Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I was not going to bring this up, but seeing that the bot still has not re-archived these past discussions, I felt the need to. I have never seen discussions de-archived just to get a bot working again. In fact, I do not recall seeing discussions being de-archived under any circumstances. It is pretty frustrating to see past discussions on the talk page again, not to mention very messy with the length of this very active talk page, and I was wondering how long it will take before they are re-archived. What if someone posts something new in one of these past discussions? Flyer22 (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This is absurd. The bot archived some discussions at 1.30 this morning, why was all this stuff pulled back out? Can we revert the de-archiving? Betty Logan (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You may have already read it, but in his edit summary, Thumperward (Chris Cunningham) said he did it to get the bot working again. I did not want to be rude and revert him, so I waited...trusting that he knew what he was doing. Perhaps we should wait a little longer for Chris to comment further on this? Flyer22 (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Good to see that the archive bot has started back up again. Hopefully, it will archive all those de-archived discussions back in order. Flyer22 (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what confused me though because the bot hadn't stopped working. If you check the edit history it had done the archiving for that day already. Betty Logan (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to correct some things on this matter. It seems that the de-archived stuff has been archived out of order. Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember Mizabot archives discussions in the order of the final timestamp, not when the discussion began. Just making sure you are aware of this. DrNegative (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind either way; it is too complicated to revert what Chris did. He has archived some more, but still has not explained his reasons for having de-archived the talk page in the first place. Since the order for the de-archived discussions may still be okay, I will note what I clearly see has changed: It is apparent that he made the bot split the archives into way more archive pages than what we had before. For example, the Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 9#Editing the "plot" section was in Archive 2, but is now in Archive 9.

I would advise others against de-archiving like this again. Not only is it annoying, and archived discussions should typically not be touched, but it messes up the original number order. Messing up the original number order is an issue because a particular archive page may have been linked to; when the numbers are changed in this way, that link is of course not going to go to that archive page anymore. Flyer22 (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you need a reply from me then all you have to do is ping me. Now that I'm here, the rationale for the change was that previously the archive bot was set up to create absurdly long archives; not everyone is browsing from a device which copes admirably with megabyte-long pages, and looking through such pages is a chore even for those who don't have performance problems. This talk page is still pretty new, so I considered the possibility of breaking inbound links to the old archives to be an acceptable risk. As others said, the bot places discussions in the order of the last comment and not the first, to ensure that threads which were recently replied to are not archived before those which haven't had a response in a long time. I'm opposed to setting the archive time below 7 days because for users who don't sit at their computers all week this can mean missing out on threads entirely before they are archived; in time, discussion here will die down a bit and the bot should be chaged to archive after a month or two. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I figured you had seen this discussion, and either did not feel like explaining or you believed that you had made a mistake in de-archiving the talk page. It seemed unneeded for me to ask you to reply, but I thank you for the explanation. Flyer22 (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The section on noted similarities with other films is well done, but I do feel a few other films should also be noted - if, of course, sources can be found. Aside from Dances with Wolves which is spotted right away, there are major similarities to an earlier CG film, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, in the film's embrace of Gaia theory (spirit in the Earth). I also spotted more than a few similarities with Green Mansions, and the Na'vi's actions during the sequences where they transferred people's consciousnesses into the Avatars immediately reminded me of certain aspects of the aliens featured in the Half-Life 2 videogame series. Halo was also conjured by some of the ship designs and settings. A case can also be made that Cameron also drew on many aspects of his own Aliens movie, ranging from a character similar to Paul Reiser's in the earlier film -- a bureaucrat with an agenda - to the same sort of articulated robot things we saw Ripley use to beat up the queen alien. This thing is a huge hodge-podge. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC).

The plot description sounds very much like the Dune (DOS based computer game). Anyone else noticed this?

If material is properly sourced, it'll go in. There's zero need for further idle speculation on the talk page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Cameron may have followed a current formula for successful films that I heard about, where you have an action film with lots of familiar aspects but with something new. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of things that this film has possibly been compared to. I would not say that they all should be included in this article. At least not all by name. Flyer22 (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

In a recent round of editing, an editor made a number of changes which I felt were questionable, I reverted them, and the editor reverted back. I'll start here with discussing one of the changes in question which was in the Critical reception section the addition of the following lead sentence in the 3rd paragraph which has the subject of sociopolitical aspects of the film.

Limited disapproval of the film has been focused not on the technical production, but on some alleged underlying leftist political themes.

This sentence appears to be the editor's opinion, is not supported by a source, and doesn't represesent the paragraph and contains POV. The film has been criticized for various other sociopolitical reasons, as mentioned in the paragraph, and criticized for aspects of the plot and dialogue other than "leftist" aspects, as mentioned elsewhere. There remains a comment in the paragraph that was more positive re sociopolitical aspects of the film and the editor removed another comment by Evo Morales that was positive also. Also, if by "leftist political themes" the editor is referring, e.g., to the anti-war statements by Cameron, as quoted in the Themes and inspirations section, using the term "alleged" is misleading and a violation of WP:NPOV. It's a very poor POV, OR, and just plain wrong lead sentence that is also misleading regarding the content of the paragraph.

For these reasons, I have removed this new lead sentence again. The editor is requested to get consensus before adding this questionable lead sentence for the third time. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we have some diffs please Bob so we can compare. Betty Logan (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the first group of edits by Redthoreau [1]. Please see article's history for the activity that followed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion due to POV and weasel words. DrNegative (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree, although a lead into that section of the criticism (with the removal of the POV wording) might be a good idea, because at the moment it goes straight from praising the film's technical achievements into discussing a possible leftwing agenda. Betty Logan (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a lead sentence would be useful that would say what the paragraph is about, viz., critical reception of sociopolitical aspects of the film. I think it should be worded in a way to include as best as possible, and in general terms, the various aspects mentioned in the paragraph: militarism, capitalism, imperialism, ecological, propaganda, religion, and race. Perhaps we can work on that here. Any suggestions? Here's a quick try.

The film generated comments from some viewers regarding social and political issues.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Something along those lines would be ok. I'd replace 'generated' with 'attracted' because the film didn't actually make these people voice their opinions, I'd remove "some viewers" because it sounds too anonymous and since the film doesn't lay out an explicit political agenda then I'd use 'themes' instead of 'issues': The film also attracted comments regarding possible underlying social and political themes. Betty Logan (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That looks good to me. You can wait a bit for someone else to comment or you can put it in, as far as I'm concerned. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I already added it, without reading this discussion, but it is without the word "also" and the words "possible underlying." Cameron has already acknowledged that the film has underlying social and political themes. Thus, I am not seeing why we should put "possible underlying." Flyer22 (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it. It was long overdue and a nice clarification of that paragraph's topic.

You are right that Cameron has acknowledged some of the themes, but he hasn't acknowledged other "possible" themes such as pantheism and race, that are mentioned in the paragraph. Even so, you might be right that it is better without "possible", so it's OK with me as you have it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and it is clear that themes such as pantheism and race are the opinions of those reviewers. Flyer22 (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

An editor proposed to include the line:

It is unclear whether her memories have been fully or partially incorporated into the Tree.

in the Plot section after

The clan attempts to transfer Grace from her dying body into her Na'vi avatar with the aid of the Tree, but she succumbs to her injuries before the transfer completes.

I opposed the revision as more of an analysis or OR than faithful narration of the plot, and replaced it with a direct quote from Cameron's script:

Mo'an declares that "she is with Eywa now".

Here is the diff. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You have ignored the point of my edit summary response. The question of whether Grace's memories are accessible is later raised during the "prayer" sequence. And left unanswered. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not Grace's memories are accessible is, to my mind, immaterial to the plot summary, which is already longer than it should be per WP:FILMPLOT. Also, it's Mo'at, not Mo'an. Doniago (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Not immaterial. The intervention of Eywa, who we are told "does not take sides", hinges on whether she can access Grace's memories and see what humans have done to Earth. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's theory unless you have a source to back it up. Eywa's intervention could just as easily hinge on the mere fact that Jake asked Eywa to intervene. There's no conclusive information that I'm aware of either way. Doniago (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not speculation that Jake asks Ewya about Grace's memories. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but it is speculation that Eywa exists/has access to them/they make a difference. Doniago (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

My statement is about Grace's memories, not whether Ewya exists. The statement is

It is unclear whether her memories have been fully or partially incorporated into the Tree.

And this is part of the plot. Please note I said Tree, not Ewya. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's unclear then it's not appropriate for inclusion. The plot summary should discuss what -does- happen, not what may or may not have happened. There's no reason to include supposition. Doniago (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There is when the supposition is directly referenced in the film.--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[[Link titleLink title]]

Michael, I have not ignored your valid point, but as Doniago pointed out as well, it is better to stick to narrating the plot. In order to take care of your remark, we may consider inserting a word or two in the "prayer" section to make it say something like:

Jake prays to Eywa, via neural connection to the Tree of Souls, to try and access Augustine's memories about the "killed mother" Earth and to help stop humans from a similar destruction of Pandora.

or similar. What do you and others think? Doniago, thanks for info on the typo. Fixed. Cinosaur (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually Doniago did not say "it is better to stick to narrating the plot". But that is irrelevant, since the question of her memories' survival are part of the plot. The later amendation you propose is okay, but I think the word "succumbs" earlier is simplistically negative and misses the point entirely. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Which word would you use in place of 'succumbs'? And how does it miss the point? Cinosaur (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps say that her body succumbs, instead of she which implies personality or ego. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael, I think 'she succumbs' is sufficiently clear because 'succumbing' implies that she could not stay in her body any longer, if somebody wants to look at it this way. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it obviously is not "sufficiently clear"! --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, you seem to be the only user who has enough of a problem with this to bring it up on the talk page, which means that currently consensus is against you. If other users feel the same way, I'd welcome their input. If not, then I would maintain that no changes are needed/merited. Doniago (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Factually speaking, we know- 1) Grace's physical form dies from her wounds. 2) Her avatar doesn't receive her soul/consciousness/etc. We don't know whether Eywa actually exists in any sort of sentient manner, whether Eywa receives Grace's memories (or how many/whether they're intact), or whether receiving Grace's memories would make a difference in any case. Given that level of uncertainty, I'd call this supposition that isn't essential to the plot, especially when the plot is already running overly-long. Doniago (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We do know, however, that Grace said: "I’m with her Jake -- she’s real" before dying, which gave Jake a reason to both believe in Eywa's existence and to ask her to access Grace's memory. Doniago, what do you think about the rewrite proposed above? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I overlooked that (I suppose one could argue as to whether Grace would necessarily know what she was experiencing, -but-...). I like - "The clan attempts to transfer Grace from her dying body into her Na'vi avatar with the aid of the Tree, but she succumbs to her injuries before the transfer completes. Mo'an declares that "she is with Eywa now"." To me that indicates that she's obviously dead on a physical level while acknowledging the possibility that some portion of her remains. I don't really see the need to further expound on this...and on that note, I have to head off, sorry. I can take another look sometime tomorrow. Doniago (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that it's Mo'at, not Mo'an. LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I'm a horrible person. :( Doniago (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think "succumbs" fits this statement just fine. As she fades out from her POV, we do get the same "warp tunnel" looking scene that occurs whenever Jake transfers to his Avatar. Who knows what that implies though but one could guess it was a transfer to the Tree of souls since her Avatar laid there like a dead stick afterwards. These Plot sections are so hard to call it like you see it because everyone sees it their own way. Guess we will have to keep our thesaurus on the table for awhile. DrNegative (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"These Plot sections are so hard to call it like you see it because everyone sees it their own way" -- What about renaming them into Rorschach Blot section. :) Cinosaur (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly. :) DrNegative (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting angle here from the Marine Corps Times: [2].

A military response to the film might be interesting to use in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty Logan (talk • contribs) 23:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I found an article in which Cameron responded to critics of his potrayal of the military in the film here.[3] DrNegative (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

With this article increasing in size, which will definitely happen with more information about its awards and nominations and a Home media section, I feel that a subarticle for the marketing information should be created. We can get a good amount of space back if the Marketing section is significantly cut down. Plus, a separate article about the marketing would allow for more information about that (trivial or whatever). Anyone up for going ahead and creating it? Flyer22 (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Has it been done for any other films? It's actually one of the shorter sections! AniRaptor2001 (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure. But either way, I feel that it does not matter in this case. This article is one of those "special cases." It is already quite big, and subarticles are suggested for that type of thing. I feel that the Marketing section should be significantly cut instead of any aspect of the Box office section, for example. I have looked at the Performance analysis subsection of the Box office section to see what can be cut, but everything in it seems important to note. If anything can be cut from that section, it is only a bit. But we can significantly cut the Marketing section in the same way that we have cut the the Music and soundtrack section. And a marketing article for this film can flourish with more detail about the marketing of it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we could wait and see how this article expands. We do have a List of awards and honors received by Avatar article to cover the awards and honors for this film. The only other section we know for a fact will be added to this article is the Home media section. We just need to see how that plays in size, and cut what we can in the meantime. I would say that this article should not be much bigger than the Changeling (film) article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding what form of spelling to use in the article for some English words, the Wikipedia Manual of Style has the section National varieties of English for reference. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

According to this source, they state that it's $307 million. [4] New Zealand Herald —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.3.199 (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's in New Zealand dollars. It says it has grossed more than $2 billion too, but its worldwide gross currently stands under US $1.7 billion. Betty Logan (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Betty is correct, that's NZD:

237,000,000.00 USD = 333,849,827.87 NZD [5]

1,718,989,686.00 USD = 2,421,453,210.04 NZD [6]

—Mike Allen 22:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

But it clearly states that Avatar was "the most expensive movie ever made". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.3.199 (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Are there any more sources that claim this? —Mike Allen 23:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to put "the most expensive movie ever made", seeing as how a film's actual production costs are always the subject of some debate. If it were to be included, I would support something more like, "the New Zealand Herald called Avatar as "the most expensive movie ever made," citing production costs of NZ$307 million." AniRaptor2001 (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There have been several sources that have referred to it as the most expensive film ever made but they don't validate the claim. Even if you take the LA Times/NY Times estimate of $280 million over the official $237 million that still puts it below the reputed estimate for Pirates of the Caribbean 3, although that budget itself is the subject of much debate. Either way, the NZ $307m estimate translates to about US $220 which puts it quite a bit below the official Spiderman 3 bugdet, so the claim doesn't even stand up when you use the article's own data. Betty Logan (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Evo Morales quote regarding the sociopolitical aspects of the film was moved by an editor[7] from the 3rd paragraph of the Critical reception section, which is the paragraph with sociopolitical aspects, to the paragraph of comments on the film by film writers and directors. Also, in the sociopolitical 3rd paragraph, the quote gave an opposing view to the Armond White quote. Thus the quote was better placed in its original position instead of the new position, where it had little if any purpose or appropriateness. For these reasons, I have moved the quote back for the second time. The editor is requested to get consensus before making this change for the 3rd time. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Recently the Evo Morales quote was moved by Aniraptor2001 within the paragraph[8] in order to group positive comments together. As I mentioned in the above message, the quote gave an opposing view to the Armond White quote and by following that quote, it is in a more relevant place. So I think the Evo Morales quote should be moved back to the position following the Armond White quote. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's better to have comments discussing the same point together - whether they are positive or negative - otherwise you end up with a situation where you break off from a point and come back to it later. The article starts to lose cohesion when you do that. AniRaptor isn't the only editor to move that bit though, so it's a good idea to get a canvass of opinion before it's moved again. Betty Logan (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't see the logic in putting Morales' quote with the film director quotes. I do believe the Morales and Cohen quotes should be grouped together, because they wax positive on the film's treatment of imperialism, much to the contrary of the other comments in that paragraph.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of putting the Morales quote after the White quote because they are discussing different sides of the same issue, and the reason Betty gave for having the White and Morales quotes together? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Should Cohen, Morales, and White all go together then, as they all discuss imperialism/capitalism? The other three are more varied, Moore seems to be talking about militarism specifically, Newitz is talking about white guilt, and Douthat is talking about pantheism. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

We can discuss the other quotes too, but let's get the Morales quote position settled first. Please look at my previous question again so that we can settle on whether we want to put the Morales quote after the White quote. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, I agree on the repositioning of the Morales quote. I've made the adjustment to the paragraph, have a look and tell me what you think.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Your adjustment is fine. Regarding your suggestion of moving the Cohen quote, where would you like to put it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said four spots above, I like the idea of quotes to be organized by which theme they treat, i.e. imperalism/capitalism, then militarism, then white guilt, then pantheism. Frankly, I think the paragraph looks pretty good the way it is right now. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you notice that the Cohen quote, which you mentioned in a previous comment, is currently at the end of the paragraph? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

AniRaptor2001, it does look good except for the pantheism quote (which I originally proposed) because this purely religious opinion is rather misplaced in the socio-political context here. There is a sizable body of notable but heretofore untapped cultural and religious reviews on the movie to warrant a short topical paragraph following this one, where the NYT pantheism quote will fit much better. This paragraph may include a recent comment from the Vatican, a critical Jewish outlook, a favorable cultural comment from the Hindus, and a balanced review from the Muslims. Should not take more than 6-7 lines. Opinions? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I see the Cohen quote in the middle of the paragraph? I would support the creation of a separate religious paragraph, but am starting to see a real need for a separate article dealing with Themes in Avatar, their interpretations and criticism. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)