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It does seem very similar to Fallen Dragon by Peter F. Hamilton. Haven't seen any mention of that as an inspiration ... but it's hard to ignore. Kmmontandon (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It also has many similarities with Strugatsky brothers' works, especially Disquiet (which actually features planet Pandora that is very similar to the film's one).

It also seems to have a character called Nava in it.

I am sure that the plot is very similar to another I read about in the last few months, but I cannot remember what it was, or who wrote it. This is doing my head in, as I am sure that it is derived from it. Jason404 (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a short story featuring similar exploring method. "Call me Joe".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_me_Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.124.54 (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The movie premise does include almost _every_ Furry [Fandom] fiction Trope in existence... --203.14.156.193 (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a a definite resemblance to "Call me Joe" - I noticed it as soon as I heard the plot of this film (I first encountered "Call me Joe" in the Starstream comicbook adaptation!). In Development, I have added mention of apparent connection to writings by Anne McCaffrey (dragon bonding) and Ursula Le Guin (tree-hugging aliens invaded by militaristic humans). Considering Cameron openly stated that his film is a compendium of all the science fiction he's read, maybe a separate section on infuences is called for? - 152.76.1.244 (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The original items in the story were the tree, Eywa, the biolinks between creatures and the "unobtanium" that made the Hallelujah Mountains fly. As soon as the movie got 5 minutes in I thought of "Call me Joe." I kept expecting the avatars to strengthen and the people to die in their pods, but the equivalent was handled well through the tree. There are three other sci-fi stories I read before 1975 that this movie used for the plot, but I can't think of two of their names. The first was a story with a lush world that had a plant intelligence exactly like the one described by Sigourney Weaver with a female botanist-scientist who figured it out. There were these harmless and pretty floating creatures that the botanist called "phytos" that acted quite like the "seeds of the tree" that landed on the lead character in Avatar. The later part of that book is about the planet's total biosphere "waking up" and becoming conscious. The second story is less exact, but had a world I remember being named Pandora. And that world had incredibly dangerous animal life in it like the Pandora world in Avatar. The third story was even less exact, "The Integral Trees" and didn't have floating mountains, it had trees growing in space in a disk of dense gas surrounding a star. 69.230.116.219 (talk)SciFiKid —Preceding undated comment added 00:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC).

Not to mention everything from Pocahontas to Ferngully to Dances with Wolves...

Exactly what I thought: Dances with Wolves - IN SPACE! AND 3D! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.11.76 (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Fern Gully was the first thing I found myself thinking of when I watched the movie, same with my mum apparently. But as far as I know it wasn't directed based on anything, it just seems to include a lot of very common storylines. Danikat (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

From the description given so far in the article it sounds a helluva lot like Ursula K. Le Guin's The Word for World is Forest. Metamagician3000 (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Also very similiar to Alan Dean Foster's book 'Midworld' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midworld —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.47.44 (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I also was struck by the many, many similarities to Foster's works (midworld, sentenced to prism, and mid-flinx). I could go on for paragraphs on the similarities. And these are *not* simple plot elements -- these are major components of the world. It has me thinking "rip-off". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeshoff (talk • contribs) 19:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am suprised that nobody mentioned 1995 Blue Byte's software game 'Albion' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion_(game) which is strikingly simillar not only with story but also with character desing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.179.14.78 (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Meh. Avatar appears familiar because many of the story elements are very simple ideas. Even the idea of humans controlling other lifeforms with their minds is as old as stories themselves. Witchcraft, psychic powers, and now science. Heck, Lovecraft wrote about aliens transferring their minds into alien bodies. Some people are always trying to take the wind out of other people's sails for no good reason. 92.9.60.71 (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Pandora, the lush jungle planet with incredible lifeforms and non-technological native population, is featured prominently in several of the Strugatsky brothers works, especially the late 1960's Snail on the Slope, specifically featuring a downed human helicopter pilot whose severed head was fastened on a native's body, immersed into their society - having his conscience in effect implanted into an alien body - who becomes a warrior on their behalf in the end. And, at the "base", there's an episod when a seed takes root in a human's body very rapidly. Coincidence? Not very likely.

There are many "coincidences" between this book & a film. For example, Forest in Stugatskys' book is reasonable being. Also book has such a fragment: "Hет, — сказал Алик, — просто они чувствуют друг друга на расстоя— нии. Фитотелепатия. Слыхали?" Translation: No - said Alex. But they (trees) sense each other from grate distance. Herbal telepathy. Have you heard about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.100.117.32 (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

How's that not a set of *many* *amazing* similarities? Name of planet, name of a character, type of civilization, type of life, the cituation of a human implanted into the native body and society, the natives able to control their incredibly vital environment by sheer thought, humans trying to exploit the natives (well that's one is a virtual given in any story but all the rest..... c'mon!). WillNess (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable source to back that claim, it can't be included in the article. The IP above you said it best, "Avatar appears familiar because many of the story elements are very simple ideas." Erik (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a reliable source. I've read the book. Also, the book itself is a reliable source. Do you want year of print and page number for every one of the facts I mention? WillNess (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You are probably reliable, but how general are we allowed to get? Can we include similarities between Romeo and Juliet because they fell in love and they're from two warring groups, any romance book with a love triangle, or The Hero with a Thousand Faces (what I first thought of for some reason)? I feel like this is our interpretation; perhaps accurate and knowledgeable interpretation, but our interpretation nonetheless. CM (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you are not a reliable source. You are basically doing synthesis, which is original research and not appropriate for inclusion. Unless actual reliable sources make such comparisions, it doesn't belong in the article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Relationship to Last Airbender?

When I say the first preview I immediately assumed that this film would have something to do with The Last Airbender because of the font alone. Is this similarity in font/typography a coincidence just because there are only so many ways to present the word "Avatar" in a visually pleasing manner? Does anyone know anything about that aspect in-particular, and in addition, are there other similarities to the Nickelodeon-series worth mentioning? (Other than saving the world, because name a fantasy-story that doesn't atleast touch on the theme.) Koyae (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What's this about Pocahontas?

In the article it currently reads:

“ Cameron saw his story as being about how advanced civilizations supplant indigenous cultures, in either actively genocidal or more unpremeditated ways, and was influenced by the story of Pocahontas[citation needed]. ”

I Googled around to try to find an interview where he mentions Pocahontas, and I don't see it. Found an amusing Youtube video comparing Avatar and Disney's Pocahontas, but that's it. [1] People compare it with other movies, which makes no sense whatsoever, since it isn't out yet. Many stories have someone going native, falling in love with a girl, and turning against his own side. Dream Focus 04:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Has been removed, clearly just speculation. Gamaur (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing "pocahontas" about this one. It's just a high tech remake of the old 50's tv series named "Cochise". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleriver1 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? It's Pocahontas in space, with giant robots and explosions.

Maybe, but without reliable sources it's just speculation and inappropriate for inclusion in the article. Doniago (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, no source equals speculation. One could say the mating scene closely resembles scenes from the animated film Fern Tree Gully, during the song A Dream Worth Keeping. You'll find it shockingly similar. But this is just speculation. James Cameron will need to say this himself for it qualify as a source. --Messenger777 (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The Strugatsky Brothers' original 1960-s novel

Pandora, the lush jungle planet with incredible life-forms and non-technological native population, is featuring prominently in several of the Strugatsky brothers works, with one of them, the late 1960-s "Snail on the Slope", specifically featuring a downed human helicopter pilot whose severed head was fastened on a native's body, who becomes integrated into their society - totally prototypical of the film's story. WillNess (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Boris Strugatsky says about this film: "Но не судиться же с ними!?" ("I wouldn't sue them, would I now?" (i. e. americans)). Look here: http://www.rusf.ru/abs/int0135.htm#17 --Luch4 (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

And of course he has no claim as the USSR wan't a party to international copyright protection treaty, so everything from the Soviet era is free for taking. But of course a mention would be nice, and only proper. They could at least put a little "inspired by" in there. WillNess (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As I stated in one of my edit summaries, one of the reasons this stuff about the Strugatsky brothers keeps getting removed is likely due to the fact that James Cameron does not say he drew on this work or even knows of it. Sourcing that this story exists is not the problem; it is clear that it exists, from the Wikilinks or Googling it. Associating it with Cameron as if he stated he drew on this work is the problem. Flyer22 (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not about whether the fact of borrowing ideas. In the end, it may be just a coincidence - title "Pandora" is suited to a planet covered with jungle very well, and could have invented a completely irrespective of Strugatsky. The point is that such a coincidence is, and some sources note it. In addition, there is not only the same name, there are a number of items that make the situation even more interesting.

_{(Суть не в том, был ли факт заимствования идей. В конце концов, это может быть просто совпадением - название "Пандора" весьма неплохо подходит к планете, покрытой джунглями, и могло быть придумано совершенно безотносительно к Стругацким. Суть в том, что такое совпадение есть, и некоторые источники это отмечают. К тому же совпадают там не только названия, есть ещё ряд пунктов, что делает ситуацию еще интереснее.)} --Luch4 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This paragraph is still included in the themes section, and has now been sourced to here, a russian-language blog. I don't believe this constitutes a reliable source; in fact, the only material that I would judge as appropriate to include is the offhand comment made by Strugatsky acknowledging the film's similarities to his works, mentioned above by Luch4. And even that would be a stretch. Is there any precedent here on Wiki for a separate section discussing similar works? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

We had a Similarities to other works section in this article, but it was merged into the Reception section. Yes, sections about similarities are in some film articles (or at least were in other cases). If reliable sources directly note the similarities between Avatar and some of the Strugatsky brothers' works, it is better presented in the Critical reception section (where other works are noted to be similar to Avatar). Or at least state something in the Themes and inspirations section from one of these people noting the Strugatsky brothers' similarities, so that it is clear that Cameron has not stated that he drew on these works.

Leaving it as it is now, some editors might still proceed to remove it every time it is added back. Flyer22 (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In RuNet (Russian-speaking parts of the Internet), the question of the number of matches with creativity of Strugatsky brothers takes it for granted, and not just bloggers (incidentally, a little clarification: in the Russian language the word "blogpost" denoted by a newspaper column the part of journalists, not blog in the true sense of the word). Here, for example, a few Russian-language papers: [2], [3] And, I repeat, we are talking about coincidences, but not the charges for borrowing. Perhaps this very fact (observation of Russian visitors and Strugatsky's reaction) will be useful for the "Trivia" section or something like that.

_{В Рунете вопрос о ряде совпадений с творчеством Стругацких принимается как данность, и не только блоггерами (кстати, маленькое уточнение: в русском языке словом "блогпост" принято обозначать авторскую колонку стороннего журналиста, а не блог в прямом смысле слова). Вот, для примера, еще несколько русскоязычных статей. Причем, повторю, речь идет именно о совпадениях, а не об обвинениях в заимствовании. Возможно, сам этот факт (наблюдение русских зрителей и реакция Стругацкого) пригодится для раздела Trivia или что-нибудь в этом роде.} --Luch4 (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Even with "talking about coincidences, but not the charges for borrowing," it looks as though it is "charges of borrowing" by having this in the Themes and inspirations section. Cameron does not cite this work. Thus, I am not seeing how it belongs there any more than the works in the Critical reception section that are noted as being similar do. It should be removed from the Themes and inspirations section and instead put into the Critical reception section, but significantly cut down and with a quote by one of the creators or some other notable person comparing the stories, or put into a Similarities to other works section. Flyer22 (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The content is unreliably sourced and does not belong. There do not seem to be any reliable (authoritative) sources about this matter. The comparison should be excluded from the article. Erik (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Erik. Without an actual reliable source confirming this, it should be excluded. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree too. No source from the actual people involved in making the film it can't be added to the article. Peppage^tlk 20:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not for them to admit, it's for us to see. If a shoplifter has 20 items in his purse exactly like the ones a shop carries, he has noting to admit. It's in plain sight for all to see. I think new section is to be added to the article, under "Allegations of plagiarism". As such, it would need no confirmation from the film makers, only from the allegation makers. And for this we do have a direct confirmation from the author himself, at the link given above - http://www.rusf.ru/abs/int0135.htm#17 . WillNess (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It might not be for them to admit, but it's not for us to see either; when a reliable scholarly or critical source identifies this as plagiarism, it can be put in. It's still less than a week after the film's release; if there are serious plagiarism issues, they will come to light in time, rest assured. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Similarities to Other Works

This section is not a relevant addition to the article. There as been much conjecture regarding the similarity of the plot to other works on various online forums, but this has merely been a response to the James Cameron's early proclamation of it being an entirely 'original' film. Such a section is not typical of other film articles, despite the fact that nearly every other Hollywood production could be accurately compared to a preceding work. I propose that it be removed all together. Gamaur (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone important labeled Avatar as a shinier and more 3D Fern Gully-clone yet? Koyae (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this should go under Reception.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be removed all together. Gamaur (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't. Seems like most films haven't engendered this much discussion in reliable sources, including the filmmaker's discussion, re plot and themes taken from other films, so it's notable. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

On Tuesday President Medvedev will send a telegram to President Obama to protest the Oscar nominations of the Avatar movie, because it was based on the stolen, unpaid an uncredited plot of an sf novel by the famous soviet-russian authors, A. and B. Strugatsky. Russia wants 15% of the movie revenue to settle. 82.131.134.111 (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see any mention of that telegram on the internet or news. Does Medvedev still use telegrams? : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually uses, but in this case - it was a joke, I think :) --Luch4 (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Aquablue (Comics French) : Similarity graphs and same story

In France, Avatar is criticized for plagiarising the Comics French Aquablue (1989-2006) with the same story, similarity graphs, the ecological theme, etc.[4]Avatar VS AquablueAvatar copie Aquablue ?.

Synopsis of Aquablue - Volume 1, Nao :

The only survivor of a shipwreck space, the young orphan Nao lands on a planet unknown Aquablue, the world-ocean, where peaceful fishermen are responsible for his education. But this ideal life is shattered by the arrival of earthlings from creating an industrial complex to disastrous climatic consequences. Nao is the heart of the unequal struggle that engages the bearer of a mysterious inheritance, it also has a special link with the most powerful inhabitant Aquablue ...[5]

(Also, The space ship that sank with Nao's parents called the White Star. The disaster is not without allusion to the Titanic. Besides, the company that owned the Titanic was called the White Star ...)[6]

Similarity graphs :

1. The Natives blue skin...[7]
2. The wicked exorobots armed combat, want to exterminate the natives to exploit the planet.[8]
3. Natives have a telepathic link and / or with the spiritual world and the animals

Thank you to announcements in Critical reception section of the film

--Losthighway42 (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources making such claims? Forum postings and blog postings are not reliable sources, nor is another Wikipedia. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Characters

"# Laz Alonso as Tsu'Tey, one of Pandora's finest Na'vi warriors and Neytiri's brother." is false information. Tsu'Tey, one of Pandora's finest Na'vi Warriors and Neytiri's predestined mate.

Source? I watched the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puttpig (talk • contribs) 01:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

yeah you're right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mini p18 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a need for a separate article that explains and describes the various characters and creatures of the film? This will also clear the debate over their description, features and evolutions. Like a 'List of Characters' or 'Characters in Avatar' !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debnathsandeep (talk • contribs) 01:11, December 24, 2009

No, there isn't. This is a single film and all relevant information can be easily put here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately for you (as you claimed), there is a need as people have pointed out. Please see Characters and wildlife in Avatar. bhuto (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Pandora's neural treeroot architecture

It seems like the mechanism by which Pandora's lifeforms literally communicate with the planet the whole time is rather important and should be mentioned in the synopsis, no? It not only provides a plausible natural explanation that helps the plot make sense, but it also provides valuable context for explaining almost all of the actions of the Na'vi. 74.128.201.242 (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it a significant plot point? if not, the minute details are not really needed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, parts of the plot synopsis are rather inaccurate due to the leaving out of this crucial information given in the movie. For example, at the movie's end the main character's "soul" is not transplanted to his avatar, as the synopsis (as of 12/22) claims; rather, in a biological process the planet integrates his brain's information into its global neural network (made of electrical signals that pass through treeroots) and then transmits it back out from there. In other words, it's not the mystical supernatural sort of thing the synopsis would suggest; it's simply a type of biology not found on earth, and a major source of conflict in this film is that the scientists begin to understand this (and therefore understand the need to protect the planet's ecosystem) whereas the mercenaries do not.

Similarly, the entire point of the Na'vi wanting to preserve their "sacred sites" is not some primitive mysical thing like the drivel in the synopsis would suggest; it's because those sites are their link into the global neural net (which also links them to the knowledge of all their dead ancestors). This is all unknown to the Na'vi themselves, who don't understand how it all works, hence their entire culture and religion in the movie. Their diety "Eywa" is the global neural network itself. But the synopsis totally neglects to define Ewya, the Hometree, the Tree of Souls, or any of these things that it mentions for what they really are.

Yes, it's important; it's the sole source of motivation for nearly all of the characters. Someone who has watched this film and who took more away from it than some mystical superficial message needs to make corrections accordlingly, so that this plot can be summarized accurately and in all its fascinating glory. At the very least, someone should paraphrase what I've described here, because right now the article lacks all of this information, and provides a rather misleading view of Avatar's fictional universe.74.128.201.242 (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I'll also point out that the plot synopsis forgets to mention a pretty huge fact about Jake and the primary reason why he suddenly became enamoured with his life as the avatar. In addition to the whole "falling in love with Na'vi culture," there's also the obvious fact that he can actually physically move around as an avatar and isn't a depressed wheelchair-bound marine like in real life. This comparison is a pretty constant theme in the movie. It deserves a line, but right now the synopsis doesn't even mentioned that he's handicapped. I'd add a blurb about this myself if the article wasn't locked. 74.128.201.242 (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. That should certainly be in the article. Dream Focus 18:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Its purely WP:OR. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian, I think that Dream Focus was talking about mentioning that Jake is handicapped should be included in the Plot section. I did not read all of what the IP stated, though; I do not want to be spoiled on anything significant. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It may be possible to discuss the environment using secondary sources. See this and this. We shouldn't be going on and on about such in-universe detail just by watching the film, though. Erik (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, not on and on; just suggesting a sentence or two. Totally leaving it out of the plot synopsis is like making the Batman movie article and neglecting to make it clear that Batman is not, in fact, an actual bat but is really a man in a batsuit, and then carefully sidestepping the topic during the whole synopsis to make it misleadingly seem like he actually is a bat. This stuff about what Pandora really "is" sets up the entire setting of the movie and so you can't explain what the movie is about without it. These simple facts are not original research; it's in the friggin movie, lol. That's, again, like watching batman and then saying the fact that batman is actually a guy in a batsuit wasn't sufficiently addressed in the movie and is therefore orginal research. No, the movie makes these concepts abundantly clear. I'm starting to wonder if you guys discussing what should go in the synopsis have even seen the movie.[[74.128.201.242 (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Then we'll have to start getting used to the idea that the plot summary is going to be 1400 words long, if we're going to include everything. There's simply too much going on; the film is a fantastic piece of work, nothing is in there just for eye candy, it all plays a part in the story. I've tried to trim it down, but it's difficult. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't even a issue of length; the current synopsis spends as much space carefully stepping around these concepts as it would if it just said them. How much space does it really take to say "the Na'vi, a sentient race with biological parts that enable them to communicate with a sentient neural network of treeroots wrapping around their planet" or something, with a link to the article on what a neural network is? Then take out all the untrue stuff about souls and explain why the Navi and the scientists were really trying to protect the sacred trees/ecosystem, and you're left with an article that's just as long yet actually correct. What's so wrong with simply replacing untrue statements with true ones?74.128.201.242 (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. The current plot is plain wrong. There is no soul transfer or praying to Eywa which suddenly causes wildlife to attack the humans. This is just how the Navi interpret it. The film is very clear about Eywa being the intelligence emerging from the tree root-connections, which is shown to be able to communicate with animals. Augustine's memories are uploaded to the network, then Jake connects to Eywa to warn about the attack and suggest to use Augustine's memories to understand the danger. Even though Neytiri believes Eywa will not take sides, this information is apparently enough to convince it to cause the animals to attack the humans "to protect the balance of life". I think it's more important that the plot be correct, then let's worry about length.87.68.22.45 (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something. Augustine had a theory about the properties of the treeroot system as a neural network but that was only addressed in passing. When they tried to transfer Augustine into her avatar and failed, I don't remember any mention that she was assimilated into the treeroot system. I don't think the treeroot system is important enough to add to the Plot section. Rwalker (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The nuances of how it works is not necessary, its excessive detail. Its enough to say simple "the Na'vi, a sentient race that communicate with a sentient neural network of treeroots wrapping around their planet" without the lines and lines of details. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Armond White's review

The Critical reception section should present negative reviews of the film as well. And I will be expanding that section, with not only positive reviews. Unlike Cosmic Latte, I am not seeing why any part of Armond White's review should not be specifically mentioned. I am not the one who originally put White's review there, but censoring his review is silly. We should censor him because he is not a well-respected critic? Exactly why should we censor him because of this? He comes from a well-respected, reliable source, where his reviews are read all the time by many; whether he is well-respected or not hardly ever matters in those cases. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Censoring the negative reviews violates WP:NPOV and gives a false impression that no one disliked it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

My tightening (call it "censoring" if you wish, but that's not the idea) is based on WP:NPOV itself--in particular, on it's WP:DUE section. Cited statements in the Armond White article indicate that he is viewed as a "critical clown", "a contrarian with political and personal axes to grind", and "a troll". White evidently does not represent a majority, or even a significant minority, view. NPOV does not mean that every position under the sun needs to be explained in detail; and while it's probably reasonable to note that not every single reviewer under the sun likes the film (and to provide an example of a dissident reviewer), it seems like an assignment of undue weight to grant anything but minimal space to a critic whose approach is so unusual that it's dismissed as "trolling" and the like by his fellow critics (including Roger Ebert). So, while it's fine for the article to summarize some dissident's (e.g., White's) views, it doesn't seem right to let the article turn into one naysayer's podium. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. This change is perfectly reasonable, IMO. There's nothing wrong with indicating that somebody holds a contrary view. But when that particular person is known as "a contrarian for the sake of being contrary", one has to doubt that his contrary review is even particularly interesting (let alone significant) in the first place--i.e., one must wonder if the review says more about White as a person (and he already has his own article for that) than about Avatar as a film. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree about including reviews by Armond White. "Troll" is the keyword I've read about his persona; he is not a genuinely authoritative figure when it comes to reviewing films. Basically, no mainstream critic hated the film. The closest are lukewarm reviews from Village Voice and Salon, either of which I have no problem being used. Erik (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it for us to decide that he is a "troll"? Whether other critics like him is irrelevant, I would think. He meets WP:RS and unless he is factually wrong, or not considered a professional reviewer, then it isn't our place to decide his reviews are without merit. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And now that we have other reviews there essentially echoing part of what White thinks of the film, such as The Christian Post, mentioning a bit of what he thought is even more justified. This is not a matter of WP:UNDUE; we only presented a bit of what he thought, not some big quote or paragraph. How is mentioning that bit of what he thinks harming Wikipedia? We already mention how he feels about the film. Why not go the extra length and mention a specific, quoted bit of it? Flyer22 (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Other critics (apparently along with the general public, at least in connection to Ebert) have already decided this for us. As a matter of comparison, if some "scientist" were to declare that humans evolved from unicorns, while the scientific community were to regard this fellow as a delusional quack, he would not get a prominent position (and most likely would get no position whatsoever) in the Human evolution article. The fact that movie critics don't take White seriously is, I would think, just as relevant to this article as the scientific consensus would be to the human evolution one. Anyway, the section seems to have evolved (no pun intended) in the past several hours and to have reached a fairly balanced and informative state. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. As for White's "reliability" as a source, that would seem to be something of a grey area. Yes, White is a reliable source about what White thinks, but what White thinks does not seem to be a reliable representation of Avatar's "Critical reception". White meets WP:N, so perhaps he can have an honorary seat up on the stage; but allowing him to take the microphone could be excessive and distracting. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh c'omn now, Cosmic Latte. You cannot compare this matter to scientists declaring that humans evolved from unicorns. Why? Because scientists would never state such an absurd thing. White is not that damn delusional; he is likely not delusional at all. All the man did on this matter was call the film a "simple-minded anti-industrial critique" and the "corniest movie ever made about the white man’s need to lose his identity and assuage racial, political, sexual and historical guilt." He should be censored for that, and because many critics consider him a joke? I disagree. Plenty of non-conservatives consider The Christian Post and other very conservative people a joke as well, and yet we have included a bit of what they have stated of the film. So far, we have two for White's specific "voice" being heard in this article, and two against. I am okay with letting the Reception section stay as it is now (in fact, I do not feel that I have to expand the Reception section anymore), but I find it silly to censor White's thoughts. He did not have a prominent spot in this article when his thoughts were specified, and he does not now. I simply am not seeing the problem with letting the man call the film corny. Flyer22 (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much further this thread can be stretched within reason, and don't really want to extend it much further, but just a note on the "unicorn" example: I know that nobody would actually propose that; that was just an off-the-cuff comparison. But somebody might as well have proposed it anyway, because there have been enough... "out-there" ideas, which have found their way into articles, that WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE came into being in the first place. The point is, in the world of film critics, White is out-there. I'm not suggesting that his views should be "censored" because they're "conservative", but rather that they should be minimized because they're on the WP:FRINGEs of film criticism. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There really is no need to keep stressing our points; we clearly disagree on this matter. But I will again state that there is nothing at all wrong with including the bit of White's views that we did. And I did not state that his views are conservative. I essentially stated that plenty of people consider the views of The Christian Post and other very conservative people to be "out there" as well, and yet we have included their thoughts in the Reception section. To go with your line of thinking, White should always be censored here at Wikipedia; I disagree with that, for the reasons I already stated above. His views were already minimized before your censorship. And in this case, they mimic others' views in that same paragraph. But, yeah, I have already made my thoughts about this known. It is not something that I particularly need to get into a long debate about/significantly fight for. If I see his views being censored all over Wikipedia, that is another matter. I am not for censorship, unless what we are censoring is big "fringe" or truly helps the article, and neither is Wikipedia, per WP:CENSOR. Flyer22 (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

He kind of seems racist from what I can gather. --Mike Allen 04:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

While suggesting that the class clown (or the "critical clown" as it may be) should calm down doesn't meet my definition of "censorship", I admit that the wording was vague and somewhat uninformative. I've tried to remedy that problem (and, I hope, to reach a sort of compromise) in a small series of edits ([9][10][11]) that may help the White clause lead up better to the Christian Post clause. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would still prefer his exact words be there, but I had already compromised with you. I did not revert you on this matter again, and instead discussed it here at the talk page...where I stated that I am okay with letting it stay that way. I, of course, still disagree with not letting a bit of White's specific words stand, and believe that the wider Wikipedia community would also be against not letting a bit of his specific words stand, but I have already accepted your compromise. This does not mean the editor who originally added that information will, however, or others. This compromise should not be confused as consensus.

On a side note, why do you keep adding a comma to this part of the Reception section? The comma does not belong there, since it is not a sentence fragment. If it were a sentence fragment, then the comma would belong there, per WP:Logical quotation. Flyer22 (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The only reference in WP:LQ to sentence fragments is, "When quoting a sentence fragment that ends in a period..." The line in question is not a sentence fragment that ends in a period (although it is a fragment, i.e., is not the entirety, of the original line), so I don't see how that part of LQ is relevant. My edits were based on the whole idea of LQ, which is that one should "place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." Take, for example, the line I just quoted. In WP:LQ, the word "not" is followed by a period, so when I quote that line, I include the period after "not". In the film review, the statement from which our line is drawn is, "The screen is alive with more action and the soundtrack pops with more robust music than any dozen sci-fi shoot-'em-ups you care to mention (watch the "Avatar" video game trailer here)." The article's quotation of this line stops at the word "mention", and since there is no comma following "mention" in the original text, there should not be a comma within the article's quotation of that text. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that line does not stop at "mention." I was going by what is in the article. And in the article, it ends at "mention" and is presented as a whole sentence. People are presenting some sentence fragments as whole sentences, and some whole sentences as sentence fragments. Either way, commas are sometimes not a part of quoted material when we state "he said" or "she said." We are sometimes the ones to add the commas right before the "he said" or "she said" parts; if they are conveying a complete sentence, Wikipedia says that we should put the commas within the quotes (like is usually done). In this particular case, however, I am not sure. The "(watch the 'Avatar' video game trailer here)" part is in parentheses. The complete sentence, what the reviewer is saying, is conveyed without that. Maybe the WP:Logical quotation section should be expanded to clarify. It has been interpreted differently by different people more than once, as also seen at Talk:The Twilight Saga: New Moon#WP:Logical quotation. I will bring in editor Finell in on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not just White's critical review. All around the world Avatar got several harsh critics. Mostly due to its purported poor artistic merits, and its concentration on technological grounds only. There should be a Criticism section for this movie, dedicated to criticism of the movie per se as well as its political agenda.Tom Peleg (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Plot section issues

I accept that my edits had faults, though I do believe that the plot section does need some major revamping. I understand that it shouldn't be too "in-universe", but right now it is a collection of two sentence paragraphs that don't make any sense together. One thing that should be considered is that this movie is 2 1/2 hours long and the plot isn't simple, so the section may reach a little over the 699 word limit if it is to read well, which is after all the ultimate goal- (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

See the two sections above about the plot. I didn't read all of your edits as I don't wish to be spoiled on the plot, however from the first few sentences, I saw nothing that added to the summary that met guidelines, only excessive wordiness (stating "the protagonist" which is not necessary, for example) and extraneous details). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I understand that my edits had faults, but rather than undoing my edits and taking the plot section back to square 1, perhaps you could have improved on them, for instance by taking out the word "protagonist". Also, I understand that you don't want to be spoiled on the plot, though we are trying to improve this section, and since it is the plot section, their may be a few "spoilers"-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

It was overall just too long, and I made a reasonable choice to revert based on a quick skim of the edits. Bringing it just under 700 just because we can really isn't needed. The plot was just trimmed today by an editor over quite a few edits...why not let it stand a bit, or suggest specific things you feel are lacking in terms of information missing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute, so you haven't even seen this movie and are actively avoiding information about its plot ("spoilers")? Then why the heck are you, of all people, highly active in writing the plot synopsis? No offense, but shouldn't someone who actually knows what they're talking about do that? 74.128.201.242 (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to see the movie, not read the synopsis. I do not have to have seen the movie to express a view on the length of the plot section, which I know plenty about as an experienced editor in film articles. Sorry, but I have yet to see any film of this length and type that could not be properly summarized in under 700 words in a way that non-fans couldn't get the basic guist of it. A nine page book series can be properly summarized in less words than that, so why can't this film? Because people are stuck on including minor details that while relevant for someone wanting to get into in-depth philosophical discussions of the film may find relevant, are not necessary to get the basic understanding of the plot. And FYI, I have not written a single word in the article, beyond correcting the date formats and doing some mild reverting in responses to edits. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, if it makes sense for the plot summary to not have spoilers then I'm confused about what sort of audience the plot section is meant for. If it's primarily for people who haven't seen the film and don't want "spoilers," then yeah it makes sense for it to read more like what the back of a movie's DVD case would tell you. But I've always thought that these articles were supposed to contain thoughtful analysis of a movie for encyclopedic purposes, not just a "preview" of one for potential moviegoers. This is an encyclopedia, not some ticket sales site. I feel like I should be able to come to this article and get a good plot explanation that includes a brief analysis of the point of it all, and that's just not gonna happen without spoilers.74.128.201.242 (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was primarily for people who haven't seen the film, nor did I saw it was for anyone who doesn't want spoilers. Obviously the plot will have spoilers. Where did you get anywhere in my reply that I wanted spoilers removed?? Wikipedia contains spoilers, plain and simple. The plot section should be a summary of the film with the major plot points from beginning to end. That's it. It is not written purely for fans, but anyone interested in reading the plot of the film for a purpose of giving the article context as a whole. The plot section should not, however, contain every nuance, minute scene, etc. It is not a substitute for seeing the film, but a summary of the major points. See WP:MOSFILM, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF for the relevant guidelines. And no, it is NOT supposed to contain a "thoughtful analysis" unless said analysis comes from reliable sources, and that doesn't go in the plot section. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay at this point I think we're arguing in favor of the same thing in different words, and mistaking the other person for being in disagreement. I too don't want the plot to have minute details; by "thoughtful analysis" I just mean the "big picture." The stuff I was saying we should add about the neural network is a "big picture" thing because it is the sole source of conflict in this movie. 74.128.201.242 (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright guys, I think that one thing we can all agree on is that this article's plot section is at the moment in terrible condition. Right now I am working on a new plot section, which you guys may improve on (though not undo), since this is taking me a while. One question, should I leave in the first 2 paragraphs, because I see that some of the info is covered in the topic section. Also, read Flyer22's comment at the bottom. I think out of any of this it has the most relevance to whats going on-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Alright I understand. I think that the information in the first two paragraphs could be trimmed down or could be scattered throughout the article, which would therefore leave more room for plot information. It would also leave more room for sentences that could make paragraphs such as this read better: "Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang) orders Jake to gain the trust of the Na'vi so as to get them to abandon Hometree, which covers a large unobtanium deposit. As part of his Omaticaya initiation, Jake tames a flying creature known as a Banshee."-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

You're right, many of the paragraphs contain seemingly unrelated plot points. If someone could group sentences better and add transitions, the plot description would improve a lot. 74.128.201.242 (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The plot should be a start to finish summary. If it is out of order, by all means correct it, please. Quick scanning the first two paragraphs, yes, some of that should be cut down and moved to appropriate mention as they occur (and the height and all is really excessive detail). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt that some of the sentences in there are trivial details that could be removed outright alongside the stuff I'm recommending that we add, but again, the article looks like it's locked for me so I can't do that trimming or any rearranging for cohesion myself.74.128.201.242 (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

-Also, there are featured movie articles which have excelled 699 words in their plot sections (though did not reach the over 1000 words of my faulty edit). 300 for example.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

300's plot was shorter when it was passed for FA. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would rather keep the plot discussion in one section, but I will state that I was surprised that editor Tovojolo trimmed the Plot section; Tovojolo has been the main one adding to the plot these past few days. And with all the complaints about the plot section leaving out important or complicated detail, I am beginning to think more and more that this is not a plot that can be adequately conveyed in just 700 words. Flyer22 (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This may not be a very good example as it's only a GA. But Titanic is another long film, and its plot is at 2,114. --Mike Allen 07:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL, and Collectonian recently put tags on that article; it likely needs some cleanup, seeing as I usually trust Collectonian's judgment on Wikipedia matters (even when I sometimes disagree with those judgments). Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

On my 2nd reedit of the plot section, I feel that I am making the same mistakes as last time. Could you guys tell me specifically what I did wrong so that I may not make the same mistakes?-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 05:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Alright, since my edit has lasted for at least 5 minutes, I am assuming that everyone has decided to not undo. Could you guys tell me how else the plot section could be improved?-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Well, certain factoids that are included such as "by disabling the bulldozer's camera systems" and "As part of his Omaticaya initiation, Jake tames a flying creature known as a Banshee and is allowed to choose a mate" are highly specific in nature and contribute nothing to the "big picture" understanding of the plot. Trimming out all those can shorten the summary greatly. Yet at the same time, certain "big picture" things are missed entirely or misrepresented. For instance, there's the failure to explain things in the context of the underlying nature of Pandora (the treeroots), and as a result there's statements like "They attempt to transplant (Augustine's) soul into her avatar with the help of the Tree of Souls, but she dies from her wounds." that are outright wrong due to the lack of that context (in that case, it wasn't about souls at all, and she didn't just die; her brain's information was successfully assimilated into the treeroots/Eywa). The article needs more explaination of why a main character did something major (ex. Jack's preference for his life as the avatar because it gives him legs is what made him get so involved in that alternate life), whereas the more minor things the characters do which are currently laundry-listed off (ex. disabling camera systems) need to just be left out to save space. In general, the article needs to be less about going scene-by-scene and describing the mundane details of each, and more about describing how things fit in, and pulling all the facts together to make one unified message. 74.128.201.242 (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the feedback. I was just unsure about the length (you know that issue), but yeah sure I'll definitely add more details. I've seen the movie twice (so far), so I remember quite a lot of detail. I'm just glad that my edits aren't undone. By the way, you should consider getting an account so then you could contribute to this article as well, because you sound like you have valuable things to say-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, I had a feeling that's why the article was locked for me. I made an account once; I'll dig up its password. 74.128.201.242 (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Length of Plot section

I appreciate everyone's concern about the length of the plot section, though I do believe if everyone saw the movie, they themselves would appreciate that this plot is long and complex (since after all, the movie is 2 1/2 hours long). While there are still some unnecessary details which need to be weeded out (which I have been working on for the past few hours), most of the content in the section is relevant and is hard to shorten without losing important plot facts. As Mike Allen mentioned above, the plot section for Titanic was over 2,000 words and is currently rated a GA.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Other films having longer plot sections are not a valid excuse to shove in extra words. Sorry, but even without seeing it the film is not that complex. It is only "complex" when people feel the need to explain every nuance of the fictional world, which is not necessary. Please sto claiming Titanic's is 2000+ words. It isn't. Its just under 1300 words, which is still way too long and in serious need of cutting down - its being GA is irrelevant, as GA does not include compliance with WP:MOSFILM (and note that it failed its FAC due to the plot and other issues). However, if you want to look at GA examples, Category 6: Day of Destruction is a THREE hour movie, with multiple story lines going on. It is summarized in under 600 words. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The movie Category 6: Day of Destruction is about a hurricane destroying a city, which in itself is very simple and could be summarized in 600 words. This movie, on the other hand, covers multiple topics, including Jake Sully's saga through Pandora, the "treeroot" system, Col. Quaritch's desire to destroy the na'vi etc., all of which are important to the plot and should be included in this article. Also, if articles such as 300 or Titanic have +600 word plot sections but are still graded as FA or GA, then why are we having this discussion in the first place? Are we arguing for the sake of arguing or for the actual improvement of the article?-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

One - other articles having problems is not an excuse to do the same here. And no, the treeroot system and all that does NOT need extensive explanation. Titanic is flagged for plot clean up now, and 300's is just above the 700 mark, and nothing like what y'all are continuing to try to do here. We are not talking about those articles, we are talking about this one. This film does NOT warrant going past the 700 word mark. Its that simple. Its obvious you loved the film, but the plot section does not need every nuance for someone to get a basic understanding of the plot. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm just trying to improve this article because:

• When I first viewed the plot section of this article, it was in a terrible condition
• I generally try to help improve Wikipedia when such sections are in such conditions

My opinion about the movie have nothing to do with it. Yes, I may have seen it twice because I think it was a good movie, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that this article is C-grade and I think we would all like to raise it to at least B-grade. I doubt that the length of the plot section would effect this article as much as the length of more important sections, such as "Reception", since after all that is more important (plus, for the last time, those movies that I have mentioned have been rated past B-grade, even with plot sections above the 600 words you continue to preach about [yes, that is a relevant point by the way]). Still, a plot section that is well-written and not over 1000 words is needed, which I have been trying to work on all morning. The problem is, this is a complicated plot, and I think I would know more since I have seen the movie twice. I would appreciate it if you could help me write this article instead of criticizing my every dang edit, because in the end, it is slowing down progress and annoying many people. Thanks- (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Actually, 300 is now at 631 words, without the loss of any major plot points. Yes, the length of the plot does affect the article just as much as any other section. A well-written plot section shouldn't need more than 700 words in 99% of the cases, and this is not one fo the exceptions. You consider it a complicated plot, but that doesn't make it such nor does it mean that every nuance needs to be explained. I'm not criticizing your every edit, nor is anyone else. We are attempting to discuss the on-going issues with the excessive amounts of plot being added to the article in general. It isn't anything personal, nor does it mean that anyone here is less interested in seeing it improved. You improve it your way, others are free to improve it in other ways, which includes pointing out issues and discussing them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is, you have been arguing with me all morning rather than providing contribution to this plot section at all. Your point about people contributing would be valid had you of edited this article in a productive way rather than, as they say, trolling on this talk page. Now tell me, are you arguing with me to embetter this article about Avatar, or are you arguing with me for the sake of being right? From you tone of voice, it seems like the latter.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

I am arguing to improve the article, as someone who is concerned about the state of all film article as a member of the Films project and one of its coordinators who takes interest in such matters when they are called to the project's attention. If I were arguing with you for the sake of "being right" I'd say it has to be under 700 period and that's that. I've repeatedly read the arguments that the film is "too complex" without any concrete examples of what is so complex that it just must have more words. I've attempted to explain several times why I feel this one does not need to exceed the stated length guidelines. I've responded to the examples you gave (and corrected one even), noting that one failed its FAC for that reason and is now tagged for length. I've pointed to other examples of good plot summaries of longer films, which you rather rudely dismissed as a "simple" film despite its 3 hour length. Calling me a troll is neither a proper assumption of good faith nor a civil response to reasonable discussion. I am not the only one who has noted issues with the plot length and the excessive detail. Attacking me and claiming I'm not being "productive" by joining in the discussion is really not helpful to a resolution either. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my comments about you being a troll, but you must understand my frustration. I have been working hard to try to improve the plot section. It all started yesterday when you rather rudely undid my edits (which by the way took me a considerable amount of time to do) and took the section back to square 1. Yes, I understand that my edits had faults, but rather than undoing, which is the easy way out, you could have built upon my edits, like its supposed to be done, since I think though there was some excessive detail on some facts, there was some usable content in there. I understand that plot sections cannot be 1000 words long, but this plot, no matter who says it, is complicated (I would know since I saw the movie), so it has been quite hard to try and fit all of that information in there without passing the apparent 700 word mark. Since you are an editor who has had considerable experience (yes, I saw your page), perhaps you could give me the advice I've been looking for this entire time.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

I don't know where I got over 2,000 words for Titanic, I put it in MS Office Word just now and it says 1,245 words. I must have been half asleep last night. Anyways, from what I gather, having a looong plot can be considered a copyright violation. So that's one reason why it's strongly discouraged. --Mike Allen 20:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Vote?

Perhaps we should take a vote to reach WP:Consensus about this article's plot section? This back and forth is not solving anything, and plot section lengths are sometimes a case-by-case issue. It seems that the editors of the The Dark Knight (film) article have also reached consensus about the length of that film's plot section. Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

All those for the current length version of the plot section, vote Support, with a brief reason why and by listing your editor name or IP account, under the Support option; those against it, vote Oppose, with a brief reason why and by listing your editor name or IP account, under the Oppose option.

Support

• Support for the reasons I stated in the above plot sections on this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Length is never a valid reason to delete something. Too many articles are destroyed, and replaced by some brief token bit that no one finds interesting. If you don't want to read something, you can easily skip over it. Dream Focus 20:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support-ish: While the current length doesn't strike me as excessive (especially considering the film's own length), if it can be summarized more concisely, I see no problem with that either. The plot can always be found in the film itself, while an encyclopedia has the additional ability to treat the film as an object of (sourced) analysis and social interest. Also, nobody is suggesting that a vote tally can replace consensus. Votes just help to give everyone a sense of where others stand at the beginning of the consensus-reaching process, and to bring up specific points that need to be addressed. This is what jurors often do during deliberation, and it is what Wikipedians do all the time at WP:AFD, WP:RFA, WP:DRV, and so on. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support I would prefer we accept a slightly longer plot that lets us use more attractive prose, than an unappealing list of plot points. A lot does go on in this film, and if we're going to try to capture it at all, we should try to do it well. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support The plot of this movie is long and complex and is hard to contain in less than 700 words if it is to read well. Perhaps a 850 or 900 word limit would suit this.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Oppose

• Oppose both the notion of a vote and the current length. Wikipedia is not a vote and simple stating "the length is fine" without any actual discussion on the content is pointless. The length is too long because it contains excessive detail that is not necessary to understanding the plot of the film. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Collectonian, I proposed a vote because voting has been done with other Wikipedia articles in order to help reach consensus, such as whether or not to merge the Anakin Skywalker article with the Darth Vader article (that topic has been debated several times). I understand what you mean when you say "Wikipedia not a vote," but voting is often used on Wikipedia. Additionally, I have seen actual discussion going on above about the length of this article's plot section, in different spots on this talk page, without any hint of consensus being reached. Flyer22 (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly advise everyone to move on from discussing the plot summary. Get it within the 400-700 word range and keep it there. The plot summary is the least important part of the article, but too many editors waste their time forever fine-tuning it. The point of the summary is to give readers context for the rest of the article. Of course there is a whole world to Avatar, like there is a whole world to be found in any epic novel. We don't reiterate that world all over again here; it can be visited directly. The summary will continue to change and change with its value never being strengthened. What needs to be done by all involved is to provide real-world context for this film. The most compelling point of a film article on Wikipedia is that it can tell the story about the story itself -- how it was made, how it was received, etc. Anyone can watch this film; very few people get the opportunity to read the background as drawn together by editors from sources not easily accessible or known. For example, Cinefex has major coverage about Avatar that could be incorporated into this article. Let the summary alone if not to keep the word count down; work on everything else. Erik (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

People are not going to stop discussing the Plot section, though, Erik. Because of that, we should work this out. Leaving it at 700 words is not going to stop the constant complaints this matter has caused; it is not just the IPs complaining about the Plot section leaving out important or complicated details, but also registered editors (some who are experienced editors here).

The rest of this article is already taken care of, though more can be added to some of those parts. It is already suitable for GA status, in my opinion (though more tweaking may be suggested during its GA nomination). I have been one of the least concerned about this article's plot section, except for when it comes to the matter of keeping it from getting really long. Flyer22 (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, the plot is now at 773 words after a trim from 900+. Personally I'm happy with anything under 1K as I acknowledge it's a long film, but I'd also support the argument that it should be under 700 words per policy. Sorry I missed out on the debate, was visiting my folks for Xmas. If folks aren't happy with my changes feel free to revert! Doniago (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we'd already gotten the Plot section under control. But thanks for your contributions, Doniago. I added back in the "Physically stronger and several feet taller than humans" part. But I'll likely alter the word "several." They are rather a few feet taller than humans. When I think of "several," I always think of "seven or more." From what I saw often stated in previous versions of the Plot section, the Na'Vi are nine feet tall. That equals only "a few" feet taller ("three or more") in my book.

Anyway, I hope you had fun. Flyer22 (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it was B-class. Unfortunately any summary I could provide would lack reliable sourcing and be longer than Wiki policy recommends. (grin) Doniago (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Smart and wise reply. Flyer22 (talk)

I meant to state earlier that I will go ahead and leave it as "several feet," judging by what Cameron states in the Themes and inspirations section. From those comments, the Na'vi are 12 feet tall. But Maybe Cameron did not make them that tall in the film. It's either 9 or 12; I am not sure. Flyer22 (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Na'vi"

In simple terms, if human and Na'vi are both species, and Omaticaya, Cherokee, Navajo, etc. are tribes or clans, is it appropriate to capitalize Na'vi, or should they be referred to as na'vi? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be na'vi, as it is a species name and not a proper noun. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The official site does mention the natives of Pandora as Na'vi. Though, is Na'vi even a species name? This is a small quote from the website (am I allowed to mention sites?) "...he learns to respect the Na'vi way and finally takes his place among them." To me it sounds like they are referring to them as a proper noun. (I'm new, by the way ;)) Prove me (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be "Na'vi". Like other science fiction shows, with the exception of "humans", other species' names are capitalised. E.g. "Vulcan" and "Klingon".--Forward Unto Dawn 05:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it should be Na'vi. I noticed some problems with this and am changing them. JEN9841 (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, if the standard practice here on wiki (and in most sci-fi) is to capitalize the species name, we should preserve that. Here's an interesting [link to read], seems that Wookiepedia came across the same dillema and decided to go all the way and capitalize all species names. I'm curious as to the larger issue of capitalization of fictional sentient races, and also the nature of the Na'vi as a clan/tribe/species/peoples. The first time the word is heard used in the film, the subtitles read something to the effect of "back off, people" or "calm down, people" (sounds like mahwe, na'via). Among some human tribes, the word for "person" is the same as the tribe name, and thus people outside the tribe are not actually human, and do not enjoy the same rights in their eyes. Thus we can assume that "the people" are the Na'vi, which also happens to be their species. The name of a peoples is usually capitalized, though the species name is not. It is curious then, that the Na'vi seem to behave as numerous peoples within a species (they have warriors, which suggests that they fight amongst themselves). The Omaticaya clan would be one of these peoples, and indeed, at one point Jake Sully refers to "my people, the Omaticaya", not "my people, the Na'vi." I wonder if this is indicative of good worldbuilding or poor worldbuilding on Cameron's part. Any other anthropology buffs out there? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yesh, when Jake Sully refers to the Omaticaya, that's the clan of Na'vi, as that's just a general name, but as you see in the film (if you've watched it), there are different clans and they have different names. Oh, and also when he says "back off, people", not all languages are structured around the same way as English :)Prove me (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Critical reception

I have no problems with the quote from the New York Press that the film has anti american and anti militaristic themes. But the larger drawn out quote from Michelle Malkin is propaganda of the lowest kind. Avatar is apparently "anti-Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld", please. A graduate from a community college english program who maintains a blog and then became notable for being a talking head on conservative news programs is not, in my opinion, a reliable source for anything. Are there any protests to me removing this drivel? Regardless of whether you think she is a reliable source the criticism from that perspective is already covered adequately in my opinion. Freikorp (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I am okay with you cutting it down or summarizing it, but I would say not to remove it. I would prefer that she not be censored, for the same reasons I stated above about Armond White. But you have stressed my point about what I was stating above there -- there are some people who view very conservative people as "out there" as well, and yet we have included the views of very conservative people in the Reception section. Why should White be censored, but not them? Flyer22 (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Malkin provides undue weight and is not an academic of film or any of its themes. She should be excluded in favor of authoritative opinions like historians who have studied imperialism and the like. Erik (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Valid points. But what about The Christian Post? They are not film critics in the traditional sense, and I doubt that most of them are historians (though that may depend on how "historian" is defined in that case). Flyer22 (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't care for The Christian Post, either, nor Armond White. Like I said in the Armond White discussion, no mainstream critic truly disliked the film. The two mainstream tepid reviews, Village Voice and Salon, are better to include. Erik (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree; negative views outside the mainstream of criticism should be condensed into one or two sentences, containing the points addressed, so that undue weight is not carried by voices that seek to inject excessive amounts of politics into the film, such as Michelle Malkin. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree that non-mainstream critics' views of the film should be limited to one or two sentences, though two or three sentences is usually all it takes to relay a film critic's thoughts of a film. Wikipedia has not made a call on condensing non-mainstream critics' views. A film critic is a film critic. What is mainstream and what is not mainstream has already been called subjective in a recent past discussion (currently seen above, which Erik was also involved in), about Metacritic and even Rotten Tomatoes (though I disagreed with most of those thoughts). Some of these mainstream critics are people the general public does not even know about. Flyer22 (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>The Malkin article seems to be a review of various opinions by political conservatives about the politics of the movie, rather than professional movie critics. This may be better characterized as the reception of the movie by conservatives, not film critics, which may be the way to present it in the article, although one has to be careful of WP:NOR when it comes to characterizing someone as belonging to a particular political group.

AniRaptor, Re "voices that seek to inject excessive amounts of politics into the film" - Have you seen the last paragraph of Themes and inspirations? It looks like the filmmaker included his own politics when he made the film.

The film also contains implicit criticism of America's conduct in the War on Terror and the impersonal nature of mechanized warfare in general, as acknowledged by Cameron.[48] Although Cameron had said this was not the main point of Avatar, he did add that Americans had a "moral responsibility" to understand the impact of their country's recent military campaigns and those killed during them.[48] In reference to the use of the term "shock and awe" in the film, Cameron stated, "We know what it feels like to launch the missiles. We don't know what it feels like for them to land on our home soil, not in America. I think there's a moral responsibility to understand that."[48] Cameron additionally noted how mechanized warfare, allows one "the ability to do warfare at a distance, at a remove, which seems to make it morally easier to deal with, but its not".[48]

48. Hoyle, Ben (2009-12-11). "War on Terror backdrop to James Cameron's Avatar". The Australian. News Limited. Retrieved 2009-12-24. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

--Bob K31416 (talk) 05:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Erik about which reviews would be sensible to include for the sake of balance. While it might be fine to note the rather obvious and predictable fact that American conservatives have issues with a film that "has a flat-out Green and anti-war message"[12], it doesn't seem right to give these commentators much space under the heading "Critical reception". While they may be critical of the film, they are not "film critics" in the sense that the subsection name strongly implies. I'd suggest either condensing their reaction into a single sentence or, perhaps, giving them a sub-subsection heading of their own. Side note: As for all this talk of "censorship", people can't just say whatever they feel like saying, whenever and wherever they feel like saying it. While Wikipedia may be WP:NOTCENSORED (i.e., not bowdlerized), it also is WP:NOTFREESPEECH (i.e., WP:NOTANARCHY). The selection and presentation of encyclopedic material has to be done with some discretion, and discretion is not "censorship" simply because it is restrictive. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Armond White, it is censorship (as far as I am concerned). And Armond White's take on the film gets to stay, especially since we went through the debate of censoring him (although Roger Ebert does not even seem to truly disrespect the guy as a film critic, judging by what I read in/through White's article). The Christian Post's take on the film should stay as well. We are talking about a Wikipedia Reception section. No where does Wikipedia say that the reception of films should be limited only to film critics. Everyone is a film critic, really. Not that we should include everyone's opinion of the film. Some conservatives having felt a certain way about this film should be noted in the Reception section. And their reactions to the film have already been condensed to a single sentence, the same as White's; it was like that when they were first included. There does not need to be a subsection for their views, considering how little we mention them in the Reception section. There was never any WP:UNDUE on this matter. White's review was already condensed; the only difference is that a bit of his specific words were mentioned. That is not any more WP:UNDUE than having the censored version here. None of these guidelines and policies state that we should censor comments. Minimizing a particular point of view, as to not give undue weight? Sure. But not censoring them. White's review is the one that got censored. And while I have agreed to compromise on that, I do not agree with that action and do not get the point of it. Giving these particular reviews their own subsection within the Reception section (which is where it should go if we were to give them a subsection) would be WP:UNDUE; the only way that would be justified is if many conservatives objected to this film, for whatever reason, and this objection was an actual controversy and covered by independent reliable sources.

Yes, we should include the "tepid" reviews. But the Armond White review and The Christian Post's thoughts about the film should stay.

On a side note, I want to say Happy Holidays to you all; Merry Christmas to those of you who celebrate it. We are like a little Avatar family, and I enjoy working with you guys (every registered editor here who has been significantly helping to improve this article, either mainly on the talk page or through editing) even when I sometimes disagree with either one of you. Flyer22 (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Well, you and I obviously disagree on what constitutes "censorship", and probably will continue to disagree no matter how many times we restate our views. In any case, I won't single-handedly shorten the section any further; I strongly agree with Erik's approach, but I'm glad that this discussion is occurring on the talk page and hasn't erupted into an edit war--especially today. And, speaking of today, I'll now reply to the side note as well...

Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas to you too, Flyer22. If I've overstated any of my points, it's because yours have challenged me to think, and to re-examine my own positions. I respect your work on here, and I'm glad you've taken such an active interest in the article. Best wishes, Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Cosmic Latte. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Reviews need to be limited to film critics, who are authorities about the film, and academics of subject matter covered by the film. For example, films like 300 and Apocalypto would benefit from the opinions of historians and anthropologists. Malkin's opinion is purposely politicizing and has no place here. As for Armond White and The Christian Post, these are vehemently negative reviews that are the tiny minority of the overall critical reception. So undue weight very much applies. That is why White and the Post should be replaced by Village Voice and Salon. Avatar was critically acclaimed, and the virulent opinions should not be included for the sake of including. Cosmic Latte said it well. Erik (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that reviews need to be limited to film critics and academics of subject matter covered by the film. When there is a big controversy about a film, for example, the reception section is not just limited to film critics and academics covered by the film. White and The Christian Post are not about some big controversy, but they should still be included. Their being "vehemently negative reviews that are the tiny minority" does not mean that they should not be represented. This is where WP:NPOV applies. There is nothing WP:UNDUE about including a bit of their thoughts. Even when a film is critically acclaimed, we still present the minority view -- those who disliked the film. White and The Christian Post should not be replaced by Village Voice and Salon. Village Voice and Salon should be added in front of them. Collectonian made it clear in one quick statement above, in the section about Armond White, about not giving the impression that no one disliked this film. There are "non-mainstream" critics who also disliked this film, and certainly pass as reliable sources. There is no ban here on their inclusion in reception sections either, and it has already been stated by more than one editor that "mainstream" is subjective. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no "big controversy" about this film! Did you even read WP:NPOV? WP:UNDUE is a section under it, and it says, "The views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." You just contradicted this policy. We do not include the completely opposite viewpoints just for the sake of inclusion. WP:UNDUE addresses this: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The film is clearly critically acclaimed, and even the positive reviews don't exactly give the film an A+ grade, like A. O. Scott's review. We will not have White, the Post, Village Voice, and Salon. That degrades the critical acclaim of this film further. The tepid reviews that are mainstream (as opposed to White and the Post) can explain the film's weaker points just fine. Erik (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not have to read WP:NPOV; I have read it plenty of times already (since 2007). I contradicted the policy? I do not believe so. But do you remember what you stated above, at #Mainstream critics in association with Metacritic? You stated, "...per WP:RS, [we] are supposed to include 'all majority and significant-minority views.'" We include the "completely opposite viewpoints" for neutrality, not for the sake of inclusion. For example, we would include Roger Ebert even if he were one of the few film critics to dislike this film and be on the "very opposite end." You may not consider White and The Christian Post a significant minority, but that is an opinion. Enough people care about White's reviews that he has created significant "controversy" around himself. And many people read The Christian Post; Christianity is one of the biggest religions, after all, and most Americans are Christian. I am reaching for this: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

The view expressing the dislike of the film's political themes should be presented. You keep stressing that the film is critically acclaimed, as if that means we should not present any negative views of the film. There is nothing wrong with including White, The Christian Post, Village Voice, and Salon. It does not degrade the film's critical acclaim whatsoever. The film's critical acclaim cannot be degraded. Additionally, the Reception section does not state that everyone liked this film, and acting as though everyone did is silly and dishonest. 84% of critics at Rotten Tomatoes (currently) like the film, not 90% or 100%. The critics there who do not like this film count as well. One or two of them could easily be included as a substitution for White, if they are reliable sources and also address the political criticism. I do not see why you keep stressing "mainstream," considering what has already been stated about that.

I am for working matters like this out on the talk page first, seeing as opinions about this vary, instead of stating what we will and will not include as if I can officially speak for everyone. Flyer22 (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You contradicted the policy. With WP:NPOV saying, "The views of tiny minorities should not be included at all," you said, "Their being 'vehemently negative reviews that are the tiny minority' does not mean that they should not be represented." Contradiction. It is clear that the film has received critical acclaim, and White and the Post are not part of the group from Rotten Tomatoes' Top Critics nor Metacritic that is cited for these reception sections. Their inclusion disrupts the balance of critical reception in this article because their opinions are played up as real opposition when they are just the tiny minority. That's why I think Village Voice and Salon are better cited to demonstrate the film's weaknesses. Please let me know what you think about a proposed "Social commentary" section below; this would allow classic film reviews in the "Critical reception" section and more non-review commentary in the "Social commentary" section, so we can summarize the thoughts on imperialism and so forth. Erik (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You see it as a contradiction, but I do not. I was quoting you when I called them a tiny minority. I have already made it clear that I do not believe they are a tiny minority. Even if they were, I personally do not believe they should not be represented; that was my point on the "tiny minority" bit. White and The Christian Post not being a part of the group from Rotten Tomatoes' Top Critics or Metacritic does not matter. Their inclusion does not disrupt the balance of the Critical Reception section; their opinions are "real opposition." Who is to say what "real opposition" is in this case? That is not our judgment call. And, yes, I will comment below on your proposal. Flyer22 (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to the whole Avatar family here on wiki. Regarding the reception section, I believe we can take the opportunity to consolidate the vast range of critique surrounding this film, and properly consolidate it in a way that is representative of that reception as a whole. If conservative voices (film critics, pundits, whatever) have made a point of criticizing the film, let it be known. If environmentalists appreciate the film, let it be known. If President Obama had stated that he enjoyed the film, we would probably be putting that in here, even though he certainly isn't a mainstream critic. We should present as many points of view as possible, but give the most space to criticism that comes from established voices, and almost no space to those who are simply spewing politics, pro- or anti-imperialist/america/etc. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, AniRaptor2001. Thank you for the change in attitude about this. Flyer22 (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of the rewrite that I propose below? I think we need to make the distinction between Avatar being good as a film among films and as social commentary. The article I link below can help make that distinction. Erik (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

← (edit conflict) I propose a rewrite of some elements of the article. This is what I propose: Moving "Themes and inspirations" out of "Production" and into its own section, perhaps as "Social commentary". If desired, White and the Post can be placed there because it is desired, but this article seems like a good place to begin critical interpretation outside of the classic film reviews which widely acclaim the film. Village Voice and Salon can be added as classic film reviews. In the "Social commentary" section, we can have non-film critics' commentary there. Erik (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems reasonable, as the movie's themes and inspirations are clearly at the root of a substantial portion of the criticism, outside of the film's production values. Is there any precedent for this in film articles? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I am partially against it. I feel that the Themes and inspirations section should stay in the Production section. If we are to have a Social commentary section, part of what Cameron states about the social stuff can be included there, but I would rather not have the entire Themes and inspirations section there. Besides that, it could essentially become a second reception section. Plenty of critical reviews have something to state about the social aspects of the film. And I, of course, do not see why White and The Christian Post should be excluded from the Reception section. An alternative could be to create a Social commentary section within the Reception section, and place some critical social commentary about the film there, including White and The Christian Post. Would you be okay with that? Flyer22 (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my jumping in, but personally, I'm fine with either Erik's suggestion or Flyer22's "alternative" proposal. I just don't like seeing folks who aren't established as "film critics" being lumped together with those who are; but insofar as either suggestion could achieve some de-lumping, I'm perfectly fine with it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL, you're not jumping in, Cosmic Latte. You were already a part of this discussion, and your opinions are clearly welcomed. White is an established film critic, though established with ridicule, but I already know how you feel about him (LOL). Thanks for trying to compromise further on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Cosmic is certainly right, we shouldn't include voices outside mainstream criticism without clearly indicating who they are, i.e.: conservative blogger, liberal think tank, political pundit, etc. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

When it is a "non-mainstream" critic from a reliable source, such as the various ones found at Rotten Tomatoes, I doubt we can appropriately categorize them, other than stating what publication they are from...unless they categorize themselves as liberal or conservative, etc. For example, one editor in the Mainstream critics in association with Metacritic section above feels that Time Out New York is non-mainstream. But I state that we would not title them as "non-mainstream." We would just state "[So and so] of Time Out New York stated..." Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I am letting you all know that I will be seeing the Avatar film tonight. Because of this, I will properly be able to help out with the plot section if needed. Since I am getting ready now, and will be leaving soon after that, I will not be commenting here for a few hours; I may not be back here until even later. Talk with you guys then. Flyer22 (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just got back from seeing this film, and "whoa." The film is simply awesome. Wait, it's not really "simple," but you get what I mean. I would go into further detail about my feelings regarding it, but this is not a forum. In basic Wikipedia terms, I feel better equipped to edit this article now, especially the Storyline section....and still without bias. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Amazing, isn't it :) There's a lot going on, and the plot section does need to be a little bit long to get everything in. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, sorry I haven't been here a while, just taking my vacation. Considering the plot section, I think that the length is good for now. Now ya'll know what I meant by length ;)-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

Pandora "Earth-sized"?

In the article's lead, Pandora is refered to as "an inhabited Earth-sized moon of Polyphemus". However, during the movie, it is made clear that Pandora has a weaker gravity than Earth: all the Earth-like life forms are larger than on Earth; Colonel Quaritch says while training that he needs to because otherwise his muscles would be weaker than if he'd stayed on Earth. These details imply that Pandora has a noticeably smaller mass, and thus is also much smaller than Earth. In my opinion it'd be better to simply not call Pandora Earth-sized unless there's something to back it up. Mathias-S (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources refer to pandora as Earth-like, not Earth-sized, that should be changed back. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI though, Pandora could very well be the same size as Earth and at the same time have a weaker gravity field than Earth. This would mean that Pandora's density is less than Earth's. It's like Jupiter and Saturn; both are similar in size to each other, but Jupiter's density is about twice that of Saturn's. Consequently, Jupiter's gravity is much stronger than Saturn's.--Forward Unto Dawn 05:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI the following source [13], also referenced in the French-language Pandora article, claims that the Pandora's mass is equal to 72 % of the Earth mass. Pandora's diameter on the other hand is quoted as being equal to 11447 km, i.e. approximately 0.9 times the mean diameter of Earth (12742 km ?).200.168.20.215 (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggested edits to Avatar 2009

{{editsemiprotected}} I would like to recommend that "the destruction of" be removed from the sentence "...resist the colonists' expansion, which threatens the continued existence of the na'vi and the destruction of the Pandoran ecosystem," in the first paragraph of the page. It seems that the meaning of the sentence and its words may be at odds. Also, where "unobtainium" is referenced: it is possible that the use of the word "unobtainium" in the movie is more a joke than it is the actual name of the material, as the term is often applied to difficult-if-not-impossible-to-OBTAIN materials or materials that perform every desired function perfectly, too good to be true. It is a generic, nearly humorous term, so it may be appropriate to make this distinction. For example: in the first paragraph of the "Plot" section, the sentence "The humans aim to exploit Pandora’s reserves of unobtainium, a valuable mineral," could be changed to "The humans aim to exploit Pandora’s reserves of a valuable mineral, referenced in the film as 'unobtainium'."

Thank you

Shaverbh (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Welcome and thanks for contributing. Celestra (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Re unobtanium (note spelling), it didn't appear to be a joke in the movie but the actual name of a fictional mineral. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggest not editing the audio that was shown in the theater to edit out (or turn down) the voice of Dr. Grace Augustine when saying the word "cripple" to Jake Sully in the context of "Don't make me force feed a cripple" When she was urging nutrition he was reluctant to ingest due to timing issues with the eminent doom.

Please let us decide what we want to hear with our own brains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.114.193 (talk) 07:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Editing the "plot" section

During the plot section it mentions twice how the "soul" of the human is "transplanted" into the Na'Vi. This is technically incorrect. The premise of the bio-neurological network is that data can be uploaded and downloaded into a huge mainframe. It would be more correct to say that the "mind" of the human has been "uploaded" into the Na'Vi body, similar to a USB file transfer

Cheers - jdoyle10 Jdoyle10 (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not really incorrect. The "soul" is the mind, unless you view "soul" as being more of a spirit form type of thing. I do not mind either way it is worded, but it is probably better left at "mind" for neutrality (since not everyone believes in "souls, in the physical spirit sense)...even though the Na’Vi seem to believe in spiritual form type of souls. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus as to whether or not the mind is to be identified with the soul. To make such a claim would be controversial. "Consciousness" or "mind" is much more acceptable, as none of these issues are raised with those terms. JEN9841 (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

How is it controversial to identify the mind with the soul, unless the person is thinking of "soul" in the physical spirit sense? I was essentially saying that the word "soul" can simply mean who the person is. People use the word "soul" differently. You seem to be identifying the word "soul" in the physical spirit sense. But the word "soul" is even used by non-religious people to mean who the person is, that person's personality. In other words, that person's mind. We are identifying the mind with the soul anyway by changing "soul" to "mind" or "consciousness," since, in either case, we would be using a substitute for "soul." I also have more to say in the Soul? section below. Flyer22 (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

To walk away from all controversial terms, why not use 'personhood' or 'personality' instead of 'soul' and 'mind'? Whatever one believes to be the essence of one's person, that's what got transfered, and 'personhood' or 'personality' covers that well. Cinosaur (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Cinosaur, I am not sure "personhood" or "personality" would go over well. "Personhood" is not a word that people use too often, and I can see vandals being obscene with that word (if you know what I mean). "Personality" is okay, but does not sound as strong as "mind"; it comes off a bit bland and detached compared to "mind," and I can see that being changed to "mind" really quick. I would rather keep our options at "mind," "soul," or "consciousness." As I stated in the Soul? section below, though, I prefer "soul"...because that is how the Na'vi see it. As a compromise, however, we could put the word soul in quotation marks. Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22, agreed on 'personhood' -- too academic for a vandal to pass up on. Even though I too personally prefer 'soul', but I agree that too many readers will deem it too religious. However 'mind' is too weak here, IMHO, as it is not the entire personality yet, but just a psychic part of it. But, without getting carried away by philosophy here -- what about 'inner being' or 'self' as viable options? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinosaur (talk • contribs) 00:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be awkward to use anything other than 'soul' since the process is being carried out by the Tree of Souls which is mentioned as the place where it happens in the previous sentence? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Cinosaur, I am not seeing how the word mind is too weak; that is a person's entire personality, is it not? But as for any other suggestions, I would have to agree with Bob that the word soul is best in this case (the same you prefer). And with it being in quotation marks, I feel that it lessens its religious aspects; it makes it clear that this is from the Na'vi point of view. However, what do you think of the word consciousness being used instead? Flyer22 (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22: As I said, 'soul' seems most preferable to me. As for consciousness (or mind, for that matter), I like to consider it a product or energy of the soul, because under certain conditions consciousness is either absent entirely (like in coma or deep sleep) or partially (partial paralysis or local anesthesia) while the soul (=personality) remains. I would say that when Jake was operating his Avatar, he was investing it remotely with his consciousness while remaining in his own body. However, when he went for his "birth-again" party, he the 'soul' as the owner of the body got shifted to his Na'vi shell and permanently disowned his human body, which consequently dropped dead. In this paradigm one can compare the soul to fire, and consciousness -- to its light, which illuminates both itself and everything around. Similarly, the soul by means of consciousness illuminates itself ("I") and things around beginning with the body and mind. Sorry for the philosophical digression. Cinosaur (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It is said that "Pandora is inhabited by the Na’vi, a paleolithic species of sapient humanoids with feline characteristics.[17] Physically stronger and taller than humans, the indigenes have sparkling blue skin and live in harmony with Nature, worshiping a mother goddess called Eywa."... I feel that "paleolthic" is incorrect and should be modified to "neolithic" or at the very least "proto-neolithic" as these beings made use of wild and domestic crops and domesticated animals; and foremost created tribes and chiefdoms as seen in the movie. Paleolithic beings were much less developed and formed as 'bands' or social groups, and not distinct communities. Dlbarabe (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Dlbarabe, the topic of "Paleolithic or neolithic?" is discussed below, in the Paleolithic or Neolithic ? section. Flyer22 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

sequals

the page doesnt mention sequals, except that some characters are signed on for one. If there has been any talk about a sequal it should be mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by NTC TNT (talk • contribs) 07:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the lead states that "He [James Cameron] has stated that if Avatar is successful, two sequels to the film are planned.", and in the production section of the article, it says: "In June 2006, Cameron said that if Avatar was successful, he hoped to make two sequels to the film. In a 2009 interview, he stated that the story arc he developed is large enough to cover two more films." Nothing else has been confirmed by Cameron or the production company. Mathias-S (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Worlf of Warcraft inspiration

People in the Internet have noticed evident paralels between Avatar and the World of Warcraft

http://gameaxis.com/friday-fives-%E2%80%93-james-cameron-plays-world-of-warcraft/ http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=21971447665&postId=219694805404&sid=1#0 http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=22049519266&sid=1 http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=22050164968&sid=1

Some important connections:

• Na'vi = Night Elf/Draenei

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/2118/nightelf2.jpg vs http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x89/edwardbayntun/news/avatar-poster-1.jpg - http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/wowwiki/images/4/49/Nightelves-160x.jpg vs http://gameaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/HunterAvatar.jpg

• Vortex zone = Nagrand

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.massively.com/media/2008/01/os0120s.jpg vs http://gameaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Nagrandavatar.jpg

• Home Tree = World Tree

http://gameaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/teldrassilavatar.jpg vs http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/wowwiki/images/thumb/6/65/Teldrassilmovie.jpg/800px-Teldrassilmovie.jpg or the inner side http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/wowwiki/images/thumb/0/0c/NordrassilWellOfEnternity.jpg/800px-NordrassilWellOfEnternity.jpg

Many of these characteristics aren't original of Warcraft, but have passed to Avatar throug the Warcraft model. --Bentaguayre (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

In your first link some of the responses to the article in that link essentially said that WoW came out too late to affect the plot of Avatar. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Also night Pandora is very similar to Zangarmarsh.

Yes but i can't agree with that opinion, we don't know what was the original Avatar when was written in 1994 and how many changes have been done since that moment, it's far easier an inspiration of Cameron on Warcraft than the opposite, because until recent times anybody but a small group of people knew what was Avatar. I'm looking for official sources but is nearly impossible, only vague references saying that Cameron has agreed that he likes Warcraft. Anyway, it's very difficult a true recognition so recently. Probably the important thing is that many people agree about the connections of the two works. --Bentaguayre (talk) 11:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Soul ?

The article states that the Na'vi unsuccessfully attempted to "transfer Grace's soul" into her avatar body and, later, succeeded to do the same procedure on Jake. However, as I understand it, it is not really a "soul transfer", but rather transferring Grace's/Jake's "minds" (memories, personality, etc.) into the avatar body using Pandora's biological neural net. The Na'vi might well interpret that as a "soul transfer" according to their own religious beliefs, but, since the article is being written from a human, rather than a Na'vi perspective, a more suitable scientific explanation of the procedure is warranted. 200.168.20.77 (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, IP. This has also been brought up above, with the #Editing the "plot" section topic, and also in actual editing of this article. Seems we should just go with "consciousness," like before. Flyer22 (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that I think about it more, "soul" should probably stay. That is how the Na'vi perceive the transfer. They even have a Tree of Souls. If we were talking about the Avatar transfer explanation given by the humans at the beginning of the film, that is a different story. Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what they transfer, the human body would not function normally without either of their 'soul's or 'mind's, so for the purposes of easy explanation, they probably meant what you said. Also, being part of the plot, it's just an opinion, but I'd prefer it to be from the Na'vi point of view as it really goes along with the story ;)Prove me (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no widely accpted definition of the word 'soul' and different cultures have come to use it as they find it convinient. I feel the word soul is approporiate here. And since the story is seen mostly in the eyes of the Na'vi I feel its more approprite to give the story from their perspective only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manyfacetsoflife (talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

James Cameron seemed to make a VERY concerted effort to show that the Na'vi concept of a deity was not supernatural but biological. Souls are supernatural and because of that the use of this particular rhetoric seems inconsistent with both the Na'vi culture and the intentions of the creators of the movie. I strongly recommend the use of the compromise term consciousness as it encompasses more than just the mind, but is decidedly less religious in nature than "souls". This shouldn't affect the plot summary very much at all.

HawkShark (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Mercenaries or U.S. armed forces?

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but is it ever mentioned in the movie that the soldiers are mercenaries? They give all the appearance of being members of the U.S. armed forces and that's how they are identified in at least one review by Roger Ebert.[14] Also, in the article there is discussion of Jake being accused of committing treason and that would seem to indicate that it was a government operation, rather than a private one. Now, I've seen the soldiers referred to as mercenaries in a lot of places online but if it's not mentioned in the movie, all those interpretations may be bogus. Does anyone recall from the movie that the soldiers were mercenaries? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It is explicitly mentioned in the first 10 minutes or so of the movie that the soldiers (former members of the U.S. armed forces) are mercenaries hired by the private corporation that is mining the "unbotainium" on Pandora. Therefore, it is not strictly speaking a government operation. Nevertheless, if the Pandorapedia [15] is to be taken as a canonical source, the RDA (i.e. "the company") is officially sanctioned by the UN, which granted the company a monopoly over extraterrestrial mining rights. A possible analogue in real-world history would be something like the British East India Company or its Dutch analogues, which were government-sanctioned, but employed private armies.

The only puzzling fact to me is that all RDA employees and private security seem to be Americans, which is rather implausible as Pandora mining would most likely be a multinational operation. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks for the info. Re the lack of multinational participation, it may be Cameron's style to use only American characters for military personnel, as in Aliens, although the American characters in the military in that 1986 movie weren't portrayed as villains, as in the current movie, and the extraterrestrials were quite different. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The corporation (the RDA, or Resource Development Administration) is an American company, or at least was born of an American company, according to the backstory. It is apparently wealthy and powerful enough that its status exceeds that of most Earth governments (though that statement could be easily applied to a theoretical conglomerate of the Earth's top five richest corporations today, for example). The RDA hires former soldiers as its security forces, in a clear parallel to the private military contractors employed by the United States in Iraq, such as the notorious Blackwater Worldwide. American soldiers would likely continue to be among the best-trained in the world, even in the 22nd century, making them a logical choice for the job.

Regarding the choice of word of "mercenary"; can former soldiers hired by a PMC be referred to as mercenaries? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that depends on who you ask. Most members of the military and PMC's would say there's a difference. Most students at a Liberal Arts college would likely say mercs. In the broadest sense, I guess you could consider PMC's mercenaries, as they are combatants who fight under contract for financial compensation. Still, most modern PMC's have relatively strict codes of conduct (yes, there are always bad apples and extraordinary circumstances) and operate at the behest of one particular government and it's allies who share similar ideologies irregardless of the money involved. (e.g.- I doubt you'd ever see DynCorp or Blackwater PMC's working for Castro in Cuba or the junta in Burma.) In this sense, they do not fit the popular image of the "classic" mercenary who simply fights for the highest bidder with little or no ideological or political consideration.

That being said, from what's seen in the movie, I'd lean more towards RDA being a large multinational corporation with considerable resources, including a subsidiary PMC company to provide "in-house" security. While this is only an inference, given what we know about multinational corporations today and the type of operations seen in the movie (everything on Pandora was RDA- the scientists, the miners, the Security Forces, the maintenance personnel, etc.) it stands to reason to be a likely scenarioPaladin127 (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Paleolithic or Neolithic ?

The article refers to the Na'vi as Paleolithic humanoids. However, even though there is e.g. no reference in the movie to Na'vi agriculture, the range of Na'vi tools and artifacts, as well as their full domestication of animals, seem to suggest that they are actually more advanced than paleolithic humans, possibly closer to neolithic or, even late neolithic societies on pre-historical Earth.

In fact, from a certain point of view, even though they don't fully understand it, the Na'vi do have full access to a potentially highly sophisticated biotechnology, namely Pandora's biological neural net, which can be tapped into using hubs such as the "Tree of Voices" and the "Tree of Souls". The Na'vi also take advantage of their sophisticated nervous system to establish neural synaptic connections with Pandoran animals and control them. Therefore, despite the seemingly primitive appearance of Na'vi society, they are in a way far more advanced than pre-historical humans. That point, coupled with their superior strength and reflexes, explain why the Na'vi remain a threat to the technologically far more sophisticated 22nd-century humans. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason for labeling them as a paleolithic society came down to whether or not they made use of organized agriculture, which is not apparent in the movie. In official sources, they are referred to as a neolithic-equivalent species, perhaps that should take precedence. Just because the Omaticaya clan did not use agriculture does not mean any others did not. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia articles are written from sourced information, we do not use original research. If you can find a source that specifically refers to the Na'vi as Neolithic or Paleolithic, then by all means include it. If the only source for the inclusion is your own opinion, it does not belong in the article. I actually wonder if the word "paleolithic" is even in the Entertainment Weekly article that's cited, I'm of half a mind to go by the library and take a look at it tonight. Trusilver 22:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Na'vi society is referred to as "neolithic" in the Pandorapedia [16]. Would that qualify as a source ? 161.24.19.112 (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Paleolithic and neolithic are terms referring to Earth cultural periods and I think they shouldn't be used for the cultural periods of other planets, except for example, by saying they are "like" the neolithic period on Earth. Also, info that is not in the movie but in a companion source should be so noted in a footnote, in my opinion. Perhaps material that has details related to the story but that aren't in the movie should be limited to a section in the article for that purpose and so noted? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe official materials all indicate the Na'vi to be "neolithic". Of course, as you point out Bob, the terms paelo and neolithic apply only to Earth's history; we could compromise by saying "neolithic-like" or something of that sort. Regarding where we should put "in-universe" material... I believe it depends on how much this film's influence expands, if more films are made, etc. more separate articles can be created, such as the one that already exists for characters and wildlife. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there are going to be sequels with this kind of popularity and the way the story ended. The only thing we didn't hear was the head of the mining expedition saying, "I'll be back." They could call it Avatars?

P.S. For my info, by "in-universe" do you mean details or material related to the story that are not in the movie? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not big on the sound of "neolithic-like". That sounds incredibly awkward and cumbersome. In my opinion, it's a lot of hand-wringing about nothing. The sources use the word "neolithic", so that is pretty much the beginning and the end of the story. I don't see any need to use any other word, definitely not for the purpose of signifying that neolithic on earth and elsewhere are different and need to be properly represented. I see it as a complete non-issue, but your mileage may vary. Trusilver 23:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Bob, I am indeed referring to that material by "in-universe". Trusilver, I agree that "neolithic-like" isn't the best choice, and going with just "neolithic" is understandable enough. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Neolithic would be general agriculture capability, which includes sedentary behavior, large scale tool making and trading. No such things are seen in the movie. You can see them drink from tree-leafs, not from pottery. You do not see them grow crop nor cattle. So neolithic is off, except maybe for the early pre-pottery neolithic. The Na'vi house and beds definitely are not handcrafted, so they would not even be mesolithic. Animal taming is the exception and would hint at neolithic behaviour, even though you hardly can call it taming. Sophisticated body jewellery too. So the Omaticaya could be in touch with a neolithic civilization, or maybe used to be part of it, but still retain their paleo general behavior.--Environnement2100 (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Pandora's biological neural net: sentient or not ?

I guess everybody who sees Avatar agrees that Pandora has a biological neural net consisting of biolelectric signals flowing through the tree roots. It is also clear that the net has some hubs such as the "Tree of Souls" or the "Tree of Voices", which the Na'vi can access using their specifically evolved cerebral cortexes and the synaptic conduits that extend therefrom . In theory, the net could function just as giant worldwide web of bio-computers used for data storage and communication. However, there are hints in the movie that it is, furthermore, sentient. Specifically, when Jake taps into the "Tree of Souls" and informs it of the imminent human attack, the central bio-hub apparently responds by telepathically commanding the Pandoran fauna to attack the humans as a form of self-defense.

Shouldn't that be mentioned in greater detail in the plot section of the article as it is a critical point to understand the story ? 200.168.20.13 (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to include it you're welcome to edit the plot summary, though please bear in mind the guidelines at WP:FILMPLOT regarding length of plot summaries (technically I think we're currently already over-long). I didn't regard this as a "critical" point myself, and I believe it's already been discussed above in any case. Doniago (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sam Worthington's legs

I haven't noticed anything about this in the article, but does anyone know if there were some sort of effects used for Jake Sully's legs in the film? In the few scenes where you get a glimpse, they clearly look like the legs of someone who's been wheelchair-bound for a long time, so I assume they aren't Worthington's legs (AFAIK he's not wheelchair-bound in real life; after all, he isn't during the motion capture part of the filming or in Clash of the Titans). I wasn't sure what's going on there, and haven't been able to find it discussed online anywhere. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Home realease, Blu-Ray?

No section on that? Arent there a Blu-Ray coming out in 2010? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.149.29.247 (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

We only can provide information that is backed up by sources. If you have one, put the url here and someone will add it, or feel free to do it yourself. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 00:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

How does Tsu'Tey know that Jake and Neytiri have "mated?" As soon as they walk up he accuses them of the act. What did I miss or is it just understood they can tell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.217.236 (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a guess, but the two of them holding hands as they entered might have been a clue. Who knows, maybe only Na'vi who've mated are allowed to hold hands? Paladin127 (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No confirmed release date as of yet but there is some great info about the Blu-ray release here [17] that could probably be implemented into the article. DrNegative (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible sources must be included

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

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

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

Anyway, this website [18] for example describes several possible references in classic Sci-Fi that may have been merged in the Avatar screenplay. 200.168.20.215 (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Norm Spellman

The article refers to the character Norm Spellman as a "biologist". This reference [19] however mentions that Norm is actually an anthropologist, rather than a biologist. What is the source of the article's information on Norm's profession ? 161.24.19.112 (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

An external wiki is not a good enough source to decide. A viewing of the movie would probably give an answer, and it's also probably stated in one of the books.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the source though that the Wikipedia article's editors used to claim Norm is a biologist ? That is not mentioned in the movie as far as I can tell. The scene where Norm helps Grace to collect samples from a biolectric tree root might suggest he is a biologist, but is not conclusive. 200.168.20.164 (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

GA (Good Article) status

I am going to nominate this article for Good Article status. Any objections before I do that? If so, of course list why. If it is a matter of one or a few references improperly formatted, that can be easily fixed. But judging this article as a whole, it is clearly GA status...as I see it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It is preferred that an article is stable before being nominated for GA status. An article that undergoes 500 revisions in a week is absolutely not stable. I like the article as it is currently written, but it's still changing too much, too quickly. I suggest you give it a couple months before shooting for GA. Trusilver 22:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the Trusilver. Stability is a part of the GA criteria. Theleftorium 22:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Academic question: if an article with GA status becomes unstable due to current news or vandalism even does it lose its GA status? Betty Logan (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, an article can be delisted from GA status. It doesn't happen all that often, and when it does it is usually to fairly contentious articles, but it still happens. Laura Schlessinger, for example, was a GA article that was delisted after current events caused it to diminish in quality. Trusilver 23:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I was also thinking about how fast this article changes. But then I thought, "Plenty of very active articles are of GA status." Maybe they are that way -- more active -- because it is after the GA process (in other words, they simply returned to being like that). But it is clear that you two mean how much this article has been changing (due to the back and forth on the Plot section, and other additions that may be made due to this being a very new and successful film). I'll take your advice not to nominate it for GA just yet.

And, Betty, the vandalism to an article would have to be quite extensive and difficult to fix (due to in-between edits) before an article were to lose its GA status because of vandalism. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that it is best if we wait until all the hype around the film settles down before nominating the article for anything.--Twilight Helryx 00:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If you think the article is GA status now, it should be nominated for GA status now. If it diminishes in quality at some point in the future, it should be delisted at that time. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 01:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

While it may be beneficial, especially with all the editors here, to "strike while the iron's hot", things might not go well during the GAN. This may be a good article one day but a horrible one the next if no one's around to stop newbies and IPs from messing things up with WP:OR among others. But still, if the edits show signs of slowing down, and no one's edit-warring, then I say go for it; it's an excellent article about an excellent movie and I don't see why it shouldn't attain GA status. Really, it's up to you. Besides, it typically takes forever before someone reviews an article (especially given that the movies section is filled to the brim) so by the time this article's reviewed, things should have quieted down by then. ;) --Twilight Helryx 01:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have read the entire article and it is a great read. I will agree that it is worthy of GA status but I must also agree with the others that we should wait till the "edits per day" drop down a little before moving foward with the nomination. Alot of new info is going to be pouring in about this film in part due to its early success at the box office and could easily lose its GA status just as quickly as it was nominated.DrNegative (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Reactions by Cameron's Peers

Spielberg, Michael Moor, Richard Kelly, Duncan Jones, Bryan Singer etc.... should be included somewhere. --Harac (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I cited some info from this site into the article under reception. DrNegative (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggested addition of another section, or subsection under section "Release"

Hello. This is my maiden stint at Wiki, so please be (somewhat) lenient to me and guide me towards improvement.

• Suggestion: That a section entitled something like "Controversies over its title and philosophy" or "Reception by Hindus and other religious groups" be included either after "Awards and nominations" under "Release", or by itself.

• Rationale: There have been some religious discussions around the movie before and after its release. A US-based Hindu group expressed public concern with the movie's title as misappropriated from Hindu theology. A NYT Op-Ed columnist called the movie "a Gospel According to James" promoting anti-Christian pantheistic views. The Hindustan Times called "Avatar" a misnomer for the movie but reported its message as in line with the Bhagavad Gita, Hindu's most sacred book. There might be some more feedback on the movie to come from various religious groups, so it seems that an addition of such a section is not unwarranted.

• Draft:

Prior to the movie's release, a US-based Hindu statesman Rajan Zed voiced public concern over the alleged misuse of the term 'Avatar' as the movie's title, arguing that the term is held sacred in Hinduism and asking J.Cameron for a disclaimer. [20], [21] The concern was supported by Nevada Clergy Association (NCA). [22] However, other Hindu followers found the movie elucidating on the actual meaning of 'Avatar' rather than sacrilegious. [23]

On December 27, 2009 the second most-widely read English newspaper in India Hindustan Times called 'Avatar' a "downright misnomer" for the movie, but reported that its message is culturally similar to that of the Bhagavad Gita, a sacred book of Hinduism. [24]

On December 21, 2009 a New York Times Op-Ed article by Ross Douthat called the movie “the Gospel According to James” of “Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism” incompatible with Christianity. [25]

Cinosaur (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need for a new section since this can easily be accommodated by the pre-existing critical reception section - 'critical reception' embraces a whole body of opinion that stretches beyond simply how good the movie is or isn't. I have concerns that many of the sources that you provide above such as "Hindu Blog" would not satisfy the 'notability' criteria that is required for opinion pieces, but The New York Times certainly qualifies. Betty Logan (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It qualifies, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be included. We have a lot of differing opinions on the movie already for sources far more credible than an op-ed piece. Just because someone, somewhere publishes an opinion on the movie that hasn't been explored here, that doesn't mean we have to include it in the article. Unless someone notable wrote the op-ed piece, I don't see any reason to include it.Trusilver 15:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia tries to avoid using dedicated sections to list "controversies" because it tends to undermine NPOV and the general flow/structure of the article itself. It would be better to list this info under "Critical Reaction" if of course it has a reliable source to back it. This way the statement(s) would share their view with the positive opinions as well. Welcome to Wikipedia by the way. DrNegative (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for comments. May I answer them piecemeal?

• Regarding including the facts into the Critical reception section -- agreed, that was my initial thought too. However, upon reading the section I saw that it focused exclusively on opinions of either professional film critics or peer writers/directors. I therefore wonder if including facts on public reception of the movie there won't be at odds with the existing smooth and clearly defined contents?

Besides, the proposed section is mainly about its religious reception rather than professional/artistic one. Wouldn't it be like comparing apples and oranges there?

An option could be to have a subsection 'Public reception' under 'Release' and put these facts there, but admittedly I don't see these facts as qualifying for such a broad title unless we decide to add more data on the movie's reception by other publics.

• To Betty Logan: Thanks for pointing out that Hindu-blog might not be notable. I have taken it out. The only reason I included it in the first place was to balance reports on Hindu opposition to the movie title with favorable Hindu views expressed there, for better objectivity. I have also found more mainstream mass-media references for reports on Hindu demands for a disclaimer and have included them in the draft. Please have a look. However, the rest seems notable enough to me: Houston Chronicle, Hindustan Times, and NYT.

• To Trusilver: As for NYT Op-Ed credibility, it is written by Ross Douthat, a NYT's conservative mouthpiece. I thought he was notable enough, and represented a large stratum of conservative Christianity-oriented public in US.

• To Dr.Negative: Thanks for welcome. Agreed on 'Controversy' as too controversial. Cinosaur (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sky appearance on Pandora

Could anyone please add a section with a detailed description of the appearance of the sky at daytime and at night as seen from an observer on Pandora's surface ? 200.168.20.80 (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This would be appropriate for the article Pandora (fictional moon), when and if Avatar becomes notable enough that aspects of its story merit their own articles. That said, Category:Fictional Planets contains a lot of fictional planets that are far less notable than Pandora. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The French-language wikipedia already has a rather detailed Pandora (fictional moon) article of its own. Besides, the appearance of the sky as seen from the moon is an important element to define an alien landscape and is featured prominently in the movie.

200.168.20.164 (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)