Talk:Avatar (2009 film)

Foolish subplot about unobtanium

What is actualy means "precious mineral"? Even under current technologies any chemical compound (inorganic) could be synthesized from chemical elements.I don't talk about technologies of the future when intergalaxy travels will be available.Precious could be element (such as Platinum),not mineral.Once chemical formula will be discovered it will be much cheaper to synthesize it than to mine it on a toxic planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.228.58 (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

See http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Unobtanium and MacGuffin. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Avatar an 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)

I'll just leave this here... --89.27.15.232 (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2010 (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)

What kind of reliable source you may looking for? Official confirmation from film creators? Of course they won't do that! Moreover they'll do their best to delete such kind of information from English version of article. Russian Wikipedia already include paragraph about that and some links to sources, but they are internet media. I may suggest another link to real newspaper [1]. Isn't it reliable enough? And, of course, anyone may read the book and find that similarity. It is unfair not to include such information to the article because Wikipedia should not support malicious or casual attempts to mislead people of fantasy origin. 217.71.225.58 (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC) I mean, doesn't resistance of including drawing of a parallel between Strugatsky's and Avatar's Pandora goes against principle of neutrality? 217.71.225.58 (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this the excerpt from your reference[2] that you are referring to?

"Еще дальше — и ближе к Кэмерону — пошли Стругацкие, заставив своего Кандида из «Улитки на склоне» не просто жениться на Наве, но и столкнуться с породившей ее вымирающей цивилизацией, и даже защищать эту цивилизацию от прогресса. Но такой остроты конфликта, как в «Аватаре», у Стругацких не было: все-таки биологическая, деревенская, лесная цивилизация мужиков подвергалась атаке не со стороны родного кандидовского института. Ее атаковала сила, одинаково враждебная и Лесу, и Кандиду."

"Кэмерон тырит у Стругацких щедро, используя не только изобретенную ими планету Пандору с ее ракопауками и тахоргами, но и название своих туземцев — Нави, недвусмысленно восходящее к упомянутой Наве (Б.Н. Стругацкий от претензий официально отказался). При этом он создает — и, к сожалению, никак не использует — ситуацию по-настоящему перспективную: вот есть Пандора с ее органической, полурастительной жизнью, которую регулирует, кормит и охраняет целая сеть мыслящих деревьев. Вот есть Земля образца 2154 года — думаю, именно 2154 терабайта потребуется для сиквела, — Земля высохшая, загубленная прогрессом, для жизни малопригодная."

If so, could you give here your translation into english of this passage? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this one, I'll try to translate... Just I'd try to start a little early: "Другие предлагают вспомнить «Покахонтас», к истории которой Кэмерон в самом деле демонстративно отсылается: любовь цивилизованного (либо инопланетного, либо иностранного до полной инопланетности) гостя к туземке — чрезвычайно выигрышный сюжет, и русскому человеку тут грех не вспомнить примеры поближе и поинтереснее, чем «Покахонтас»: эта схема объединяет столь непохожие сочинения, как «Олеся» Куприна, «Аэлита» А.Н. Толстого и «Сон в начале тумана» Рытхэу, полузабытый на Родине, но культовый в Европе, особенно в эпоху моды на этно. Олеся, Аэлита, Пыльмау — Аэлита, кстати, тоже синяя, — ни типологически, ни даже поведенчески ничем не отличаются от принцессы Нейтири. Еще дальше — и ближе к Кэмерону — пошли Стругацкие,..." and finish a little early too.

Others suggest to remember "Pocahontas". Cameron indeed demonstratively referred to the story of it: love of civilized (either extraterrestrial or so foreign up to full extraterrestriallity) visitor [grammatically referred by author as being male] to indigene [grammatically referred by author as being female] is extremely advantageous plot and it wouldn't be a bad thing for Russian to remember more close and more interesting examples than "Pocahontas". This scheme [i.e. "Avatar"] unite such dissimilar works like Kuprin's "Olesya", A.N. Tolstoy's "Aelita" and Rytkheu's "A Dream in Polar Fog", almost forgotten at the homeland but cult in Europe, especially at the epoch of vogue of ethno [not sure how to translate, but it means ethnic culture since Rytkheu is Chukchi]. Olesya, Aelita, Pylmau - Aelita, by the way, is blue too - neither typologically nor behaviorally does not differs from princess Neytiri. More further — and close to Cameron — went Strugatsky [it is ironically written by author of article that is it Strugatsky's books which are more close to Cameron's "Avatar" than other's books]. They not only forced their Candid to marry Nava but meet dying civilization that gave birth to her and even protect that civilization from progress. But there was not such acuteness of conflict in Strugatsky's work: biological, village, forest civilization of man still was attacked not from Candid's home institute. It was attacked by force similarly hostile both to Forest and to Candid.

Cameron steal from Strugatsky generously [Russian verb тырить written here have the same meaning like English steal but it does not sounds as direct indictment, people who use such verb to indicate process of "stealing" does not treat this "stealing" as extremely serious crime but show understanding of "pilferer's" behavior but including shade of meaning of contempt robber. Also тырить does not indicate robbery of large money or big damage, it means quite the contrary] using not only devised by them planet of Pandora with crayfishspiders and tahorgs in it, but name of his indigenes - Na'vi - unambiguously come from mentioned Nava (B. Strugatsky officially abandon a claim).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.71.225.58 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation. I don't see that much similarity between Strugarsky's work and Avatar, except possibly that both works got ideas from similar places. Other works mentioned, e.g. Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves, seem much more similar. Have you considered that Strugarsky may have gotten ideas from the same place that Cameron got ideas, e.g. Pocahontas? The avatar idea seems to be much closer to Call Me Joe that has already been mentioned, where someone controls an alien body remotely, compared to Strugarsky where a head is fastened onto another body (mentioned in a previous message), which is more like Frankenstein. The tall blue people came from a dream that Cameron's mother had, and Cameron put that into his first screenplay in the 1970's. See Themes and inspirations section. The name Na'vi being close to Nava in Strugarsky doesn't seem like much to speak of. Maybe Strugarsky and Cameron both got it from the native americans called Navajo. BTW, was Strugarsky's work published in english? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is no much similarity especially in the plot of the story of Avatar and Strugatsky's books, but the idea of Planet of Pandora with wild jungle filled with wild dangerous animals many appears in many Strugatsky books of the series of Noon Universe, most of them where published in English. List is here.

The Pandora with forest with living moving trees in it first appears in Disquiet which is probably wasn't translated into English. Strugatskys write a "remake" of that book which was published as "Snail on the Slope" in English according to that link. The Forest in that book is much similar to Disquiet's one but there is no mention of Pandora in "Snail". (That is because or why "Snail" is not from Noon Universe series.) Strugatsky's Planet of Pandora looks like original idea, Frank Herbert's Planet of Pandora appeared many years after.

I do not tell that there is much similarity between Strugatsky's and Cameron's stories, just the jungle of Planet of Pandora. But there are really a lot of similarities between "Avatar" and other works, Strugatsky's is just one of them. So many references made me thinking that Avatar is combination of many ideas... 217.71.225.58 (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC) 217.71.225.58 (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Re " I do not tell that there is much similarity between Strugatsky's and Cameron's stories, just the jungle of Planet of Pandora." - Regarding the similarity of the jungle of Pandora and Strugarsky's jungle, could you present a published source that makes this claim? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the newspaper article I tried to translate is only published source I have. I mean I have this newspaper issue and I do not know if there other published sources, just large amount of internet pages.217.71.225.58 (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I too have come up with my own analysis of the film but I realize that I can't put it in the article because of WP:NOR. It is unfortunate, but that is the nature of this encyclopedia, which tries to report only what is in reliable sources, rather than the ideas of editors which may or may not be correct. So, although it may be unfortunate personally for the editor who comes up with an idea, and possibly unfortunate for the reader if the idea is correct, it is fortunate for the reader that the Wikipedia is more credible because of this policy. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Does the Russian Wikipedia have a policy that is similar to WP:NOR? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Avatar is another remake of Heart of Darkness User: nova9047 —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC).

Avatar is closely based on the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs and other authors of the pulp fiction era of literature, of course it should be mentioned. Neurolanis (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I had a post explaining the resemblance to an episode of "Avatar: The Last Aribender" entitled "The Swamp", though some person probably deleted it for some reason. Anyway, in this episode, the characters venture to a great swamp/forest that is similar to the flora of Pandora. At the center of this swamp is a giant tree, larger than all others, much like Hometree and the Tree of Souls in Cameron's Avatar. What strikes me as most odd is that in this swamp, every organism is 'connected' to one another just like the "global organism" on Pandora. The giant Hometree-like-tree in the center of this swamp is also the center for all of the connected organisms in the swamp. One character in this episode explains that the swamp can make death and time only an illusion. This is like the Na'vi's belief that when they die, they simply go back to Eywa. Also, this character is the defender of the swamp, like the Na'vi, who prevents it from outside destruction. Surprising similarities, no? Infoadder2010 (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That is just original research. Feel free to post it on a blog! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 15:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Re "I had a post explaining the resemblance to an episode of "Avatar: The Last Aribender" entitled "The Swamp", though some person probably deleted it for some reason." - It was archived as is done routinely with older sections. At the top of this page there's info on archives. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"Too real?"

This from CNN might be a noteworthy addition if the trend continues. Some fans seem to be getting emotionally attached to the world of Pandora due to the realism of the special effects and its portrayal of a utopian society. Might be something to keep an eye on. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh. My. God. lol Also on that news report, the picture at the top. Why is there someone recording the film? :-\ —Mike Allen

They're all wearing some sort of credentials. It looks like a special screening. Woogee (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha, wow. That is very interesting. --haha169 (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone added it to the article. But the question is, should it be in the article? —Mike Allen 04:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a fluff piece about a film forum. It's a absolute joke that's allowed in but some editors wouldn't let Cinosaur cover the Avatar controversy in the mainstream Indian press. This just confirms my suspicions that 'notability' doesn't extend beyond the US press on this article. Betty Logan (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that it should not be allowed, be bold and revert it, then discuss it here for consensus as Cinosaur did. DrNegative (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There really is no point when it comes to US/international notability. I'll say it's not notable and before we know it there will be half a dozen US editors saying it is claiming a consensus. Given the fact that two thirds of the box office is international meaning that the film's audience outnumber the US by 2:1 and yet 100% of the critical reception is attributed to US sources pretty much indicates there is no desire by the regular editors to abide by WP:WORLDVIEW. Betty Logan (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If you do not wish to challenge it, then that is your consensus. Keep in mind the "Worldview" article you quote is not any form of policy or guideline. It is merely an essay of "advice or opinions" as noted at the top of the page. I too questioned its notability and reliability to the article when I first saw it, but the source was a "CNN headline" and it graced their front page for a short time. Doing a quick search, I already found the article mirrored on other US sites and several notable Canadian and UK news sites as well. This however doesn't mean I support its inclusion in the manner that its displayed here though. DrNegative (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

FallenAngelII removed the CNN part about the Pandora health effect, as seen in this edit. And Hopefloat007 removed the part about people feeling nauseous while watching the film, as seen in this link. I personally find the CNN source more notable for inclusion, and do not understand FallenAngelII's reason for removing it while leaving in the Daily Mail source about a person throwing up after seeing the film. FallenAngelII feels that people feeling that Pandora is real while watching it and getting depressed after the film is over is "hardly a notable health effect" because "[p]eople get depressed and suicidal over the most ridiculous of reasons. This isn't real!" and "It's a Sci-fi/Fantasy epic!)" I disagree that it is not notable. If people are having that kind of reaction to this film, it is a health effect. A serious one, in my view. But I want to point out that depression is often about a combination of things. Most, if not all, of these people likely already had life problems significantly stressing them out...and used Avatar as an escape from that. But once the film was over, they felt incredibly worse. The film successfully took them to this other world and made them forget about all their problems for a few hours, and when it was over, it hurt even more to go back to the real world. That is my analysis, but we cannot use mine (of course). This story would be more notable if coming from a psychologist who has interviewed a few of these people. Either way, I feel that this story is worth a mention. Yes, Pandora is not real; we know that. And that is why people believing that it is...is even being reported.

I feel that all this should be discussed more, in case it comes up again. The Daily Mail source has come up more than once on this talk page. There is also an ABC source backing that up. And I definitely feel that people believing that Pandora is real so much so that they have gotten depressed from accepting that it is not should be mentioned somewhere in this article. Perhaps, in the Critical reception section. And, no, the Critical reception is not just for critics. We have reviews from fellow directors, for example. Maybe this Critical reception section needs to be expanded in the way that the Changeling (film) article's Reception/Reviews sections are. I was thinking of waiting until this article is up for Feature article status before expanding the reception section in that way, though (so that that the article would have some significant difference when wanting to upgrade it). Flyer22 (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As an alternative, this information could be incorporated into the Filming and effects section somehow (maybe even as a subsection). But I'm not sure I like that idea, since mention of this pertains to the film's release. Flyer22 (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I was asked why I removed the references to people becoming depressed and having suicidal thoughts due to the movie being too "believable" and thus, a lot of stupid people became depressed when they realized the lush surroundings weren't real. Why? Because it's stupid! People get depressed and have suicidal thoughts over all kinds of things! Unless it's a widespread phenomenon, it's not noteworthy! A select few idiots does not a noteworthy fact make! I'm sure people got depressed after watching The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter (any of the currently 6 existing ones) or any other Sci-Fi/Fantasy. I mean, that's the deal here, it's a Sci-Fi/Fantasy epic! Of course it's not real! And of course a few idiots will feel down after watching it, realizing that it's not real! If I go out and watch "Sherlock Holmes" today and then get a newspaper to cover an interview of myself saying I got depressed after watching it since I realize it's no longer 1902 or whenever the story is set to play out, will that make it a noteworthy fact? NO! Yuna-chan (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

FallenAngelII, I find your reasons to simply be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. They are not founded in any of Wikipedia's policies, and are downright rude. Calling people stupid and idiots because they have gotten depressed or suicidal (or both) after watching this film not only shows your lack of tact but also your lack of experience in dealing with topics of depression and suicide. Besides that...you act as though it is a no-brainer that you are right; your reasons were delivered in a condescending manner, I feel. What if consensus had been for keeping that piece, since it was in an obviously well-watched article? If anything, you should have checked this talk page first to see what the thoughts on this matter were. And if nothing was on this talk page about it, then you should have started a discussion about it before or after your removal. Going around removing reliably sourced information from articles, simply because you do not like it is not how things are supposed to work here...unless you give valid reasons for the removal on the talk page. And by valid, I mean, not simply calling it stupid or idiotic. But, yes, consensus is currently with you on the removal. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it should not be in the article until there is a statement by a mental health professional that it is actually a problem. Note that CNN could have gotten the opinion of a mental health professional, but it didn't. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully concur with that. If the Daily Mail or CNN were to include a formal medical opinion in their articles then it would be notable enough for inclusion, but without that it's just puff journalism. Betty Logan (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. But if consensus is against inclusion, there is nothing I can do. Although, I was not for the Daily Mail and ABC sources being included anyway, because some people or a single person being nauseous during the film is minor. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As later stated by Bob K31416 and Flyer22, it is not notable. It has not reported by any health professionals. In other words, all we have now are unconfirmed (reports by some major news outlets =/= confirmed) rumors about a small number of people. Unconfirmed and insofar insighnificant. This is the TL;DR version of what I said, however. I just called them idiots as well. Yuna-chan (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that it was not notable. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(←)Someone deleted the section that was in the article on fans who are depressed after seeing the film because Pandora is not real. This sounds silly, but it has been reported on by major news sources. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/6977817/Avatar-fans-suicidal-because-planet-Pandora-is-not-real.html and Piazza, Jo (January 11, 2010). "Audiences experience 'Avatar' blues". Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. CNN.com. Retrieved January 11, 2010. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete it but I think we should discuss it here as to how to implement it into the article instead of creating a whole new section for it. Anyone else have any thoughts? DrNegative (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Part of a new section/subarticle on cultural impact? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The best part of the internet is it gives everyone a voice. The worst part about the internet is that it gives everyone a voice. A great many of the positive and negative sourceable comments about Avatar fall pretty firmly under WP:WHOGIVESASHIT (it doesn't exist, I know, but by God it should). The article would be cumbersome to the point of unreadability if every single idiot who has internet access gets their opinion on the movie put into the article. The criticism section alone would be longer than the entire article is now. Obviously, we aren't going to do that, which means whittling the article down to the most widespread criticisms of the film and ignoring the writings of Joe Sixpack writing an op-ed piece for the BFE Kansas Herald. In this kind of situation, we are forced to rely heavily on WP:UNDUE. It's important not to spend half the article bringing up ever single criticism made about a movie that has received overwhelmingly positive reviews. I mean that for this particular issue as well as all the others brought up in the last few days, most of them are ridiculous to the point that I can't figure out how their writers actually gather up the brain power necessary to breathe. Trusilver 05:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

NY Times, UK Telegraph and CNN are not "every single idiot", they are major media. It seems like there should be a Criticism section that summarizes the criticisms of the movie that have been widely discussed in the media. That does not mean it will be terribly long. It should present the criticisms that have received widespread coverage in major media and a reliable source or two illustrating each. Otherwise the article is not balanced; it is promotional. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me try this again. If we included every single criticism that has been levied against the film, the criticism section would be three times longer than the rest of the article. That's why we follow policies like WP:UNDUE. A wikipedia article is not a laundry list of EVERYTHING that has ever been said on a subject, it is a broad and (god willing) succinct overview of a subject. This eventually happens to pretty much every article about a movie during its first few months, especially very popular movies; someone is on the internet and find a story that hasn't been at all mentioned in the article and then runs up eagerly like a little kid who just found a nice shiny rock and says something to the tune of "ZOMG! I found a story about a woman who said that The Golden Compass made her fall away from Catholicism, this NEEEEEEDS to go in the article!!!!111one1!" There are plenty of criticisms about the film that have widespread coverage and discussion on, we don't need to worry about the minor ones. If you can find a way to include something in a way that actually shrinks the bloated "critical reception" section, then lets hear it. If you look over the last seventy or eighty items in the archive, you will find that if we included every single bit of criticism that everything thinks should be in the article, the critical reception section would be twice the size it is now, maybe longer.

I'm totally aware that it's more interesting to find and post negative criticism about a movie, but when we currently have a criticism section that has 12 negative quotes to 9 positive ones (and a smattering of neutrals), on a movie that gained 80%+ positive reviews from critics, could you point out where balanced is rearing its head?Trusilver 07:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it should not be in the article until there is a statement by a mental health professional that it is actually a problem. Note that CNN could have gotten the opinion of a mental health professional, but it didn't. The Telegraph article had a statement by a mental health professional.

"Stacy Kaiser, a psychotherapist, said obsession with the film was masking more serious problems in the fans' lives. 'They’re seeing Avatar, they're lonely people, a lot of them don’t have a lot going on in their lives right now,' she said. 'The movie opened up a portal for them to express their depression.'

So according to the only mental health professional's opinion reported so far, it doesn't seem like there is anything to the idea that Avatar causes depression, but rather those people were already depressed, in the opinion of a psychotherapist. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because one psychotherapist said something (their personal opinion, most probably) does not mean it's notable. Or that we need another mental health professional's refutation in order to deem it unimportant enough to disregard in the Avatar article! How about this, since no one else has mentioned it, let's assume no one else agrees with her! Silence =/= Agreement. Yuna-chan (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I basically agree with her, with the exception that I believe Avatar made it worse, and I stated something similar above: "Most, if not all, of these people likely already had life problems significantly stressing them out...and used Avatar as an escape from that. But once the film was over, they felt incredibly worse. The film successfully took them to this other world and made them forget about all their problems for a few hours, and when it was over, it hurt even more to go back to the real world."

The woman knows what she is talking about. All psychotherapists base their professional thoughts not only on opinion but experience, or at least they should. It is not about guessing. And, no, silence does not always equal agreement. But, yeah, since Avatar most likely did not make these people depressed, but rather made their depression worse, it does not seem as though it needs to be mentioned. This type of thing could and does happen with other stuff as well. Flyer22 (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I agree with Trusilver's more general comment that just because there is an article about the film, doesn't mean that it should be included in the Avatar article. With the relatively large number of articles on this film, there is bound to be a large diversity of quality, accuracy and bias, and some articles may not be worthwhile. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to remind people to check the talk page for already discussed matters. This topic, for example, is already discussed above at #"Too real?", and I am not big on rearranging talk pages to keep similarly discussed topics together. My feelings on this depression/suicide matter is above. I am for the inclusion, but am not too keen on it having its own section...unless it actually becomes a bigger issue. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted, and  Done. About this: I think it's absurd and should not be included just because a few notable websites reported something on it. It didn't really go into detail, and I think we should wait and see if this does become an "issue". Right now I think it's a non-issue and will probably pass. Probably. —Mike Allen 01:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As has already been established, it's not just about notability. Notable news sources report on fluff and unconfirmed rumors/opinions all the time. For something to be confirmed and important, it has to be widely reported and have multiple original sources. 3 major news outlets reporting on the same issue using the same original source = 1 source. Yuna-chan (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I would not say that for something to be confirmed and important, it has to be widely reported, but I get your point and thank you for coming back with a better attitude. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Language creator

The article states that Cameron developed the Na'vi language. However, at the end of the movie the credits are given to Whatshisname, Ph.D. (whose name I forgot, and you may have understood.) This deserves either correction or enlightenment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.34.188.206 (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right. It was Paul Frommer. You're welcome to make the appropriate correction. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

See more on the Na'vi language development here, from Cameron's own mouth. Cinosaur (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Pandora of Avatar - Roger Dean's ideas?

If you are familiar with the work of Roger Dean, you will notice that many features of Pandora are his ideas. Roger Dean became famous especially for his famous 70's album covers for progressive rock groups like Yes, Uriah Heep, Rare Earth and many more. If you check the album cover for "Not necessarily acoustic" by Steve Howe, it looks just like a scene from Avatar. See the curved bows of rock in the jungle - the center of the Pandora antigravitational current - here: [3] The flying dragon is in Avatar - see here: [4] The floating rocks are in Avatar - see here: [5] and here: [6] You can see more of his ideas here: [7] His ideas create the magic of Pandora. Very bizzare is the fact, that Roger Dean is not mentioned in the credits, although his album covers are widely known. Is this really a matter of mere plagiarism? Max farmer (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You might want to review the first topic on this Talk page, and bear in mind that unless there are reliable sources discussing this, anything you would add would be original research and hence inappropriate for inclusion. Doniago (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The last link in Max Farmer's message is a reliable source. The question in my mind is how original are Roger Dean's images and whether images like those have appeared before, for example, on the covers of sci-fi mags or in the works of other artists. I think that Cameron drew on the whole genre of sci-fi for the ideas in the film, and I think that was mentioned in a reliable source, although offhand I can't remember which one. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen other movies and read books that could also be considered to be influenced by artwork such as this. I'd be against this under WP:UNDUE. We don't need to include EVERY single comment written by every single non-notable person who posted their opinions to "teh interweb". Trusilver 16:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting, to show proofs of what I think is plagiarism, but people prefer rules. But I agree: Rules are important. To start with reliable sources: I keep it like Roger Dean himself on his homepage [8] with "What the world is saying about Avatar". If you just simply google avatar+roger+dean [9] you find a never ending list of what notable and non-notable persons find obvious: Roger Dean is the artist of the Pandora features. Artist James White supports this idea. [10] ArtistsUK also think Roger Deans should claim rights. [11] As I said: The list is endless. It is not just an idea of some singular "non-notable persons" on the web. Rather anyone who knows Roger Dean and Avatar sees the obvious similarities. So in my humble opinion it is quite worth being discussed here. Max Farmer (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, but a lot of us are always a little bit suspicious when truth-bearing SPAs come to an article with dramatic posts about something that is only being talked about by little-known sources and non-notable writers. Forgive us for our skepticism. Trusilver 19:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the section "The "Roger Dean" Thing" at this link: http://io9.com/5444960/avatars-designers-speak-floating-mountains-amp-suits-and-the-dragon . Perhaps we can finally come to a conclusion about this, and even include it in the article. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I quote Avatar-designer Dylan Cole [12]: "Dean's work has a whimsical quality that we absolutely wanted to avoid." First: They knew his work. Second: When Dean's design is "whimsical", then why does everybody who knows Dean and Avatar think, that the floating mountains, the rock bows and the dragons look like Dean's? All of these features are peculiar and unique in design and no common ideas. [13] Even wikipedia itsself has an entry on that: [14] It seems a bit too easy to me to quote the maybe plagiarist, who said: "No, we haven't taken his ideas." I think Wikipedia cannot be the judge here. Wikipedia should stay unbiased. There is an ongoing discussion, which will remain. [15] [16] I agree with Aniraptor2001: It should be included in the article. And just to say this: I like the film a lot and saw it several times... Max Farmer (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's another interesting statement about the floating mountains, this time from Cameron: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20336893_10,00.html (10th slide) AniRaptor2001 (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved recently added sociopolitical paragraph here for discussion

recently added international sociopolitical paragraph

Internationally, critics applauded its themes of anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism. Bolivian columnist Huascar Vega Ledo, writing for Bolpress, said, "It is the imperial attitude with all the coarseness and fiction of cinema. And in the cinema, the good guys win. But in reality ... there is no change." Bolivian President Evo Morales praised Avatar for its "profound show of resistance to capitalism and the struggle for the defence of nature". Columnist Oscar van den Boogaard, writing for De Standaard in Belgium said, "It's about the brutality of man, who shamelessly takes what isn’t his." One Chinese columnist said the film might incite unrest there because of parallels between its plot and the plight of many Chinese fighting eviction in the face of development. "Avatar may not have much depth, but it inadvertently hits a nerve in a country where the bulldozer is both a threat and a sign of progress," wrote Raymond Zhoe for the China Daily. Angolan critic Altino Matos saw a message of hope. For the Jornal De Angola, he wrote: "With this union of humans and aliens comes a feeling that something better exists in the universe: the respect for life. Above all, that is what James Cameron’s film Avatar suggests." Writing for Hindustan Times and The Sydney Morning Herald, Maxim Osipov commended Cameron for “convincingly” defining culture and civilization as “the qualities of kindness, gratitude, regard for the elder, self-sacrifice, respect for all life and ultimately humble dependence on a higher intelligence behind nature”.

I think we need to consider WP:UNDUE regarding this paragraph about comments in some articles outside the US. Just like comments about sociopolitical issues that appear in some US articles, I suspect it doesn't correctly represent international opinion on the film with respect to WP:UNDUE and focuses on sociopolitical aspects only. It seems that it should be considerably shortened and merged with the sociopolitical paragraph that is the third paragraph in the same section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I not for it being in the "sociopolitical paragraph." I feel that we need a "positive paragraph," a "negative paragraph," and whatever else. Right now, the "sociopolitical paragraph" is the "negative paragraph," with one positive take. I am not keen on it being a blend of negative and positive comments. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this paragraph, in whichever form and in whichever section, is long overdue, for reasons that I have already started discussing above. We agreed before on unnotability of certain minority groups and their views on the movie, gone and done with. However, without mentioning, to some healthy extent, responses from notable international media the Critical reception section will appear WP:Biased. Admittedly, defining the exact ratio and selection of such reviews is an arduous task, but this does not cancel its importance. I, for one, am ready to take part.

Besides, cherry-picking only those reviews (or excerpts from them) that dwell exclusively on sociopolitical aspects is in itself a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. IMO, as it stands now, the Critical reception section is already overdosed on sociopolitical stuff and will not benefit from more of the same from overseas. Cinosaur (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I was suggesting that this info go into another article, where the themes are expanded upon, but not just a list of non-film world critical responses. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand Cinosaur's sentiment, but I agree with AniRaptor. The critical reception section is constantly threatening to fly out of control. It's already skating a very thin line with WP:UNDUE. I like the idea of creating another article to expand on the criticism section with a hat added to the critical reception section on the parent article. Trusilver 16:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think these information is quite unnecessary. Since the film is popular worldwide, there are countless of bloggers and columnists from everywhere who are now commenting on the film, or criticizing and interpetating its various themes. Unless the article is extremely reputable, or is of "serious" film criticism by notable film scholars, it doesn't belong in the critical reception. The article is getting very long already.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What is "extremely" reputable? We only go by reliably sourced, reputable, and non-reliable. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am in favor of a separate article dedicated to the film's critical reception internationally. Bloated articles are ugly -- but so are skewed ones. Cinosaur (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

However, many of these are just individual's perspectives (commentaries) on the film's themes, and not "critical reception". A lot of these are just from some columnists and bloggers; they are not necessarily professional film analysis. If there is a separate section, I would actually like to see content from professional film scholars and some in-depth analysis from "prestige" film publications such as Sight and Sound, Film Comment, Cahiers du cinéma or Senses of Cinema if they are available; these are real film criticisms, not web-columns from a newspaper.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Critical reception section is not only for notable film scholars. And we could easily format the Critical reception section in the way that the Changeling (film) article is formatted. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Professional film critics abroad are quite likely to write pretty much what their counterparts in US have already written exhaustively about 3D, the wow factor, special effects and the like. On the other hand, there is a lot of deep and interesting reviews, both within and outside of US, albeit not by professional film critics, which explore the movie's cultural and philosophical aspects in a better way than any film pro would do -- and Wiki readers deserve to have them readily available somewhere.

Say, I believe that conservative Christian stances on the movie, like the one by Ross Douthat, should not be squeezed into a line between similarly notable (and squeezed) reviews, and would be better situated in a separate article, as is feedback from Vatican. And we can safely assume that, as the rave settles, there will be more in-depth cultural and philosophical analyses of the kind from other quarters that will have to be accommodated as well. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We have definitely hit and slightly passed the recommended max size for an article. Its giving me a warning on my edits. Maybe a branch at this point wouldn't be such a bad idea if consensus led to it. DrNegative (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone yet that seems opposed to splitting the article. Trusilver 20:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I added the paragraph in question. It seems the community is suggesting separate but equal for international reviews. Why should international perpectives be carved out on a separate page? They differ significantly, offer a different cultural perspective and are as valuable to the discussion and as informative as the American reviews. I also apologize, as I added it back without knowing who deleted it and knowing proper etiquette, and I welcome the discussion occurring here. Amandaroyal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandaroyal (talk • contribs) 20:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you address the points mentioned at the beginning of this section that explained my actions and suggestions. It doesn't seem that you read them yet.

Re "It seems the community is suggesting separate but equal for international reviews." - I'm not. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I'm trying to combine them, keeping in mind WP:UNDUE for the sociopolitical topics that you selected from some of the international reviews. I also noticed you selected two from Bolivia on similar subjects. It's not clear why you gave that country twice the weight, in somewhat repetitive sentences, compared to the others in your paragraph. With a movie that is getting so much attention in the press there is going to be many articles on all sorts of subjects related to the movie. What is to be considered is how prominent the subjects are compared to the subjects in all the articles. Their percentage representation in the Avatar article should roughly reflect their percentage representation in all the articles written about the film, in my opinion, according to WP:UNDUE and here is the opening sentence for that policy, for your convenience.

"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."

Again, you have not put in just international reviews, but selected parts or reviews that are purely sociopolitical in subject matter. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The primary concerns about this seems to be its influence with article size, weight, and MOS:FILM guidelines placing recommendation on critique in the "Critical reception" section to be from the film's country of origin. DrNegative (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start thinking about summarizing the info in the quotes while keeping the citations, like is done in an encyclopedia, and reducing the number of quotes in general. Some of the quotes in general seem repetitive and without much informative value, except to say that so and so liked the movie, for example. Also, mentioning in the text the name of the person quoted, and their affiliation, seems to squander space, and this can be helped by reducing the number of quotes and hence the number of times this is done, while keeping the citations and summarizing the information in the quotes that are removed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob, mentioning in the text the name of the person quoted, and their affiliation is not squandering space...especially if the person is well-known or simply has an article on Wikipedia. During FA nominations, for example, mentioning the reviewer is often important. Saying things like "The New York Times said" (attributing the thoughts to the newspaper rather than the author) has been considered bad practice here on Wikipedia, as seen with the Brad Pitt article when it was up for FA status. There could be two editors from the same newspaper with two different views on the same film, for example.

The Critical reception section does not need some radical re-design, unless we are going to be significantly expanding it. It is not difficult to simply summarize the international thoughts about this film. Flyer22 (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Re "mentioning in the text the name of the person quoted, and their affiliation is not squandering space" - Perhaps I was unclear. I meant that with all those quotes, there comes all those people and affiliations mentioned too. Reducing the number of quotes, in the way I suggested, would correspondingly reduce the space taken up by mention of all those people and affiliations. Re replacing some of the quotes with summaries and keeping the citations, I thought I made a good case for that. I guess we just disagree on that. Sure are a lot of quotes that don't seem like encyclopedic style. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am only for summarizing if it comes off as good as it does in the Zombieland article. These reviewers do not all have the same thoughts, and I am worried about their thoughts being reduced to "the same" as others. The notable people with similar thoughts should be side by side, I agree with that. The Roger Ebert and A. O. Scott comments, for example, are better left as they are. We note a bit of what Ebert stated, then how Scott felt. While watching Avatar, they both felt like they did when watching Star Wars, but their thoughts are not necessarily the same. I am also worried about what I stated above, mentioning publications without mentioning the authors' names; this would likely happen while summarizing. In addition to that, I am worried about weasel words, such as "some," per WP:Weasel. How would you summarize these reviewers' thoughts? Would it involve words such as "some reviewers"? I would appreciate you giving a "rough draft" below in this section (text here or a link to your user space), about how you would write the current reception section with your proposed summary style. The reception section seems encyclopedic to me, Wikipedia style-wise. I also do not see summarizing cutting down on too much space regarding this article. This article's reception section should be bigger anyway; it is the second biggest film in the world thus far, and a lot of critics and various types of notable people have had something to state about it. But if you can convince me that your summary style would be better, I may be for this particular proposal. Flyer22 (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving in the current article only reviews by very prominent US and international professional film critics, and shifting cultural, religious and sociopolitical analyses, both from US and abroad, to a a separate article named "Avatar (2009 movie) -- Cultural, religious and sociopolitical themes" or something like that. I agree with Amandaroyal that splitting these two articles along the geographical line will otherwise appear WP:Biased. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am against the split. It makes no sense to me to split the article to cover reception for a film, even one as popular as this one. It certainly makes no sense to me to split the article just to cover international reviews. This is not the American Wikipedia. And, yes, this article is big, but so is the Changeling (film) article. The Critical reception section can be formatted to resemble its Reception section. And the sociopolitical aspects should definitely stay in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22, not that I am for the split per se, but only as a means to accommodate more in-depth and objective coverage. If that could be done without the split, all the better. But it seems to me that many editors here do not want to increase the size of the article. Cinosaur (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The size of this article is likely going to increase regardless. I again point people to the Changeling (film) article and its size. The Critical reception section of the Avatar film article should be bigger anyway, especially when you take into consideration the Changeling (film) article's Reception section...and the fact that Avatar is a much bigger film (with plenty of more reviews available about it).

Having a separate article to cover Avatar's widespread reviews does not mean that a bit of the non-American views should not be covered here in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to BobK31416, I count at least 14 American reviews in the critical reception section right now, and zero international sources. One from Bolivia, one from China, and one from Belgium does not seem out of balance to me. I also included a quote from Bolivia's first indigenous president, who is not a critic, but his critique I found fascinating. As I expected, someone added more as soon as I was done, from India, etc. In response to the suggestion that one page contain only "very prominent US and international professional film critics." How do we define prominent? And how do we determine if a collumnist is prominent in another country, if we do not live there? How do we determine if someone is a "professional"? I assumed all the collumnists I linked to, besides President Morales -- are paid by their publications to wrte. As to the sociopolitical content of the reviews, this is valuable information and belongs somewhere, and I'm not so sure the American reviewers left out their sociopolitical perspectives Amandaroyal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for your response, but I was a bit disappointed that you didn't address the quote I presented to you from WP:UNDUE. Please note that the quote referred to viewpoints, rather than the people having them. Since I don't feel you adequately responded to my concern re WP:UNDUE, I'm still opposed to that paragraph, for the reasons I mentioned. May I make a suggestion? The first sentence of the 3rd paragraph of Critical reception is, "Armond White of the New York Press wrote that Cameron used villainous American characters to misrepresent facets of militarism, capitalism, and imperialism." I thought one could show another viewpoint regarding this with a sentence made from the material in your paragraph. Could you make a sentence that could be used following the 1st sentence of the 3rd paragraph of Critical reception? That would appropriately give another viewpoint there, in my opinion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Amandaroyal, some of the editors here seem to know who the prominent professional film critics are much better than me. All I can try and judge more or less objectively is the relative prominence of the international media in their respective countries. As far as their international notability, one of possible gauges (but by no means the only one) could be the IMDB's "list of partners". Cinosaur (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob K31416, Thanks for your patience. And thanks to everyone else for the discussion. I agree that the proposed graph is similar in viewpoint to Graph 3 of Critical Response. For the sentence Bob K31416 proposes, it would be easy to just say: “Critics from as far away as Bolivia, Angola, and China expressed similar sentiments.” That boils it down, but doesn’t give them as much space as others. Thanks to Cinosaur for the list of partners.

Here is a shortened version of the original, divided into two graphs of "anti-imperialist" and "postive" themes, proposed to follow Graph 3:

Bolivian columnist Huascar Vega Ledo said it represented America’s invasion of Iraq and lamented, “In the cinema, the good guys win. But in reality ... there is no change." Columnist Oscar van den Boogaard, writing for De Standaard in Belgium said, "It's about the brutality of man, who shamelessly takes what isn’t his."[8] A China Daily columnist said the film might incite unrest there because of its revolutionary themes.[9]

Angolan critic Altino Matos saw a message of hope: "With this union of humans and aliens comes a feeling that something better exists in the universe: the respect for life."[10] In the Hindustan Times and The Sydney Morning Herald, Maxim Osipov commended Cameron for “convincingly” defining culture and civilization as “the qualities of kindness, gratitude, regard for the elder, self-sacrifice, respect for all life and ultimately humble dependence on a higher intelligence behind nature”. [11][12]--Amandaroyal (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I just want to note that there is no reason at all to exclude reliable sources such as China Daily, etc.

As for keeping all the sociopolitical comments in the "sociopolitical paragraph," there is nothing wrong with having two "sociopolitical paragraphs"; one can be about certain themes, and the other can be about certain themes. Or we can have a "negative sociopolitical paragraph" and a "positive sociopolitical paragraph." Whether we have one or two, I feel that the current paragraph should begin noting that it is about the sociopolitical themes of the film. Not everyone realizes that paragraph is only about "the sociopolitical" when reading it. We already had one editor who feels that the reception section bounces back and forth from positive to negative reviews, after the initial two paragraphs, and is sort of scatterbrain in that way...not getting that the reception section is divided into any themes. Flyer22 (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that such a paragraph has long been overdue. I argued for an inclusion of a similar paragraph but encountered firm resistance from other more active editors to this article. But the film's sociopolitical value has been increasingly garnering attention internationally and domestically. I agree with allowing the paragraph to remain, and the Changeling (film) is a wonderful template for re-formatting this article's reception section.--haha169 (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Re "But the film's sociopolitical value has been increasingly garnering attention internationally and domestically." - It has? How do you figure that? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Amandaroyal for the edit. It is fine with me. I agree with Flyer22 -- it is better to keep a short verbatim quote from China Daily, if possible, since this gives the source more weight. Something like: "Avatar... inadvertently hits a nerve in a country where the bulldozer is both a threat and a sign of progress". The name of the author should also be kept, as per FA standards mentioned by Flyer22 above. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break - Moved1

This is just my opinion and it is not documented, but I won't need a source for this personal argument. When Avatar first came out, most of the media was about its beautiful visual effects. Later on, some conservative media popped up with negative criticism and the LA times documented it thoroughly. Now, however, especially with a major release in China, these --sociopolitical views have been popping up every which way, especially in the foreign media.haha169 (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm OK with that type of answer. : ) I'm also open to that possibility, if I see enough to believe it. It does make sense that about all there is to say about the reaction to the visuals of the film have already been said. So after the press has logged that forest, so to speak, it moves to another forest, e.g. sociopolitics, and continues its logging operation there. But of course that's just my speculation. Personally, I haven't seen enough to tell if there has been an increase in the subject of Avatar sociopolitics in articles. Anyhow, I'm just trying to follow WP:UNDUE. If you can make a case that there is a prominence in sociopolitcal avatar articles that would allow a greater amount of discussion in the Avatar article, I'd be open to that. But so far I haven't seen it. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, most of them are in foreign media. I recall reading a 20-page long Chinese article on Sina regarding the bulldozer analogy presented in the above paragraph (for some reason, I can't find it. It might have been removed). I'm not very well-read with most of the sociopolitical issues concerning Avatar, but I have read some prominent articles about the bulldozer "nail-houses" issue in China, as it is very present even in Western media, such as the Wall Street Journal and other English-version Chinese media like Xinhua. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haha169 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That article seems to digress from Avatar the movie, since the demolitions mentioned in the article took place in a city, not a forest or jungle. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

My take on this would be that the sociopolitical aspect of the film was not actually promoted leading up to the film's release, which is why the effects received most of the coverage originally. It's not specifically because the film was released in China. FWIW I think the paragraph in question would be more suited to a "themes" section than the reception, but otherwise it's very well written and it's definitely worthy of inclusion in the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's sum it up. We seem to have four options in this discussion:

1. leave the paragraph or its rewrite under Critical reception;
2. place it under a separate subheading, like "Cultural, religious and sociopolitical themes" in Release (or somewhere else, as Thumperward is suggesting);
3. shift it to a separate article like "Avatar (2009 movie) -- cultural, religious and sociopolitical themes" and elaborate on the topic there;
4. scrap it altogether.

Now, where do we go from here? Cinosaur (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The idea of a separate, expanded "Themes" section, where we can break down each theme (religion, environmentalism, race, imperialism) and detail its particular critical reception, should definitely be considered. For an example, see Changeling_(film)#Themes AniRaptor2001 (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the present amount of space given to sociopolitical aspects is roughly in line with WP:UNDUE. If much further info on the subject is desired, a separate article may be the way to handle it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I added Bolivian president Morales comment with citation for the reasons I mentioned previously about adding a sentence from the subject paragraph to the place after Armond White's quote. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob, we do not split critical reviews of a film into a separate article. I cannot think of any film article that has done that. This article would be setting a precedent on that matter, I think, and that is not a good thing. I feel that the notable positive reviews and criticism about the film should be covered in the film's article. Some people do not even like splitting stuff that would be WP:UNDUE in one article to instead be in its own article. I suppose a precedent could be set with this article, on the matter of it having a subarticle about its critical reviews, but it should not be just to deal with WP:UNDUE. There is no reason that more than one international review cannot and should not be in the Critical reception section of this article. That is not WP:UNDUE, in my view. I am certain that there are international reviews out there which are not just about the film's sociopolitical themes. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There was no suggestion by anyone that only negative reviews should be split off into a separate article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I was speaking of international reviews, whether negative or positive. But using the subarticle mainly to cover the negative and international reviews seemed to be the main suggestion. Either way, there should not be a separate article just to cover all viewpoints. If all viewpoints are adequately covered in this article, there should be no need for a separate article just to cover reviews for a film. My point is that international reviews can and should go in this article. If certain international criticism of the film, for example, is covered in two or more sources...yes, it should be in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

But what DrNegative stated below, in the section immediately after this one, should be taken into consideration. Flyer22 (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break -- moving towards consensus?

Bob K31416, thanks for including the quote from Morales. Still could we somehow reach consensus on what to do with the rest of the paragraph? Should we consider steering the discussion to a vote? Right now editors' preferences expressed here on the issue look like this (please correct me and amend misrepresented placements in the list, if any):

1. keep the proposed paragraph or its rewrite under Critical reception: 5 in favor - Amandaroyal, Flyer22, Cinosaur, Haha169, Thumperward
2. place it under a separate subheading, like "Cultural, religious and sociopolitical themes" in Release (or somewhere else, as Thumperward is suggesting): 3 in favor - Haha169, Cinosaur, Thumperward
3. shift it to a separate article like "Avatar (2009 movie) -- cultural, religious and sociopolitical themes" and elaborate on the topic there: 5 in favor - AniRaptor2001, Bob K31416, Trusilver, DrNegative, Cinosaur
4. scrap it altogether: 1 in favor - DerechoReguerraz

Comments? Suggestions? Cinosaur (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The "sociopolitical paragraph" already in this article should not be scrapped. There should be a paragraph in this article about this film's sociopolitical aspects, of course. We already have a Themes section in this article, called Themes and inspirations, and critical reviews about the themes should not go there...because those are the opinions of the reviewers. As for a Themes section in the Release section, it would need to be a subsection of the Critical reception section -- unless we divide the Release and Reception sections, like the Changeling (film) article -- but I am not sure that a subsection for the cultural, religious and sociopolitical themes is best. That can be sufficiently covered in the Critical reception section without a subsection. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22 -- do I get you right that you're suggesting to keep the sociopolitical paragraph proposed by Amandaroyal in Critical reception? Or do you mean the already existing one starting with "Armond White of the New York Press wrote..."? BTW, I looked at and liked Changeling formatting a lot. A good FA film article to emulate. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant the already existing one. But as for the proposed one, I will state I do not feel that the current Critical reception section has taken care of enough; I feel this way because of the constant complaints about the Critical reception section leaving out certain criticisms and not having a worldwide view. The American view is not a worldwide view. Yes, it is obvious that a lot of people all over the world like or love this film, but some reviews from those other aspects of the world can be noted without being redundant...or at least traded out with a few of the American views saying the same thing. It is not WP:UNDUE to include a few non-American reviews. In fact, Wikipedia articles should present a worldwide view. Flyer22 (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur. How do we move ahead, though? Cinosaur (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If we decide to put notable international reviews within the article, try to remember that if the majority of critcs in China (for example) gave the film a positive review, and we put one single negative comment from a critic in China, that would falsly represent the views of the majority in China to the average reader of the article. Just try do give it due weight, thats all I am concerned with at this point. DrNegative (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that quote as negative, merely an observation.--haha169 (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

DrNegative (et al) -- can we then formulate and agree upon some specific criteria for acceptable international sources for this section, like the most obvious ones (for me) that such a source:

• must be in English;
• must be a prominent/leading source in a large geographical/demographical region of the world;
• must not repeat the already over-reported lines about the movie's visuals, plot, and cast;
• must present a novel and relevant cultural, religious or socio-political angle, which US critics did not report and could not have reported;
• should preferably be from a partner of IMDB.com or news.google.com or...
• etc.

Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a logical start for criteria. On another note, have we come to a consensus as to how we should address this issue? DrNegative (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, and I have no idea how to proceed about it. What would you DrNegative suggest? Cinosaur (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The way I read this situation is that NPOV demands that international reception should be documented. With all films the focus seems to be how it performs in its home country and how it performs internationally, not how it performs in Germany, Kazakhstan, Bulgaria etc. Therefore NPOV does not dictate we balance the reception in China, just that we balance the coverage of reception internationally. The coverage between domestic and international reception should roughly be equal. China and India having 2 billion people between them should be represented individually. As financial backers the UK should represented individually. As a major filming location the film is of interest to local industry so New Zealand should be represented individually. The EU can be represented as a whole, and the former Soviet bloc are usually classed a cultural whole. We then just need something from Africa and South America and then all the continents and interested parties will be accounted for. The section should not be any larger than the domestic coverage. The preference should be for English language reviews, although Wikipedia guidlines do not insist on this (and may be impossible in cases like China). Google and IMDB connections are certainly not necessary, the criticism should be from prominent reviewers within that country's mainstream media. As for repeating commentary by the US reviewers this will be unavoidable because many international reviewers will pick up on the same things so will be necessary for the coverage to be balanced. Betty Logan (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

On that note we also have the option of looking at international views as a collective whole too. I am really unsure about which option would be the best to implement in this case. DrNegative (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Very good points Betty Logan! How about restructuring Critical review in a way similar to Changeling movie, as a few editors here have already suggested. The way it is structured now, the Critical reception section is very heavy on the eye, inflexible and mixed up in parts. See below. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I have stated before though, population and demographics do not have influence on notability or weight. If we were to even go by those terms the US would actually win the ticket per capita ratio. China and India with their 2 billion people combined have only pulled $95 million total together in contrast to the US (300+ million people) and its $500+ million box office receipts. So should US reception be more prominent as a result? My point is this is why quoting demographics is pointless on these issues. Another problem with giving each country its very own space for reviews is, this[17] - Who decides which one of the countries get their say in the reception? Editors will ask why don't their reviews get listed as well? Before you know it, we could literally have enough reviews to merit their very own article(s) which would be what some other editors seem to be against as well. See the spill-over effect?

Do any of these countries have a censored press on certain issues is another question. Would Chinese journalists be allowed by its government to praise a US film on a certain socio-political issue for example?[18] Could that violate NPOV? These question are mostly rhetorical, but are still questions we need to take into consideration. "International" is a very broad term and could easily violate NPOV if not done correctly. DrNegative (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed restructuring of the Critical reception section

Based on suggestions by a few editors here, in the hidden section below please find a dummy on how we could try and overcome current limitations of the Critical review section, such as difficulty for reading, inflexibility, mixed contents, and arbitrary allocation of space to various reviews.

I believe that the proposed format will also facilitate objectively balancing relative weight of various geographical and perceptional contributions, by means of both the area and the place they occupy. Each subsection under Thematic reviews should ideally be preluded by Cameron's own statement on that topic in the movie, to ensure compliance with WP:UNDUE. I removed heading formating to exclude the dummy from TOC.

And please remember that this is this is only a dummy. I am just proposing a structure and am showing how the current Critical reviews section fits into it. Please feel free to suggest revisions to bring it in accord with WP:UNDUE and other Wiki policies. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

proposed restructuring of the Critical reception section

Reception

---

General response

The film received generally positive reviews from film critics. Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that 82% of 246 professional critics have given the film a positive review, with a rating average of 7.4 out of 10. Among Rotten Tomatoes's Top Critics, which consists of popular and notable critics from the top newspapers, websites, television and radio programs, the film holds an overall approval rating of 94%, based on a sample of 35 reviews. The site's general consensus is that "It might be more impressive on a technical level than as a piece of storytelling, but Avatar reaffirms James Cameron's singular gift for imaginative, absorbing filmmaking." On Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from film critics, the film has a rating score of 84 based on 35 reviews.

Domestic reviews

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times called the film "extraordinary" and gave it four stars out of four. "Watching Avatar, I felt sort of the same as when I saw Star Wars in 1977," he said. Like Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings, the film "employs a new generation of special effects". A. O. Scott of At The Movies also compared viewing the film to the first time he viewed Star Wars. He said "the script is a little bit ... obvious" but that "is part of what made it work". Todd McCarthy of Variety praised the film. "The King of the World sets his sights on creating another world entirely in Avatar, and it's very much a place worth visiting." Kirk Honeycutt of The Hollywood Reporter gave the film a positive review. "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," he stated. Rolling Stone film critic Peter Travers praised the film, giving it 3.5 out of 4 stars and in his print review wrote, "It extends the possibilities of what movies can do. Cameron's talent may just be as big as his dreams." Richard Corliss of TIME Magazine stated, "Embrace the movie — surely the most vivid and convincing creation of a fantasy world ever seen in the history of moving pictures." Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times felt the film has "powerful" visual accomplishments but "flat dialogue" and "obvious characterization". James Berardinelli, film critic for ReelViews, praised the film and its story, giving it 4 out of 4 stars he wrote, "In 3D, it's immersive - but the traditional film elements - story, character, editing, theme, emotional resonance, etc. - are presented with sufficient expertise to make even the 2D version an engrossing 2 1/2-hour experience."

International reviews

Europe

United Kingdom

India

China

New Zealand

Africa and South America

Peer reviews

The movie blog /Film accumulated a list of quotes about Avatar from fourteen writers and directors in Hollywood. From Steven Spielberg, "The most evocative and amazing science-fiction movie since Star Wars." Frank Marshall wrote, "Avatar is audacious and awe inspiring. It's truly extraordinary". Richard Kelly called the film "amazing". John August termed it a "master class". Michael Moore recommended, "Go see Avatar, a brilliant movie [for] our times." The only negative reaction in the list was from Duncan Jones, "It's not in my top three Jim Cameron films. ... at what point in the film did you have any doubt what was going to happen next?"

Plot similarities

In terms of similar plot, film critic Ty Burr of the Boston Globe called it "the same movie" as Dances with Wolves. Parallels to the concept and use of an avatar were in Poul Anderson's 1957 short story Call Me Joe, where a paralyzed man uses his mind to remotely control an alien body. Other reviews have compared it to the films FernGully: The Last Rainforest and Pocahontas. NPR's Morning Edition has compared the film to a montage of tropes, with one friend of an editor stating that Avatar was made by mixing a bunch of film scripts in a blender. In a similar vein, columnist David Brooks describes the story as "oft-repeated". In this trope, he stated, "a manly young adventurer ... goes into the wilderness in search of thrills and profit" but finds the native people of the wilderness "noble and spiritual and pure. And so ... emerges as their Messiah, leading them on a righteous crusade against his own rotten civilization". Cameron acknowledged that the film is thematically similar to such classic "going-native" films as Dances with Wolves and At Play in the Fields of the Lord.

Thematic reviews

Various interpretations of the film led Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune to label it the "season's Rorschach blot".

Socio-political themes

Armond White of the New York Press wrote that Cameron used villainous American characters to misrepresent facets of militarism, capitalism, and imperialism. Russell D. Moore in The Christian Post concluded that propaganda exists in the film and stated, "If you can get a theater full of people in Kentucky to stand and applaud the defeat of their country in war, then you've got some amazing special effects." Adam Cohen of The New York Times was more positive, calling the film's anti-imperialist message "a 22nd-century version of the American colonists vs. the British, India vs. the Raj, or Latin America vs. United Fruit". Annalee Newitz of io9 concluded that Avatar is another film that has the recurring "fantasy about race" where "some white guy" becomes the "most awesome" member of a non-white culture. Internationally, reviewers applauded its themes of anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism. Bolivia's first indigenous president, Evo Morales, praised Avatar for its "profound show of resistance to capitalism and the struggle for the defence of nature". Bolivian columnist Huascar Vega Ledo, writing for Bolpress, said, "It is the imperial attitude with all the coarseness and fiction of cinema. And in the cinema, the good guys win. But in reality ... there is no change." Bolivian President Evo Morales praised Avatar for its "profound show of resistance to capitalism and the struggle for the defence of nature". Columnist Oscar van den Boogaard, writing for De Standaard in Belgium said, "It's about the brutality of man, who shamelessly takes what isn’t his." One Chinese columnist said the film might incite unrest there because of parallels between its plot and the plight of many Chinese fighting eviction in the face of development. "Avatar may not have much depth, but it inadvertently hits a nerve in a country where the bulldozer is both a threat and a sign of progress," wrote Raymond Zhoe for the China Daily. Angolan critic Altino Matos saw a message of hope. For the Jornal De Angola, he wrote: "With this union of humans and aliens comes a feeling that something better exists in the universe: the respect for life. Above all, that is what James Cameron’s film Avatar suggests." Writing for Hindustan Times and The Sydney Morning Herald, Maxim Osipov commended Cameron for “convincingly” defining culture and civilization as “the qualities of kindness, gratitude, regard for the elder, self-sacrifice, respect for all life and ultimately humble dependence on a higher intelligence behind nature”.

Ecological themes

Cultural and religious themes

Ross Douthat of The New York Times opined that the film is "Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism" which "has been Hollywood's religion of choice for a generation now".

Awards and nominations

Main article: List of awards and honors received by Avatar

The New York Film Critics Online have honored the film with its Best Picture award. The film also received nine nominations for the Critics' Choice Awards of the Broadcast Film Critics Association, including those for Best Picture and Best Director. St. Louis Film Critics have nominated the film for two of its annual awards—Best Visual Effects and Most Original, Innovative or Creative Film, and the film won both awards. The film was a runner-up for the best Production Design award of the Los Angeles Film Critics Association annual awards. The film also picked up four nominations for the 67th Golden Globe Awards including Best Motion Picture – Drama, Best Director, Best Film Score and Best Film Song. The Austin Film Critics Association and the Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association have placed the film on their top ten films of the year lists, while Chicago Film Critics Association has nominated the film for its annual Best Cinematography and Best Original Score awards. The Las Vegas Film Critics Society has awarded the film with Best Art Direction award, and the Florida Film Critics Circle honored the film with Best Cinematography award. London Film Critics' Circle has nominated the film for its Film of the Year and Director of the Year annual awards. Phoenix Film Critics Society has honored the film with Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Production Design and Best Visual Effect awards and also included it on its top-ten films of the year list. The Online Film Critics Society has nominated the film for Best Director, Best Cinematography and Best Editing awards. The film was also nominated by the Producers Guild of America for its Darryl F. Zanuck Producer of the Year Award in Theatrical Motion Pictures. James Cameron has been named as one of the 2009 Nominees for Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Feature Film awarded by the Directors Guild of America. The film is considered to be a front-runner for Best Picture at the 82nd Academy Awards due to its strong box-office and critical reception, and reportedly successful screening held for Academy members.

Opinions, corrections?

Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed - In my opinion it would violate WP:UNDUE by giving too much weight to what are called in the proposal "Thematic Reviews", which appear to be sociopolitical aspects. In just the subsection Socio-political themes there is a significant increase over what is currently in the article. The other subsections in "Thematic Reviews" that are presently empty or nearly empty would add even more when completed.

From WP:UNDUE, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." My feeling is that the movie is primarily an action/adventure film for entertainment purposes, and the interpretations of the sociopolitical aspects is a minor part in comparison. This is based on my viewing of the film, and the coverage that I have seen in reliable sources.--Bob K31416 (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob, I have to disagree with you on this one. Just because the movie is seen by some (or even by most) as primarily an action/adventure film on the surface, does not imply all its other themes are subservient and secondary. The article itself already quotes both Cameron and other sources as saying that the film has very important aspects deliberately planted in it, like pro-ecological, anti-military, anti-colonial, ethical, cultural and even what some call 'spiritual' themes. After all, these themes are the author's own and expressed intention. Therefore reviews covering these implicit but still palpable aspects of the movie deserve, in my view, as serious an attention. Visuals are the wrapping, but message is the contents, and both require adequate coverage in the article, unless we want it to be plainly superficial.

And, as I said earlier, there are ways to regulate a particular view's weight in the proposed rewrite by means of allotted position and space. Headings such as "Thematic reviews" do not confer weight by themselves. Dixit. Cinosaur (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob, regarding your concern over undue weight of Socio-political -- this is just a dummy and dummy only!. I am just proposing a structure and am showing how the current Critical reviews section fits into it. Please feel free to suggest revisions to bring it in accord with WP:UNDUE. Sorry if this was not clear. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed to the proposed structure. That is an interesting layout you have going on, Cinosaur, but all those subheadings are not needed (especially the Thematic reviews one, which only has one lone sentence). And I am not quite getting the rearrangement, such as putting the peer reviews higher than the sociopolitical aspects. You started off the structure in the Changeling (film) format, but then you got a little carried away (no offense). We can simply design the structure completely like the Changeling (film) article; General consensus and Reviews is all that is needed before the Awards and nominations section. We do not even yet need to split this article up like that just to cover the international reviews you and others want covered. Furthermore, not all those international reviews are needed. Just a few will do. And if they are redundant with what has already been stated by the non-American reviews, they can be traded out with a few of those or combined with them. Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you can sub divide the section into domestic and international reception, and peer review. As for plot similarities and themes I would try to incorporate those type of reviews into that structure. For instance, the American press has focused on the influence of other films while the Indian press has focused on the Hindu influence, so these aspects should perhaps be discussed in relation to those countries. Thematic review shows how different peoples and cultures perceive the film in different ways. It reminds me of Spielberg at Cannes in 1975 when Jaws premiered and he explained the film was about a killer shark, and the French press kept asking him about the underlying Communist message! To Americans the film is about a shark, to the French it's about Communism. The geographic structure looks fine to me, giving a short paragraph to China, a short paragraph to Europe etc, as long as the overall international ratio for positive and negative reception is reflected and of course the section doesn't exceed the size of the domestic setion. Betty Logan (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and prominence of sociopolitical aspects

"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." WP:UNDUE

I think this means that we do not give more or less prominence to the sociopolitical aspects of Avatar, than they are given in reliable sources. Currently these aspects are discussed in the section "Themes and inspirations" and in the 3rd paragraph of the section "Critical reception".

What's the consensus here on this? Do the editors here feel that the sociopolitical aspects that are presently in the article, have more, less or about the same prominence that is in reliable sources? --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob K31416, it would help me answer your important question decisively if I knew how you measure prominence of a particular view in reliable sources, so we could sync our "prominence yardsticks". I am serious, no sarcasm intended. Cinosaur (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There didn't seem to be specific guidance on a "yardstick" from WP:UNDUE, although the following from it might clarify how it pertains to this issue. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."

My feeling is that the movie is primarily an action/adventure film for entertainment purposes, and the interpretations of the sociopolitical aspects is a minor part in comparison. This is based on my viewing of the film, and the coverage that I have seen in reliable sources. Of the sources that I have seen, I feel that the present weight given to sociopolitical aspects is similar to the weight it is given in the reliable sources. It's my judgement call, rather than a mathematical proof. However, in coming to this opinion, I have tried to think of the space that these aspects have been given in the articles on Avatar. I think that one has to be careful not to confuse what is significant personally with what has been considered significant by the totality of reliable sources.

So those are my thoughts on how to approach this issue. Other editors may have other approaches and it is one of the purposes of this discussion for editors to express how they have decided what constitutes appropriate weight. Perhaps you could express how you would try to satisfy the policy WP:UNDUE. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Bob, the above makes sense to me. As for the "yardstick", I mostly meant your and a couple of other editors' treating news.google hits as such a gauge. Since in order to decide on exactly how the article space should be apportioned among different views on the movie we have to have a quantifying method, I wonder if news.google could be one of them.

I have to disagree with you in that the movie is primarily an action/adventure film on the surface, but Cameron himself admitted to having planted in the movie pro-ecological, anti-military, anti-colonial, ethical and cultural themes, and drew upon some oriental motifs for their settings. So reviews covering these implicit but palpable aspects of the movie deserve, in my view, as much attention.

As for how to best satisfy the WP:UNDUE policy in regard to international reviews, I think Betty Logan summed it up quite nicely above, an I support the idea expressed by this editor. What do you think? Cinosaur (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob, WP:UNDUE cannot apply in this case. There is no mention of any sociopolitical aspect in the article, and an addition of a single paragraph on the topic does not violate that rule at all. In fact, I would say WP:IGNORE because the media is attracted to the visual effects of the movie, while the sociopolitical aspects have generally been thrown aside; but such aspects have been mentioned and acknowledged by relevant people such as James Cameron. Therefore, it is notable and does NOT give too much weight to one side. The current article that lacks a sociopolitical aspect, I believe, violates WP:UNDUE. --haha169 (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. Presently, the article features only American reviews and the socio-political aspect is ignored. A separate section should be created where this issue could be addressed in an appropriate manner.--Gaura79 (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not quite getting how the sociopolitical aspects are ignored. Not only are they addressed in the Themes and inspirations section...but they are also presented in the third paragraph of the Critical reception section. Perhaps, it needs to be clearer that those are the sociopolitical aspects, like I suggested before. Not everyone is going to know from just looking at that paragraph that it is the "sociopolitical paragraph." It needs a lead-in.

Either way, I am for more international reviews in the Critical reception section, and it seems consensus is for that as well. Flyer22 (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel the current socio-political comments already within the article satisfy enough due-weight on this topic. DrNegative (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Cinosaur for your efforts. It appears everyone feels the same as they did last week when we started this discussion. I support including the international reviews in the critical review section because of their unique and inherent value. There is nothing is WP: UNDUE that would prevent their inclusion. These reviews are both "reliable" and "verifiable" and I'm not sure I want to debate the "prominence" of a China Daily collumnist whose potential audience is 1 billion people. There is clearly a sociopolitical discussion ocurring worldwide over this movie. If the American reviews that mention the sociopolitical aspects are included in the main article, some international reviews should be included as well. This should not be first come first serve. Another solution is taking all sociopolitical discussion to another page. Dividing American and international viewpoints, as is currently the case, is not acceptable.--Amandaroyal (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Template

The number of articles related to Avatar is growing. It might not be such a bad idea for someone to start working on an Avatar template. If there's anyone who is good at creating templates, maybe that's something you would be interested in working on. I could do it, but my template skills are monumentally bad, it would take me ten hours to make what should be done in one. Trusilver 16:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to confess ignorance. Could you clarify what you mean by "Avatar template"? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There have been two templates for it and they have both been deleted. Honestly, I don't think six articles is enough to warrant a navigation box. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 18:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, bugger, I've done it. If it gets deleted, whatever. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Link is here. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a good looking template. DrNegative (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. That's only my second constructed. ^.^ --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That looks great, what do you think about also including the starring actors? That seems to be a kind of hit and miss issue for movie templates, but what does everyone think? Trusilver 20:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. I'll think about it. Consensus? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus has already been reached regarding adding actors in the nav box. Good luck around that one. :) —Mike Allen 03:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thejadefalcon, the template looks good! I wouldn't worry about it getting deleted as there are six articles; although it isn't a large number, I've seen some with less. And with the talks of future films, there may be opportunity for more articles to be made. The actors definitely shouldn't be in the navbox, there is a standing consensus it across the film, television and actor projects. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Template has been nominated for deletion here. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

50th highest grossing

The article says:

This now makes the film the second-highest grossing of all time worldwide;[20] it is the 50th-highest grossing film of all-time worldwide when adjusted for inflation.

This is inaccurate because it is the 50th highest grossing DOMESTIC film when adjusted for inflation. The source is clear about this. Avatar's worldwide adjusted rank is not forthcoming.

Dante2308 (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

They worked out Gone With the Wind's adjusted worldwide gross in 1989 and it came to $6000 million, which would be over $10,000 million in 2009 dollars. Avatar has some way to go there! Betty Logan (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A piece in the Financial Times about how Avatar is a poor performer when adjusted for inflation: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9a26665c-fe11-11de-9340-00144feab49a.html. It may be worth incorporating that into the article, it's not often we get a reference as strong as the Financial Times analysing adjusted box office figures. Betty Logan (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Betty, that doesn't change the FACT that it is 50th highest grossing film domestically when adjusted for inflation. It is absolutely lower than Gone With the Wind domestically and worldwide but there is zero proof that its domestic and worldwide adjusted rank are exactly the same. The article should be changed to represent factual information. Proof Here: http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htmDante2308 (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Poor performer is a bold statement, by the standards of almost a century ago it may have been so but by today's standards it is not. I have also read articles that take into account the fact that there were no home-media in those times or availibility of small portable cameras, the internet, and DVD burners for pirating. The films of the past era would also enjoy a much longer theatrical release time because of not having the home-media option as well, sometimes well over a year. DrNegative (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I just thought it brought an interesting new angle to the story. Betty Logan (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It is an interesting angle, but if Avatar is a poor performer, then all movies since 1999 are in the same basket. Taking into account the fact that several movies premiered during Avatar's run, Avatar is an original non-sequel movie, and the competing forms of entertainment, then I would say that Avatar performed very well for a modern movie. That aside, the correction still needs to be made. Dante2308 (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to include any reference to the film's inflation-adjusted performance; as you can read here, it is extremely difficult to calculate an adjusted gross, and comparison between films based on inflation-adjusted receipts is of dubious value. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think including the number is fine as long as the appropriate caveats are included. It is up to the reader to discern the significance of such a value. It is Wikipedia's job to present the facts in their proper context.Dante2308 (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The majority of box office analysts do not go by the inflation adjustment for the reasons AniRaptor2001 linked to. The numbers are by no means precise, they are interesting speculation at most, not pure facts. Analysts do at times mention "unadjusted for inflation" after the number which is what we have done in the article and noted as such. DrNegative (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Themes

This article could be made better if it expanded on the underlying environmentalist themes in the movie. I mean, James Cameron mentioned it has an environmentalist attitude. Or at least make this stand out more in the article? thnx 76.180.165.34 (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Academic references to Hindu deities' color

Bob K31416 -- I disagree with your removal of the sentence:

...alluding to the fact that principal deities in Hinduism, such as Vishnu and Krishna, are traditionally depicted as dark-blue.

under Themes and inspirations because (1) it is not an original research, but references to books on the topic by some of the most prominent contemporary scholars of Hinduism, and (2) the article ought to explain to readers what Cameron means by "connection to Hindu deities, which I like conceptually" -- something he himself did not bother to elaborate on. Please consider reverting your removal of this line. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you made the point against the edit yourself when you wrote, " something he himself did not bother to elaborate on." When an editor elaborates, it is a violation of WP:NOR because it hasn't been mentioned in a source in connection with Cameron's comment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the use of the words "alluding to the fact" smacked of ascribing intentions to Cameron that he did not spell out, and thus could be against WP:NOR. However, the exact connection between the color and Hindu deities which he is talking about in the quote is not clear and may leave readers wondering, and IMO requires a reference. Would it be ok to say, plain and simple:

...connection to Hindu deities. Traditionally, principal deities in Hinduism, such as Vishnu and Krishna, are depicted as dark-blue.

Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Same reason. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you feel that such an explanation from some other source that is not against WP:NOR could/should still be included? Cinosaur (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No, because it is a digression, in my opinion. But who knows, maybe you can come up with something worthwhile, and I'm open to that possibility. But frankly, any more about Hinduism than what is there, would seem to have the purpose of informing the reader more about Hinduism, rather than the film. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

...and what's wrong with informing the reader of Hinduism just to the extent and in a manner that helps him/her get a clearer idea of what Cameron is referring to in the quote? Cinosaur (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there's any problem with the revision? Cameron stated that he chose blue in part because of the connection to Hindu deities. Followed by an explanation ("principal deities are depicted as dark blue.") It's a clarification, it seems to be fine. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is how it seems to me too. However, Bob K31416 appears to believe it to be OR. Bob K31416, could you please consider elaborating on your claim? Cinosaur (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The following is in the 2nd paragraph of the lead of WP:NOR, "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article". The sources that you gave are not directly related to the film Avatar, which is the topic of the article. The material in the sources that you presented are related to the topic Avatar (film) by you, not by the sources themselves, and hence the material that you are trying to include is a violation of WP:NOR. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob, Cameron said "Plus, there is a connection to the Hindu deities, which I like conceptually". Based on this phrase alone, an average reader unfamiliar with Hinduism will think that all 33 million Hindu deities are blue. This is not true. Some of them are red, green, yellow, white, black, or you name it. Citing reliable reference to clarify the important but potentially misleading quote and to show that there is a connection that Cameron is talking about is not OR, but a clarification. Is not it directly related to the topic? It would be OR if I tried to imply which deities exactly Cameron meant. But I just cite the fact that there are blue deities in Hinduism and that they happen to be the principal ones. That's all.

BTW, this is pretty much what you yourself did with Alpha Centauri in the lead paragraph. If the explanation that I propose here is OR, then so is yours on AC, isn't it? Cinosaur (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Re "BTW, this is pretty much what you yourself did with Alpha Centauri in the lead paragraph." - Was the source for the Alpha Centauri sentence directly related to the film Avatar? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was, I agree. But from what I could gather from the discussion there, Boston Globe it was a borderline source, which was included for clarification, and the statement about AC is not supportable by Cameron's own words yet. Mine are nor related to the film "Avatar" directly, but are supportable by Cameron's words. So how does this fact make the explanatory sources on Hindu deities more OR than yours? And could you please comment on the first paragraph as well? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem to be confused about things like the Alpha Centauri sentence that you brought up, directly related, and WP:NOR, I don't think we are able to communicate. Perhaps you should get another opinion at WP:NORN. Here's the first sentence at that link. "This notice board is provided so that editors can ask for advice about material that might be original research (OR) or original synthesis." Good luck. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to WP:NORN, Bob. I will check it out. However, I am not the only editor questioning your judgment on this inclusion as OR, which gives me reason to believe that I am not as confused about OR as you seem to think I am.

On a different note, agreeing that the AC source is direct and not OR, what would you say about the following quotes as possible clarifications of Cameron's statement, which mention Na'vi color as similar to that of Vishnu, Krishna, and Rama and Vishnu-blue? Cinosaur (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment via WP:NORN - the academic references come across as labouring the point, but I wouldn't view an explanation as original research as such. There's no doubt that Cameron is referring to deities such as Vishnu and Krishna - what else could he possibly mean? - and it seems reasonable to explain the allusion for those who don't know they're blue. Personally I'd just footnote it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, Cameron said that he just liked the color blue and its conceptual connection to the Hindu deities. <ref name=ew.com>{{cite web|url=http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20336893,00.html|title='Avatar:' 11 Burning Questions|work=Entertainment Weekly|last=Svetkey|first=Benjamin|date=January 15, 2010|accessdate=January 16, 2010}}</ref><ref>Deities such as [[Vishnu]] and [[Krishna]] are traditionally depicted with blue skin.</ref>

Re "it seems reasonable to explain the allusion for those who don't know they're blue. " - Perhaps the following would be the simplest way,

"Also, Cameron said that he just liked the color blue and its conceptual connection to blue Hindu deities."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob, do I take it to mean that we agree now that the proposed inclusion was not OR? Cinosaur (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

After carefully considering the comments, I have added the following footnote to the article.

According to Hindu beliefs, the god Vishnu has appeared in human form as a blue avatar. Wadhwani, Sita (2009-12-24). "The religious backdrop to James Cameron's 'Avatar'". CNN Mumbai. Cable News Network Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. Retrieved 2010-01-18.

Cheers, --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a good idea, who reads footnotes anyway? It's better to just include this information in the article, it will be very useful. It is in no way OR since there're RS which mention Vishnu and Krishna in relation to the film.--Gaura79 (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob K31416 -- I appreciate your silent consent with my first revision as being non-OR. I also admire your careful crafting of the footnote that you want to replace my revision with.

However, let me point out that:

• your removal of my original revision is no longer justifiable by WP:NOR;
• three independent editors (including one from WP:NORN who was consulted on your suggestion) saw no problem with keeping my original revision "as is" in the text;
• the footnote format is your own choice, and I do not support it;
• however carefully worded and descriptive, a footnote of any kind does not serve the purpose of clarifying Cameron's elliptic statement on Hindu deities here as much as a couple of words in the text do; and
• the text you composed for the footnote: "[a]ccording to Hindu beliefs, the god Vishnu has appeared in human form colored blue" is your own inexact rendition of the source referenced, and one that might itself lean towards OR.

Agreeing with you that sources directly related to Avatar are preferable to the academic ones I quoted (though none of the three editors objected to those either), I would like to replace your footnote revision with the following:

Also, Cameron said that he just liked the color blue and its conceptual connection to Hindu deities, which reviewers traced to blue-colored Vishnu , and his avatars Rama and Krishna.

Please let me know if you have any further comments on the wording and references. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Soul vs. consciousness revisited.

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

I get why you changed it; I did read your edit summary. But the main reason the word "soul" is used for the first part is so that it is clear that it is from the Na'vi point of view, which is why it should go back in quotation marks. I was going to do that earlier when I saw that an editor had removed the quotation marks, but I was like "whatever" after a bit. Did you read all of the discussion about using the word "soul" at Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 2#Editing the "plot" section? Not everyone believes in the concept of "soul" when it comes to the physical spirit sense, of course. This is why some people kept and will keep changing "soul" to "consciousness," if "soul" is left plain...especially if left plain twice. To implement some sort of compromise, it was decided that the first mention of "soul," at Tree of Souls, would stay "soul" and in quotation marks so that people could see that this is from the Na'vi point of view, but that the second and final mention of "soul" is relayed as "consciousness" because it is more so being relayed by us. I prefer the word "soul" because that is what the Na'vi believe, it seems. But when we put "soul," some people get all bent out of shape about it...simply because they are not religious or spiritual in that sense. Thus, I suggested "soul" be put into quotation marks. But putting it into quotation marks both times seems offensive, as if we are saying "soul" in the physical spirit sense does not exist. I feel that putting it in quotation marks that once is not as offensive, though, because it is making it clear that it is from the Na'vi point of view and that "soul" is a debatable topic. Flyer22 (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism - the Vatican?

Should we include information about criticism from the Vatican, particularly about the environmental message[19][20], in the article? ~AH1^(TCU) 01:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, AstroHurricane2001. I already proposed Vatican's criticism for inclusion above, but this is pending the outcome of a broader discussion on international coverage in general, which you may want to take part in too. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam war? Westerns?

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

Post-Avatar Depression

Should we add some info about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComradeWolf (talk • contribs) 11:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Read above, at the #"Too real?" part.

Again, I ask people to check the talk page for already discussed matters (even recently archived discussions); a topic you are thinking of starting has likely already been discussed or is currently being discussed. Flyer22 (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Young actors to keep budget down [citation]

It says there is a citation needed for "Cameron cast the Australian actor after searching the world for promising young actors, preferring relative unknowns to keep the budget down."

http://www.hulu.com/watch/116516/the-tonight-show-with-conan-obrien-sam-worthington-part-1