Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 24

Edit request from Robert kelly 1, 24 June 2010
hi i would liked to edit Avatar (2009) AND KEEP IT UP TO DAYE AND PREVENT Vandellism oh and Sony Pictures co distributed Avatar through Columbia pictures i know this because James cameron confrimed it on interveiw with www.Movies.ie and 20th Century Fox confrimed it even Ruppert Murdoch said that Fox wouldn't have done the film on there own.

thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert kelly 1 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DrNegative (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That exact change has been reverted before. I do not know anything about that topic myself, so I let other comment on it, but can you give a link to that interview? Amalthea 14:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sony Pictures and Columbia Pictures had absolutely nothing to do with this film's production or distribution. Post links to reliable sources that prove otherwise, and I'll eat crow right here on this talk-page. DrNegative (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The NYTimes is usually very accurate with its corporate information and it doesn't mention Sony/Columbia at all. Fox is the main distributor with some independent outfits internationally, but no other major studio distributor seems to be involved. It might be the case that Sony was negotiating foreign distribution rights but no deal was made. Betty Logan (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a vandal sock (now blocked). Watch out for similar accounts and IPs from the ranges 93.107.x.x and 109.76-78.x.x. Prolog (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove redundant "antagonist" reference
In the discussion of the character Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), Quaritch is described as the "main antagonist" in one sentence and then the "primary antagonist" in the next. Suggest replacing the second sentence with:
 * Fiercely loyal to his military code, he has a profound disregard for Pandora's inhabitants that is evident in both his actions and his language.--TooTall63 (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Done-- Forward  Unto   Dawn  09:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

James Cameron-Avatar-Sixty Minutes
James Cameron will be interviewed re Avatar this Sunday on Sixty Minutes. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up Bob. I'll check that out. DrNegative (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Unfortunately, it turned out that it didn't seem to have anything useful for the article, AFAICT. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I noticed he dodged the sequel question again as always. DrNegative (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

avatar should be Canadian
Canadian should be why because it a Canadian who may it and if it is Canadian who may it should be Canadian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leer5454 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: current consensus notes Avatar as an American film based on the distribution studio who also financed the majority of the film's budget (i.e. 20th Century Fox, headquartered in Los Angeles, California). See the talk page archives for more information.-- Forward  Unto   Dawn  04:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Cinematic nationality derives from a film's financing, not the involvement of a expatriate who left Ontario decades ago.
 * Varlaam (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Request to add content
If not yet included, please add the following details and sources:
 * This CNN article is about viewers being depressed after watching Avatar:
 * http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html
 * This article covers Jim's intentions for the film:
 * http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/james-cameron-yes-avatar-political-12929

serioushat 08:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Both sources are already covered in Themes in Avatar. Is it not sufficient? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Twinsday, that CNN source has been debated a few times in regards to whether or not to include it in this article; each time, it was decided against. This article's size is always being taken into account, for one. As Cinosaur stated, it is mentioned at Themes in Avatar instead. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection?
Based on many of the recent edits does anyone else think this article should return to semi-protected status?-- Forward  Unto   Dawn  13:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have any objection to you requesting it, but the article is only being reverted 2/3 times a day so semi-protection is unlikely to be granted at that rate - if the frequency of necessary reversions goes up to 4/5 times day then it's odds on semi-protection will then be granted (that tends to be the threshold but ultimately it depends who's on duty). It's unfortunate it has come out of semi-protection just as it is about to be re-released, so I'd say it's only a matter of time before it is semi-protected again. Betty Logan (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Avatar Running time
I think there must be mention of the reason of the original theatrical cut duration (160 mn) was - according to Cameron - in order to fit to the maximum lenght of a movie in IMax last year (160 mn approx). This year, the limit is up to 170 minutes and it is the lenght of the Special Edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.52.40.1 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Plot vs. Special Edition
As some of you are aware, there is a particular scene added at the end of the re-release that fills in a small hole in the original plot relating to Jake and his designation and acceptance as the new tribe leader by Tsu'tey. Jake's new hierarchy within the tribe was assumed/speculated in the original release, but now its blatantly obvious in the Special Edition.

I was wondering everyone else's opinion. Are we to continue treating the film plot solely on the original theatrical release version? The reason I ask is because I am pretty sure editors will attempt to add info similar to my example (even if it may be minor) in the future and we need to establish a stance on it. DrNegative (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not opposed to adding something like that to the Plot section itself, as long as we note that this scene is from that edition specifically. My basis for this is that I've read several summaries on the site that are based on director's cuts and the like.  That said, for all I know those other pages I've read are actually going against a guideline (although they are just guidelines and not policy) and should be redone accordingly.  The other option, of course, would be to add a note about the additional scene under the Home release section, the way we have with alternate endings and similar DVD extras.  But if the scene in question is actually edited into the movie and not just an extra, I would be fine with it being included in the plot summary.  Technically, I guess I would be fine either way as long as we note it somewhere.  Good idea to bring it up before the inevitable happens.  Millahnna (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would be in favour of including information in regards to the extended version. It is, after all, canon.-- Forward  Unto   Dawn  04:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Box Office in Terms of Real Dollars
As noted in the Wiki article, "Avatar" is the 14th highest grossing film of all time. But what are the other 13 films? Anybody know? Apparently "Ben-Hur" is 13th and "Titanic" was 6th, but what are the other top films in real dollars? I'm assuming "Gone With The Wind" is number one. My sister used to be a grade school teacher, by the way, and she said the reason "Titanic" (which was basically a re-make of "A Night To Remember") made so much money was because young girls would go back to see "Titanic" five or six times. So now we have to factor in repeat business. Anybody know of a site that lists top grossing films of all time in real dollars? Remember, movies used to cost only 10 cents. I'm wondering if silent films such as "Birth Of A Nation" would be up at the top. Or "Flesh and the Devil" with Greta Garbo. And there's 6 billion people now whereas 50 years ago there were only about 3 billion people so what about factoring in percentages of world population, has anybody ever done that? There's a lot of variables to the equation. I'm wondering, just what is the most popular film of all time? Anybody got any idea? Thanks. 71.157.182.121 (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * List of highest-grossing films is what you are looking for. It mentions the inflation thing.   D r e a m Focus  01:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a list I found on the Internet of top films in real dollars, but there are so many elements to factor in, it gets difficult even adjusting for inflation: Gone With The Wind; Star Wars; Sound of Music; E.T.; The Ten Commandments; Titantic; Jaws; Dr. Zhivago; Exorcist; Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs; 101 Dalmatians; Star Wars V; Ben-Hur; Avatar. From: List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States. 71.157.182.121 (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Movie is a US-British co-production
IMDB says Country: USA + UK. The movie was co-produced by Ingenious Film Partners, a british Production Company http://www.imdb.com/company/co0136728/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.226.158 (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * it is also distributed by Columbia Pictures IMDB says —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.215.49 (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Currently IMDB is disputed as a reliable source for much of its content because of its allowable user-submitted content for help in building its database. You can read up on the many discussions of this issue on the reliable sources noticeboard archives. It is brought up every couple of months or so. Your proposed edits have also been discussed to the point of deadhorse and can be found in the talk-page archives. DrNegative (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Or is New Zealand (remember Weta Digital) now regarded as part of the United Kingdom, again??? Gee, that's big news! --SciCorrector (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 109.76.215.49, 29 September 2010
hi i would like to keep avatar up to date and protect from vandalism

109.76.215.49 (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC) thank you
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Welcome to Wikipedia! If there are specific changes you would like made, post them in another request. You can also sign up an account and after being WP:autoconfirmed you will be able to edit the main article. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  15:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"overseas"
The expression "overseas" ist not appropriate. It implies that Wikipedia is centered on to a specific part of the world or sees things form a point of view of one country or continent. But this is just the English-speaking Wikipedia and not fixed to a specific territory. --93.134.102.249 (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, and I see additional problems with the term. The line in question is "Avatar premiered in London on December 10, 2009, and was released overseas on December 16 and in the United States and Canada on December 18", so I take "overseas" to mean overseas from the UK. And that makes things about as clear as mud, because (with the partial exception of Ireland) every single country in the world is to some degree "overseas" from the UK. Intuitively, "overseas from the UK" might be taken to mean "across the Atlantic". But the film premiered in the US and Canada two days after it was released "overseas". So is "overseas" the Western Hemisphere south of the US? I have no idea, and neither will other readers. So yes, "overseas" does not appear to be a very helpful term, and some clarification is probably in order. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This is tricky but we could attempt a rewrite of the sentence here:
 * Current version: Avatar premiered in London on December 10, 2009, and was released overseas on December 16 and in the United States and Canada on December 18, to critical acclaim and commercial success.
 * Proposed version: Avatar premiered in London on December 10, 2009, and was internationally released on December 16 and in the United States and Canada on December 18, to critical acclaim and commercial success.
 * What do you think? DrNegative (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: Sounds good to me! Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Bribecka, 14 October 2010
There are two mentions of Kerner Studios/Kerner FX and their camera systems in the "Filming" and "Visual Effects" sections. The citation doesn't support these claims. It's just self-promotion with nothing to back it up. They didn't work on Avatar.

Can somebody with the ability remove the two offending sentences?

Bribecka (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There is actually a reference for it. There were just two overlapping reference tags. Do you still think the sentences should be removed? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ I looked at the source and verified that the source did not state what was written in the article. I removed them. Thanks for the notification. DrNegative (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Avatar 2 and 3
There should be articles for Avatar 2 and 3, they are %100 confirmed now, Cameron and Landau will produce, and Cameron will direct. They will be released in 2014 and 2015 respectively. --200.121.221.25 (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See Things to avoid when starting an article. At this stage, there is really no content that could be added to such articles, apart from the fact that they will be produced, and possibly released in 2014/2015. The small amount of information regarding the sequels to Avatar can be included in this article.-- Forward  Unto   Dawn  00:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * See also Notability (films). PrimeHunter (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Bias in Article
The bias in this article is pretty unbelievable. There are all sorts of uses of adjectives and descriptions that are very questionable. Apparently, a low 80% score is ground for critical acclaim. I never came home with a B- bouncing off the walls, FYI. The usage of things such as

In one of the paragraphs

"The film's revenues decreased by a mere 1.8%" - mere? wow, I would change this, but would probably get reverted or something... next

"In its fourth weekend, Avatar continued its streak" - sweet Jesus...

In another

"The film received generally positive reviews from film critics." - So, it received both "generally positive" and "critical acclaim"? Inaccuracy, I suppose I can deal with, inconsistency, I can't.

"7.4 out of 10" - again, critical acclaim?

"Among Rotten Tomatoes' Top Critics....the film holds an overall approval rating of 95%" - So this backs up the other side of the argument, but is still an inconsistency that is worth noting.

"It might be more impressive on a technical level than as a piece of storytelling" - A film who's technical aspects are more of a draw than the content of the film itself does not seem to be worthy of "critical acclaim". Maybe, "technical acclaim"....

These are various snippets of the article that I do not believe make it better. I await the fanboys. Vrinan (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen the film so I'm hardly a fanboy. The opening paragraph of Neutral point of view says: "This means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." It doesn't say: "If all reliable sources agree something is doing great then Wikipedia's neutrality demands that we differ from all sources by describing it in the same tone as something doing average". A 1.8% decrease in the second week of a wide opening is far less than usual. Can you find a single source saying this wasn't a small decrease? It had the largest fourth week ever (not considering inflation). Can you find a single source which says it didn't have a great fourth week? I haven't followed the reviews so I'm not commenting on that. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This issue has been discussed before, with a general consensus from experienced editors, not fanboys, that these statements aren't biased, but accurate- (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC))


 * Vrinan might have a point about some of the terminology—like "streak" for instance—and while I don't believe it introduces bias it isn't exactly encyclopedic terminology, it almost sounds like a sports commentary. I worked quite a lot on the box office section and was considering replacing it myself at one point because the term stuck out like a sore thumb, but I was more preoccupied with getting the figures and records right at the time. Betty Logan (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The word "streak" is used simply for the flow of the paragraph, though I guess it could be replaced. However, Vrinan's point which decries Avatar's critical success is invalid.  DrNegative has provided a source to support this. -(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC))
 * Although I rarely reply to a discussion which strays away from civility, I believe I have addressed all of your points through edits within the article. Your analysis of a percentage and how it relates to your definition of the term "critical acclaim" was somewhat laughable, and ironically bias in its on right. However, I reworded the adjectives and provided two reliable sources which specifically mention the film's status within the opinions of the majority....well majority could be 51%...lets say overwhelming majority of notable film critics.


 * A film who's technical aspects are more of a draw than the content of the film itself does not seem to be worthy of "critical acclaim". Maybe, "technical acclaim"....


 * Are you really trying to break down half of a quote from RT to justify your reasoning? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the content of the film an enhanced by-product of it's technical aspects? So I guess based on this assumption, critically acclaimed films like Jurassic Park of Star Wars don't fit the bill either? What happened to the last half of the quote?


 * The curiosity is killing me though, what percentage on the Tomatometer do you consider "critical acclaim"? DrNegative (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible Misspelled Quote in the Development Section
In the Development section, the last line of the third paragraph states: After Fox accepted Avatar, one skeptical Fox executive shook his head and told Cameron and Landau, "I don't know if we're crazier for letting you do this, or if your crazier for thinking you can do this..."[64]

Since this quote comes from the book, "The Making of Avatar", could someone check the spelling of the word your in the book. It should be you're but I don't feel that misquoting a book would be an improvement if the book misspells it too.

Duncan, Jody; Lisa Fitzpatrick (2010). The Making of Avatar. United States: Abrams Books. p. 52. ISBN 0-8109-9706-1. BillDaCatt (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You are correct. I verified that it was a typo and corrected it. Thanks. DrNegative (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Roger Dean Issue
Should there be a section in this article referring to the number of similarities of some of the creatures and landscapes of Pandora and the Art work of Roger Dean of which there is much discussion? Can any one find and article on this issue from a valid source? Rifleman jay (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure this must be discussed in the archives somewhere, but there's been all kinds of discussion as to how Avatar in one way or another is similar to one person or another's works. Without reliable sourcing it's inappropriate for inclusion, and even when reliable sourcing is found there've been situations where editors placed undue weight on the issue. Doniago (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weighting isn't as much an issue as notability. We could write up a whole other article on all the "similarities" that have been observed.  The real acid test for notability is of course if there is a ruling that there are legitimate grounds for legal action to be taken, or if Cameron or a producer of the film either acknowledges an influence or responds directly to an accusation.  Without either of those things there is really no proof that Cameron directly ripped off a specific work, rather than just being derivative in the way most science fiction films are. Betty Logan (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There barely is a single original idea in the movie, scriptwise, visually, or any other aspect. Which is par for the course in blockbusters, especially sci-fi movies. It's just put together very professionally and looks very nice. Anyway, any such analysis of sources would be pretty much OR, unless you're citing a published critique. It'd only be noteworthy if someone actually sued Cameron for plagiarism.Barsoomian (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Article clearly needs semi-protection again or at least that "accept this revision" lock
I don't doubt that most of my fellow editors agree. Flyer22 (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Should we make a request here? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This page is now semi-protected until mid-2012. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree as well and went ahead and put in the request for it. It was approved for 18 months instead of the usual 3. DrNegative (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No objection from me. Betty Logan (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Semi-protection beats the reviewers system being trialled (in my opinion).-- Forward  Unto   Dawn  05:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It most certainly does. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference to Frank Herbert
Restored this [|version], as it makes an important reference to the work of Frank Herbert. The names of the planets in both Avatar and The Jesus Incident are the same. There is no more adequate reference for this statement of fact, and its omission from this article should be amended.Glycoform (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While I understand the point you are trying to convey, you are using a blog as a reference, which is unreliable. See Verifiability for further details.  If you can find a more reliable source to support this statement, such as an official review from a newspaper, then it'll be kept.  In the meantime, I'll temporarily revert your edit.  Thanks-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC))
 * First, there are two points in the original edit: (1) the planet of Pandora featured in The Jesus Incident, both the name and the global-intelligent-plant-organism, have clear association to the subject of this article; (2) many other people have raised the point that the story draws on other work by Herbert. The first point can have no better reference than the book itself, which has its own article. This point should be retained, and does not need a separate article to support the statement. The second point is completely un-controversial - and should not require a higher standard than other information found in this article. For example, this article includes references to blog/aggregation sites like i09 - with strictly opinion pieces (esp. #230[]), personal blogs (#278), and happymeal.com (#146). I think you are applying different standards here - if a statement about Pohl Anderson's work based on that i09 article (#230) can be included, than the same can be said for Herbert's Dune as it is mentioned in the same article.
 * "In both Avatar and District 9, humans are the cause of alien oppression and distress. Then, a white man who was one of the oppressors switches sides at the last minute, assimilating into the alien culture and becoming its savior. This is also the basic story of Dune, where a member of the white royalty flees his posh palace on the planet Dune to become leader of the worm-riding native Fremen (the worm-riding rite of passage has an analog in Avatar, where Jake proves his manhood by riding a giant bird)."[]
 * I've replaced the statement, using ref 230 to support it. However, I think the standard in this article should allow reference to numerous other posts that have made similar points. As a side note, verifiability is intended more for "any material challenged or likely to be challenged", something that I would argue does not apply here, considering that the major plot features of a published novel are already verifiable.Glycoform (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, in classic wikipedia style, an editor has again deleted this revision without bothering to look into the verifiability of the statements. The reference is to a BOOK described in a full article on wiki (including a full ISBN, publisher name, date, etc.), these BOOKS are items that can be verified at your local library. That the editors here feel that the only way something is real is to read it on an un-verified blog entry is entirely typical. Find a library, look at the book - if you do so you will find these statements are true. If you don't have access to the book (or the willingness to do some reference checking on your own) do not delete information. You could instead edit the article to suggest a more appropriate reference (though no better one could exist for statements regarding what characters and settings are found in a work of fiction). Your critique of the reference, therefore, seems to run contrary to Reliable_sources and Verifiability. Verifiability is not based on your ability to get there with a mouse click. The book by Herbert exists, it was published in 1979. That you haven't read it doesn't alter its verifiability or reliability (go to the library). Published sources are reliable sources of what is stated in those sources. If you've read the book and find the claim in error, correct it. Deleting it out of hand is counter-productive. In the context of this article (a description of a fictional setting/film), published works of fiction are entirely relevant and appropriate. Since we seem to keep moving the goal-posts, I've added a reference to a publication from Tim O'Reilly discussing the book. The discussion includes verification of the name Pandora and some of the themes that bear on this article.Glycoform (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * By drawing comparisons between Frank Herbert's work and Avatar just using the original works is WP:SYNTHESIS, which is prohibited. The Jesus Incident is an adequate source for saying it has a planet called "Pandora", as is Avatar, but they are not adequate sources for making comparative analysis because neither source mentions the other work.  In the context of that section (Themes and inspirations), drawing comparisons between the work implies that they have influenced each other in some way, and a reliable source that makes the same inference is required if the article is to imply such a thing.  To avoid synthesis of sources, a reliable source must be found that actually compares the two works, which also has the added benefit of making a case for the notability of mentioning the similarities as well.  Without a reliable source that compares the two works, picking out common features is just original research where the importance of mentioning the similarities has not been established beyond the editor's point of view.  Please don't add this information back in without including a reliable source that actually compares the two works. Betty Logan (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you had read the last edit, you would have seen that the sentence strictly pointed out only the names being the same. I'll add this statement back, as before, with no comparison included. I would have included references that made these comparisons (in fact I did several edits back), however these were criticized as not adequate. Though, frankly, I don't see that references to well written blog posts are any less useful than many of the references already on this page to other blog posts - but as I've pointed out before, y'all seem to have very flexible standards here. Glycoform (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * With respect to the edit that mentions similarities with Dune through this source, again the edit misrepresents the context of the comparison within the article. The author doesn't mention "similarities" with Herbert's work, she actually identifies a common theme of the main protagonist changing sides to fight oppression in the context of her thesis on white guilt. If you want to include that I have no problem provided the context of the statement is clear. Betty Logan (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, in a separate edit the wording has been changed to only point out the similar theme as stated in that article. Though, with regard to both of these edits - it would be far more productive if people act as editors rather than deleters - e.g. if you have a constructive change to make, do so - don't just delete an edit completely. Improve it. That's part of the process here. Glycoform (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As a newcomer to this discussion, am I correct in my understanding that you wish to include a note that a Frank Herbert work also includes a planet named Pandora? If so, then without clear sourcing indicating that Cameron was referencing that work, it strikes me as being significantly more likely that both works are referencing the Pandora of myth. As for the Avatar storyline being similar to a Frank Herbert story, I have to admit that at this point unless multiple reliable sources are making the same comparison I'm not sure that it's significantly notable unless someone involved in the making of the film is also on record as making the comparison. If we added a note every time Avatar was compared to an earlier work...well, we'd probably have fodder for a separate article that would, IMO, have little substantial content. Just my two cents. Doniago (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Its an excellent point that there was no ref to greek mythology; now updated. There is no mention of the storyline similarities - while there are dozens of discussions and blog posts discussing this point, the editors here feel that only certain blogs are worthy of inclusion (i.e. i09, happymeal.com, and the LA Times are on equal footing here.) That many comparisons are made to Avatar is true, but this article is already rife with such statements (referenced and otherwise), so singling-out this comparison over others is unwarranted. See for example those made to Pohl, Strugatsky, Dean, and even Ferngully within the article - which are not based strictly on a statement by the filmmakers, but are certainly relevant to the article.Glycoform (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Certain blogs are allowed as sources on Wikipedia. See WP:Verifiability. And in this case, WP:BLOGS. i09 is a reliable source in this case, especially in the case of the exclusive interview -- meaning the interview was given to this site.


 * We have kept this film's similarities to other films out of the Themes and inspirations section because there have been various comparisons to other films or books, and having all that in the Themes and inspirations section implies that these stories inspired Cameron to write/create Avatar. He has not stated this at all, and has spoken out against certain "borrowing" or "theft" accusations (his camp rather). Because of all this, we have put the similarities in the Critical reception section and in the Themes in Avatar article. Why don't you consider putting this information in either or both of those two spots? Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Pandora
This addition to the Themes an inspirations section is under dispute. A decision is needed by editors as to whether to accept it into the article or not.

"The name of the planet, Pandora, in Avatar is found in greek mythology and is the same as that found in the 1979 book, The Jesus Incident by Frank Herbert."


 * REJECT – The editor argues that the idnetification of the simlarity is sourced through Herbert's novel The Jesus Incident and Avatar. However I believe this to be WP:SYNTHESIS which states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". The identification of this "similarity" is original research by the editor. Both sources identify the name of the planet, but neither identify a similarity with the other work.  This is synthesis because the editor is using two independent sources to reach a conclusion about the nature of the discussed work.  What's more, since this similarity is identified by himself, and not by a reliable source, no case has been made that such an observation is a notable element of the work that warrants inclusion in the article. Since the section is specifically about the inspirations of Avatar, such a comparison with other work should include an explicit comparison by a reliable source.  In the current form and without a reliable source that explicitly identifies the similar names of the planets, I vote to reject the inclusion of this content. Betty Logan (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * REJECT – Since no reliable source seems to support the claim that Herbert's Pandora was an inspiration for the film, and since the section in question, Themes and inspiration, is specifically dedicated to Cameron's own explanations of what his themes and inspirations were in the making of the film, I vote to reject the proposed edits. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * REJECT - as Betty has made very valid and convincing arguments against this inclusion. Flyer22 (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * REJECT - Based on Betty's and Cinosaur's logic. If their points could be addressed, I wouldn't be against it. (A + B =/= C) as it stands now. DrNegative (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Dune
This addition to the Themes an inspirations section is under dispute. A decision is needed by editors as to whether to accept it into the article or not.

"Themes in Avatar have been noted to have parallels with Frank Herbert's well known novel, Dune."


 * REJECT – The editor advances a vague observation that the themes of Avatar have parallels with those of Dune. While I have no fundamental objection to such a claim, I don't feel the content reflect with accuracy what the sources are saying.  I don't have access to the second source, but in the first one the only thematic similarity with Dune the author identifies is that the main protagonist goes native to help an oppressed alien race.  I don't feel that the vague mention of "parallels" is an adequate reflection of what the sources are saying, and if comparisons are going to be made then the claims should be specific. The editor is advancing a loaded argument, in that the vagueness of his edit implies plagiarism. I vote to reject this content, unless the editor accurately presents the nature an context of these parallels with Dune. Betty Logan (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * REJECT – My main gripe with this proposed addition to Themes and inspirations section is that, IMHO, the section ought to deal primarily with Cameron's own statements on what his themes and inspirations were in the film, rather than what sources might ascribe to him. As Flyer22 has rightly pointed out, most notable samples of such guesswork are already accommodated in Critical reception and in Themes in Avatar, and the editor may want to include the content there provided the second source passes the notability test. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * PARTIAL REJECT - I reject its inclusion in the Themes and inspirations section, for the same reasons Cinosaur and I have stated. But I have no problem with it being in the Critical reception section or the Themes in Avatar article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"Post Avatar Depression" needs to be mentioned and analyzed
The "Post-Avatar Depression" phenomenon was widespread enough to be seen as notable and important. I was surprised to not see it mentioned in this article at all. It's quite interesting to see the effects of immersive life-like fantasy worlds on the audience, especially as technology film continues to perfect itself. The fact that this movie's experience caused (in extreme cases), suicidal thoughts in some people needs to be preserved as much as any other information regarding this film. If there is an article on the psychological impact from 3D films specifically I'd like to be pointed in that direction, but regardless I'm pretty sure this would be pertinent to such sections as "Reception" or "Criticisms" and on a side note, is more valid than Wikipedia's separate article on the "themes" of this movie... so why has this issue been neglected? (added by User:Akhundofsquat).
 * It was covered in the article at one stage from what I recall, but I guess somebody must have removed it. If credible medical opinion on it can be reliably sourced I agree it's an aspect that should be covered. Betty Logan (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a source: and the video that brought it mainstream for awhile. There was also a therapist interviewed in the video. Notable? DrNegative (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I recall a discussion about it and the CNN reference was in use at the time. Some editors felt that it didn't belong in the article because the observed condition wasn't the result of medical diagnosis; apparently reliable source criteria for medical content is a lot stricter than regular RS (see WP:MEDRS). IF CNN covered it and a therapist commented on it, it's probably notable but the source may not be deemed reliable for putting forward a medical diagnosis.  If the editor wants to cover it he should probably get any sources he uses checked out at Reliable sources/Noticeboard in their capacity for clinical reporting. Betty Logan (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It was originally included but removed almost a year ago: Betty Logan (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the CNN reference is included in Themes in Avatar. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A good quality article here, which actually bothers to interview a psychology professor about the phenomenon:. It's an interesting read, he compares the Avatar experience to virtual reality treatments used in treating paranoid disorders which goes some way to putting the phenomenon in a clinical context. Betty Logan (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good find. That really was an interesting read. It would actually be a good source too in my opinion. DrNegative (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this was discussed before. See Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 13 and Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 21. I've never been against its inclusion, and was actually for it being included, but it seemed more of a trivial mention to others (especially since we we were always trying to keep the size of this article down, which has gotten out of hand now due other trivial mentions and all the extra things that needed to be addressed). Flyer22 (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I was one of those strongly opposed at the time it seems, but it's been mentioned by a few reliable sources since those discussions so the balance of notability has changed a bit. I think if you stay away from clinical terms such as "depression" which is an actual diagnosable condition and center it on the phenomenon and what the psychologist and therapist say then we could stick in a few sentences about it. Betty Logan (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

DVD area
Please add this to the DVD-area:

Avatar is the best-selling DVD of 2010 in Germany. On the Blu-Ray annual charts, the film was even present three times: The normal version reached the pole position, the Limited Edition reached No. 5 and the Extended Collector's Edition was No. 7 on it source--79.216.215.56 (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Date linking
There is nothing intuitive at all about "2154" linking to "22nd century", so I have removed the piped link again. It clearly is a case of WP:EGG linking, and it's unhelpful. Note, by the way, that it makes absolutely no sense for "2154" to link to "2154" in the lead but to "22nd century" in the plot summary; linking the same date to different articles is silly and contrary to how links are supposed to work. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Concur with this de-linking. There are very rare instances where such a general timeframe (even a single year) is worth linking to. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I was more concerned with unlinking "highest grossing film".-- Forward  Unto   Dawn  04:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I should point out though that the linking of "2154" to the "22nd century" article still doesn't qualify as a case of WP:EGG because "2154" is not substantially different from the target article.-- Forward  Unto   Dawn  04:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What about a "See also" link to 22nd century, specifically, the "Science fiction set in the 22nd century" section? Kind of like what Fight Club (film) has. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 04:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No objections. Though I can't really see the point. Unless you want to argue that having "2154" linked is a case of WP:OVERLINK.-- Forward  Unto   Dawn  05:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"2154" is substantially different from "22nd century", and it's silly to suggest otherwise. It's a perfectly clear example of egg linking. Linking "highest grossing film" to a list of the highest grossing films is also questionable in principle because no one would necessarily expect that connection, but I leave that issue to the judgment of other editors. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Silly to suggest otherwise"? Care to clarify that remark?-- Forward  Unto   Dawn  12:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think what he means is that you would expect a 2154 wikilink to be about 2154 (you wouldn't expect 2011 to link to the 21st century). On that basis I think he is interpreting the guidelines correctly.  As for the "highest grossing film", I think the article reasonably covers what you would expect to find by clicking on a "highest grossing film" link — you would expect to find some sort of financial record/account showing Avatar to be the highest grossing film, which is what you get.  If he disagrees, perhaps he should take it up at the Film Project because the "highest grossing films" article is extensively linked in the same way on lots of film articles, so there isn't much point just delinking it on one article. Betty Logan (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * True, but unlike "2011" there is no "2154" article. We should at least add "22nd century" to the "See also" list, as Erik suggested.-- Forward  Unto   Dawn  12:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In fact, "2154" redirects to the "22nd century" article.-- Forward  Unto   Dawn  12:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So in that case, we could simply replace 2154 with 2154 in order to utilise the redirect as per WP:MOSLINK.-- Forward  Unto   Dawn  12:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Manual_of_Style_(linking) indicates that we should not bypass the redirect if it is likely an article will be created for the direct link at some point. Once the article is created then it will link to the more specific article. As for putting "22nd century" in the "see also" section, I don't have any views on that either way.  If that is what you want to do I suggest trying it and see if anyone objects. Betty Logan (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I was advocating a "See also" section because a link to 22nd century, even piped, does not increase a reader's understanding of the topic. For example, if a film happened to be explicitly set in 1966, linking to that year is not useful because there are all these events that happen in a year that are not related to the film. With a "See also" section, we can point to other examples of science fiction in the same setting (the 22nd century) as this film. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done -- Forward  Unto   Dawn  12:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it seem this matter is resolved. I have to agree with Polisher of Cobwebs's reasoning. I also don't see why a See also section is necessary in this case, just for that one lone link. But if Erik and Forward Unto Dawn feel that it's useful for this article, I don't object. Flyer22 (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't either (I'd rather just use 2154 instead of 2154, per the Manual of Style). But I'd like to see this issue resolved.-- Forward  Unto   Dawn  00:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, WP:EGG only applies to piped links, so 2154 can't be an EGG. I'm not sure what policy/guideline 2154 is violating—it could be that we've invented a problem that wasn't part of the original concern. Personally I'd put in 2154 and see if that's a problem for anyone. We use the 2154 link in the lede, and Polisher doesn't express a concern over that, just the possible EGG violation due to the piping. Betty Logan (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I see what Erik is getting at, if an article is set up for 2154 in the future, then it might still be better to link to the 22nd century because that article will be more relevant to Avatar than a 2154 article. Once the 2154 article is written there won't be any links to "22nd century" in the article. An alternative would be to change "2154" in the lede to "the 22nd century " so the 22nd century link is integrated into the text and won't be necessary in the "see also" section. We can still keep the actual date in the plot summary. Betty Logan (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, since 2154 is already in the plot summary, how about adding this to the article introduction: "The film is set in the mid-22nd century..."? We could then get rid of the new "See also" section.-- Forward  Unto   Dawn  06:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that's the best solution. Betty Logan (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done -- Forward  Unto   Dawn  12:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Some cleaning
Ok for some reason Box Office, Accolade and critical success or merged into the Release section, yet Home media is separate. it should be the opposite. the home media is part of release. the Box Office, Accolade, and critical success should be part of a different section. possibly called "reception".Bread Ninja (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Avatar usage under discussion again
See Talk:Avatar_(Hinduism) where it is requested that the move done by 2010 move request be undone, moving the Hindu concept to primary in place of the disambiguation page. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Afanda
I don't know the reason why, but IMDB now titles the film a different name, "Afanda". Though it had been promoted as "Avatar" since it was released, and I definitely prefer the original one personally. Maybe we still should add this related information to the page or simply create a redirect page from "Afanda" to "Avatar". What say you? from TW-mmm333k (talk to him) 01:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Worth including?
There is a book Spiritual Teaching of the Avatar, (WorldCat.org listing) by Jeffrey Armstrong, "the founder of the Vedic Academy for Science and Art", recently published by Atria Books, a division of Simon & Schuster. The publishers have sent me a review copy. It's an interesting read as it analyzes a great deal of parallels between Avatar and the teachings of the Vedas, so I wonder if references to the book deserve inclusion in the main article on Avatar and/or in Themes in Avatar? Will be grateful for any thoughts on this. To my knowledge, it's the first real book of this kind written on the movie. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a book by Alan Dean Foster called Midworld that is very similar to and includes some of the same terminology as Avatar. It it obvious to me that this needs to be added to the section on influences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pianocompose (talk • contribs) 22:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Themes in Avatar (if you feel it's worthy of inclusion). Let's see what others think.-- Forward  Unto   Dawn  14:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Interest notwithstanding, I am somewhat doubtful about the notability of the author and his views on the film. On the other hand, the fact of the book's being published by a division of Simon & Schuster makes me consider the book more seriously than I would otherwise have. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In what capacity is the book to be used in the article? I have no objections to it going in the "external links" section, since it certainly qualifies as a unique resource. If you are suggesting that we just mention that a book has been written about Avatar, I would be against that since we don't generally mention film literature in the articles about the films. If it is going to be used to cite stuff in the article, then it may be better to take it on a case by case basis. It is published by a reputable publisher so I think it can be used to source facts;  to source the author's opinion would depend on his notability; to source analysis would depend on the author's qualifications. It all depends how it is to be used as a source really.  Betty Logan (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Betty, for these good points, sober as ever. I will keep them in mind while going through the book to see if and where it best belongs as a source. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cinosaur, maybe you will like the James Cameron's Avatar Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.178.89 (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

✅ Added as a Further reading entry. Cinosaur (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed the links to link to the Cover of the books rather then the "ad" page.Moxy (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 109.76.110.54, 18 February 2011
edit semi-protected

i would like to update avatar page please like make sure it correct and not vandlsised

109.76.110.54 (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 23:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Balancing Hinduism sentence in Critical reception
I know that this may evoke memories of the heated discussions we had on the topic last year, but, on a close inspection, the sentence:

"Ross Douthat of The New York Times opined that the film is 'Cameron's long apologia for pantheism ... Hollywood's religion of choice for a generation now', while Saritha Prabhu of The Tennessean called the film a misportrayal of pantheism and Eastern spirituality in general."

currently leaves the reader with a mistaken and misleading idea that the film is thought to misrepresent Eastern spirituality. I propose that the sentence be slightly extended for a more balanced survey of its Hinduism-related feedback, like:

"Ross Douthat of The New York Times opined that the film is 'Cameron's long apologia for pantheism ... Hollywood's religion of choice for a generation now', while Saritha Prabhu of The Tennessean called the film a misportrayal of pantheism and Eastern spirituality in general, and Maxim Osipov of The Hindustan Times, on the contrary, commended the film's message for its overall consistency with the teachings of Hinduism." ...or something similar. Comments? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I see no reason why the Hindustan Times comment shouldn't be added. It would be nice for readers to view opinions from notable Hindu newspapers than solely from western publications. -(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC))
 * Thanks. ✅. Cinosaur (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Television section
I'm not seeing why a Television section is needed in the Release section, or at all. It's trivial, really, and this article is big enough. Surely, we are not going to document each television premiere of Avatar or every time it is shown on television. Its first premiere can be mentioned somewhere, but I'm not seeing why we need a section dedicated to this aspect of viewing the film. Unless of course we had some analysis section on why it is better viewed in the theaters than on television. With the Titanic (1997 film) article, we have the television information in the Home media section. Flyer22 (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I changed it to this. Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Roger Dean
"When Cameron was asked if he got the idea for the floating mountains from an album cover of the rock band Yes, he replied with a laugh, "It might have been ... Back in my pot-smoking days." Roger Dean was responsible for the science fiction art on many album covers of the time." An editor feels that the bold section is superfluous because "....Dean is mentioned elsewhere in the article" viz. "Some sources noted similarities to the artwork of Roger Dean, which featured fantastic images of floating rock formations and dragons". I find this puzzling as the first comment relates purely to album covers, while the second touches on possible plagiarism. Also, is there some limit on the number of times that an individual can be mentioned in an article? Androstachys (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a source for the bolded statement, or is it original research? If the latter then it's inappropriate for inclusion in any case. Doniago (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read the WP article on Roger Dean you'll see that designing album covers was one of his main activities - so no, it's not OR. Androstachys (talk) 08:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are -not- reliable sources. Doniago (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but the references that they cite are - so choose one. Androstachys (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If the WP article has reliable sources, copy them here, don't just link to the article. Articles themselves can be deleted or have the current sourcing altered or removed. Doniago (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is already covered in the "critical reception" section area, and done much better too since it is sourced. Unless it is acknowledged as an inspiration, or there is a successful plagiarism claim, then it doesn't belong in the "inspirations" section since it is impossible to know whether it influenced Cameron or the production in any way. It is best to document it in the reception section with all other noted similarities to other works, as it currently is. Betty Logan (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the "critical reception" section area doesn't mention cover art - so I can't see the relevance.... Androstachys (talk) 08:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there some reason why it would not be appropriate to add it to the Critical Reception section rather than the Inspirations section, especially given that the former does provide sourcing? Doniago (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Until evidence is provided that Cameron was talking about the specific album cover created by Roger Dean, and so far there is no sourcing where he states this, you're making assumptions. If you have a source where the specific album is mentioned, please cite it. Doniago (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with Donagio, you need a source that explicitly backs up the assertion that Cameron drew upon Roger Dean's artwork, if you want to document it as an "inspiration". The fact that some of the album covers might have been a source of inspiration and Dean created some of the covers is WP:SYNTHESIS because you are combining two sources to draw to a conclusion not stated by either source. Betty Logan (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "When Cameron was asked if he got the idea for the floating mountains from an album cover of the rock band Yes, he replied with a laugh, "It might have been ... Back in my pot-smoking days." The only artist who created floating mountains on Yes covers was Roger Dean - we don't need to know which particular cover it was - there were many with floating mountains. Androstachys (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't know that actually because it's not included in the source. Betty Logan (talk) 07:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific about what it is "we don't know"? Androstachys (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly I'm also not sure that interview can be taken at face-value, since Cameron sounds like he may not be being entirely serious, but that's a separate issue. The more pressing issue is that Cameron doesn't reference a particular album. Doniago (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the point - Cameron doesn't refer to a specific album and neither do I. Androstachys (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed --"When Cameron was asked if he got the idea for the floating mountains from a Roger Dean album cover of the rock band Yes, he replied with a laugh, "It might have been ... Back in my pot-smoking days.(See question 10" - no mention of any of this in the links provided (we should not have to search all over ...Seem there is more concern on adding Roger Dean name then there is making the article better with proper refs .Moxy (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Themes and Inspirations
A story with similar theme of a planet with life-forms with a "central mind" is "Balanced Ecology" by James Schmitz. Its lifeforms, including silverbells, greenwebs, diamondwood trees, and mossbacks, coexist peacefully with humans who farm the diamondwood in a beneficial manner. All the connected lifeforms communicate to fight off a new human threat to the planet's life and ecology.

Alakshak (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I recommend reading the above discussion. Is there any reliable sourcing linking the Schmitz work to Avatar, or is this original research? If the latter it is inappropriate for inclusion. The goal of the section is not simply to list any work with similar themes. Doniago (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

First Sentence
There are four adjectives in a row that are not separated by commas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.234.125 (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Is Trudy a Captain?
I realize this is probably a bit of a nit-pick, but editors have been adding that Trudy is a Captain. As far as I'm aware the only evidence being presented is that one of her gunners refers to her as such, but it is my understanding that the commanding officer of a vessel is traditionally called Captain regardless of their actual rank. Is stronger evidence available, or do other editors feel that this is sufficient? Thanks. Doniago (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree it should be accurate - She is just a pilot or as James put it the Hot lady pilot  - as see by her toy she is not called Captain (were others have a rank or title) .  Profession: Pilot of SA-2 RDA transport vehicle. - Dr. Grace Augustine 15:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleted images
I just saw these deletions: and.

I'm not surprised by who nominated them for deletion, since he nominates almost every image for deletion, but I very much disagree with his assessment that the image showing Zoe Saldana as herself and as Neytiri, side by side, is not crucial for understanding the text. It is specifically showing what she looks like before and after the visuals effects. After information about the camera's abilities, the caption stated, "The left image shows the blue cat-like alien Neyitiri shouting. The right image shows the actress who portrays her, Zoe Saldana, with motion-capture dots across her face and a small camera in front of her eyes." I'm thinking of taking this to WP:Deletion review. Flyer22 (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked the editor who deleted the images to weigh in, as that should be done before taking something like this to deletion review. And to be very clear, I only object to the deletion of that one image. Flyer22 (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It would have been nice to have some notification here. His argument is flawed anyway, images don't have to be "crucial", they just have to enhance our understanding, which was a purpose this image served.  There was no discussion, so I believe this action should be reveresed immediately so we can have one. Betty Logan (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I was thinking about the notification bit; it's always like a sneak attack, except in regards to the editor who uploaded the image (they are notified on their talk page, or at least they usually are). Also correct about the "crucial" bit, Betty. Flyer22 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If the deleter does not weigh in, I'm not sure if I should take this to Deletion review or to Requests for undeletion. Since the image was deleted without any discussion, it could be considered "uncontroversially deleted," which fits with the latter project. Flyer22 (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Folks, images are often deleted as such without response to the nominator as Files-for-deletion does not attract the traffic that Articles-for-deletion does. I'm happy to undelete the one image you all alude to (can someone drop me a note with the specific name) and relist at files-for-deletion for a wider discussion. There was discussion, or perhaps even resolution, about having a bot drop messages on article's talk pages when the related images are nominated for deletion but I can't remember what happened with this. Can someone drop me the note on my talk page... or this page... as to the image that Betty Logan is discussing ? - Peripitus (Talk) 01:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The image is right there, Peripitus, where I specifically linked to it above -- File:Avatarmotioncapture.jpg. Does there really need to be a discussion about it, though? It seems pretty clear cut to me that it shouldn't have been deleted. It was not there to simply decorate the text. It was showing the difference between a face with and without the special effects mentioned. If you do decide to relist the image instead of simply undeleting it and leaving it at that, please let us know here on the talk page that you have done so with a link to the discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Better to have the discussion in the correct place Files_for_deletion/2011_May_9 - for obvious reasons I will not participate except for this notice and the same on the nominators talk page - Peripitus (Talk) 10:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

hi may i please edit avatar
hi i would like to edit and update avatar 2009 article and make sure it not vandelised. mrRKelly


 * The article is semi-protected. You will be able to edit it when your account is autoconfirmed. This usually means it must make at least 10 edits and be at least 4 days old. Until then you can post suggestions here. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Avitar looks like it was copied from the artwork of Roger Dean!
Roger Dean has said this was true copywrite infrengement. Look on his website and see the art he's done for close to forty years. Namasaya (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Is there a source for this claim? A Wikipedia editor simply looking at Dean's artwork and saying there's a similarity is original research and inappropriate for inclusion. Doniago (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What Roger Dean says is irrelevant; if Cameron has plagiarised his work he should sue, and then we can cite the published sources on the legal action. As for visiting his website and checking the artwork ourselves, that would be a blatant infringement of WP:NOR. Betty Logan (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

AVATAR - A REMAKE OF VIETNAM COLONY??

When I was watching Avatar for the â€˜nâ€™th time, a strange thought came to my mind, 'Is this film not similar to Vietnam colony?'

And remember Vietnam colony released in 1994 and James Cameroon said that the Avatar script was ready in 1995 and he also said that Avatar had many inspirations from India including the title (Something fishy).

So lets compare the two stories side by side:

1.Vietnam Colony: Prabhu and Koundamani are appointed by a real estate company to a notorious colony  called  Vietnam  colony  as this colony has high real estate values.

Avatar: Sam Worthington  is  appointed  by the RDA Corporation to go to Pandora as the place has a valuable mineral called unabtomium.

2.Vietnam Colony: Prabhu disguises himself as a writer and becomes a member of the colony.

Avatar: Sam disguises himself as a Navi and becomes a member of Pandora.

3.Vietnam Colony: Prabhu falls in love with the heroine (Jujilipa) who is a resident of Vietnam colony.

Avatar: Sam falls in love with Saldana who is a resident of Pandora

4.Vietnam Colony: While Prabhu was trying to cheat the colony residents and throw them out of the colony, he understands that the company is doing injustice and tries to help the residents

Avatar: While Sam was trying to cheat the Pandora residents, he understands that the company is doing injustice and tries to help the residents.

5.Vietnam Colony: Prabhu finally joins hands with the colony residents and fights against his company.

Avatar: Sam joins hands with the Navis and fights against his company.

6.Vietnam colony: At the end of the movie Prabhu becomes a Vietnam colony resident.

Avatar: At the end, Sam becomes a Pandaro resident.

Arenâ€™t the 2 movies similarâ€¦?

Even some scenes had similarities. Remember the scene where the auto driver gets afraid of the rowdy (Ravuthar) but Prabhu thinks that the auto driver is afraid of him. There is a similar scene in Avatar (first half)where a small beast gets afraid of a bigger one but Sam things that the beast is afraid of himâ€¦

There seems to be only 1 difference between the two movies-one made with more than 1000 crores, another with less than a crore!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.183.234.146 (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Avatar 2
The sequel article is a complete copy of the Avatar Wiki. Someone just copy pasted the information, and didn't even take the time to reword it. Please, either delete the article or add the Wiki as a source. --201.230.217.86 (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That section has been in the article since last year, so it's entirely possible the wikia copied it from here. Can you please be more precise at what point the "copyvio" occurred so we can compare the edit histories and determine which wiki comitted the copyright violation. Betty Logan (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's definitely a copyvio. In Wikipedia, it started here (7 May 2011), not last year. Someone copy pasted the information directly from the article, didn't even take the work to grab the code. In the Wikipedia article please check the history from TuneyLoon to Martarius. The last edit made to the Avatar Wiki was on May 6, 2011, exactly one day before a user started to copy our content. --201.230.217.86 (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, you had me confused, I thought you were referring to the sequels section of this article. I've removed the violation. Sorry about nicking your stuff. Betty Logan (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's ok, don't worry. I only felt that if they were going to use our information they should at least put us as a source. Thanks for your help. And, by the way, it's not "my" stuff, it's the hard work of a user base :) --201.230.217.86 (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

On removal of "Epic" film
I'm removing "epic" from the opening statement. I know this movie is mentioned in the article "epic film" and, in my opinion, it is a great film meets many of the criteria described as "epic". However, that same article suggests that the definition of the term is pretty much entirely subjective, thus a rather unencyclopedic way to open an article. There are also no citations for Avatar's epicness in that article. I think a factual statement along the lines of "Avatar has been described as an epic film (citations), either in the introduction or worked into discussion of the production or reception by reviewers would be far more appropriate if someone wishes to find the citations. -- Bdentremont (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally feel comfortable with an unqualified "epic" in the title. It may be subjective, but a lot of movie categorization has subjective elements anyway.  For example, any article about a comedy film will say something like "such and such is a 2007 comedy film starring..."  Comedy is itself subjective, and many people will not find that particular movie funny.  Even though some people might not think Avatar is epic in scale, the consensus is that it is, which is reflected by the fact you yourself point out which is that the "movie is mentioned in the article "epic film."  Tell me what you think and maybe if a few others weigh in we could reach a consensus. JEN9841 (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I'm wont to do, I'd suggest that epic should be included if third-party sources refer to the film as such; conversely if no third-party sources refer to the film in tht manner, the term probably shouldn't be applied, IMO. A quick review on Yahoo suggests that epic is an applicable term, and not just in the sense of "Dude, that film was totally epic!" Doniago (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, here is a sample of three reliable press sources,, , , and all specifically refer to Avatar as an "epic" film. Perhaps the interpretation of the word lies with whether or not the noun is being confused as an adjective within the sentence? DrNegative (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is something to what DrNegative and Doniago mention about the informal/formal uses of "epic." DrNegative, those are good citations for showing that Avatar is accepted as being apart of the "epic" film genre.  I feel like we can reinstate epic in the opening sentence.  Now I think we should just decide whether or not we should include citations to justify the use of the word. JEN9841 (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If we include a citation we won't need to rehash this discussion 3 months from now. (smile) Doniago (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem with including "epic" where it was in the lead. I mean, it's not like most Wikipedia film articles use that category. I don't see many comedies using that title around here, for example. However, if a citation is required, I would rather us not say anything like, "Avatar has been described as an epic film." We should just leave in "epic" alongside the other descriptions and put a citation beside it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Saldana's interview - a new source
I found: It talks about Zoe Saldana's interview in Latina magazine (issue: September 2011). She said that the filming was very demanding and almost caused an emotional breakdown WhisperToMe (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Zoe Saldana: 'Avatar' almost caused a breakdown." CNN. August 9, 2011.

Lack of any "criticisms" section
This should contain a section on this, as there are a number of criticisms available regarding the movie, on ecological, biological, social, and political grounds. It's an impressive movie, but, as an earlier archive noted:


 * Pandora's Wildlife: More Unanswered Questions
 * Given that all animals seen on Pandora appear to be hexapods, how come the Na'vi have only four limbs ? Assuming, as it is plausible, that the Na'vi, being a relatively new species, share a common six-limb ancestor with other closely related species on the moon, where did the extra limbs go ? From a Darwinian evolution point of view, shouldn't the Na'vi exhibit at least anatomical traces of vestigial limbs as found e.g. under the fins and tails of ocean mammals like whales and dolphins on Earth ? 200.168.20.35 (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that this is science fiction; in the real world, a species like the Na'vi probably would resemble the other creatures more closely than they do in the film, but the director probably wanted them to look very close to human, so that audiences could better relate to the alien characters.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is HARDLY a trivial issue, and I spotted it almost immediately despite having a stronger background in physics than biology. My own guess is that Cameron probably originally intended for them to be six-limbed but that the CGI people couldn't manage to make it look realistic at that point, so they had to drop back and punt (Heh: Have they solved it for John Carter of Mars?). At the least, though, there should have been an in-film handwave to this as an "unresolved mystery" or some such. "Keep in mind this is SF" is a damnation, not an excuse. GOOD SF recognizes and acknowledges when there are things which don't match currently understood science for the most part -- and the idea that the Na'vi are quadrupeds instead of hexapeds is literally inexplicable from what we understand of evolutionary biology.

Another theme worthy of discussion is, of course, the political element of it, as the usage of only Americans for the corporation and its actors provides a clear anti-American sentiment. It is interesting how there have been literally no complaints about the lack of "diversity" in the casting of this entire group, presumed to represent humans.

And a third theme worthy of discussion is the element of ecotopianism in the film. There are distinct references to the notion that humans have destroyed their planet (even though it's hardly justified by the presence of humanity in another solar system with massive machines and such -- a ruined planet is a poor planet, and if there were colonial efforts as a result, they'd hardly involve the transport of vastly expensive and expensive to maintain masses of equipment across lightyears of space -- anyone familiar with typical SF colonization themes grasps this) and will do the same to Pandora given the chance. Here, the anthropophobia and misanthropy is rampant. There's really no reason to insert this into the film, it's an unnecessary and irrelevant political statement. The existence of "unobtanium" is, in itself, sufficient macguffin to drive the events of the film.

In general I'm really rather surprised at the lack of a criticism section here. They are out there, and the nature of them is clear. This lack is a blatant FAIL on the part of Wiki operation.

24.250.206.199 (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You realize the first question is going to be whether there are any reliable sources that discuss your concerns? If not, they are inappropriate for inclusion per WP:V. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is already huge and we definitely don't need a section in it devoted only to criticism. Any criticism should be covered in the Critical reception section, and we already cover some of it there. The Themes in Avatar article, however, covers most of the praise and criticism about this film. Thus, further criticism should go there. Flyer22 (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the OP on this. Only allowing non-critical comments in the article makes for a very biased article. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You agree because you refuse to read the applicable policies, thus making you uninformed. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That does not apply to any policies. 'Criticisms' is a vlid section in wiki articles. Please stay informed. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mrkelly1234, 16 August 2011
] hi i would like to help edit avatar and make sure correct information is put on  and to protect it from vandalising and i would like to update with news of it sequels from a reliable source IMDB

Mrkelly1234 (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC) thank you very much
 * If you want to be able to edit this page, you need to request the confirmed permission at WP:PERM, or become autoconfirmed. Also, IMDB is not a reliable source-- Jac 16888 Talk 15:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Dune
should definitely be included in the 'influences' section.

some of the scenes in avatar are lifted directly from the Dune 2000/2001 miniseries, including the chanting while undergoing the reverend mother's transformation ritual, the speech by muad'dib at the temple before the battle. Other elements in common are the glowing eyes, although they were blue in Dune, and yellow/green in Avatar. The fact that muad'dib is a foreigner who rescues the local people. Both spice melange and the synaptic trees in Avatar can induce psycho-active sensations, and both confer some level of super-human abilities. Both planets are inextricably linked to their natural resources (they both would die without them), and both are being mined for their precious materials. Avatar helos look very similar to ornithopters. Ah, there is also the scene when muad'dib sends the captured sardaukar back to harkonnen to deliver a message that arrakis no longer belongs to them (echoes sully's speech). i'm sure there are plenty more to be discovered. Ah, worm-riding and screaming like princess xena? maybe? lol

both heros must go through a process of trials to attain their powers, both are granted through nature/the planet itself. both indigenous cultures are highly religious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.81.218 (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

the hero's 'trance-like' states. i coulkd go on for days about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.81.218 (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

permission is sought to re-edit and add this reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.81.218 (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

to clarify, i'd like an admin to sound off on this so i dont write up a wonderful 2/3 paragraphs for nothing, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.81.218 (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * First, have you checked the talk-archives for past discussions about this topic? Second, do you have a reliable source(s) or did you come up with all that on your own? DrNegative (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here we go, NPOR again. I am a reliable source. These can all be ascertained from watching the dune miniseries. If it cannot be seen, then the viewer is blind. I don't think anyone has published this simply because not many 'academics' have seen the dune miniseries or remember it well enough to comment. That does not mean these points are not valid. I could find 50 of them. Such a high number is not 'irrelevant' simply because it was not published by a PHD in a 'credible' source. But i can tell you what will now happen, if a cloumnist sees my post here, they might actually publish it in some column, which I don't think falls under 'credible', but it will just be an example of how wiki works AGAINST its contributors, since my analysis here will simply have been stolen by a columnist. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "I am a reliable source". The fact that you say that illustrates that you haven't read the applicable policies and why you clearly don't understand what you are talking about. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition, i can find similar analyses on blogs, but no credible sources. The plot is almost identical in some instances. also, notice 'Dune Entertainment'. coincidence? I think not. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If there is no reliable third-party sourcing corroborating your concerns, it would not be appropriate to add them to the article, regardless of how obvious it might be simply by watching the miniseries. Doniago (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand verifiability, but in that sense, the word 'verifiability' is a mis-nomer because the text can clearly be 'verified' by watching both films. However, noone has yet published an article in a 'credible' source, credible being a contentious term. Ie: blogs and columns are verifiable, but are they credible? 64.250.81.218 (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Best to read over No original research.Moxy (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I already have, and other, thats not the point i'm trying to make. btw, nowhere on wiki does it state was is 'credible' and what isnt. that is a contentious issue. Actually there are some general guidelines which suggest blogs, etc are not acceptable, so I just don't see a way this will ever be included, because noone will ever publish this in what is regarded as 'reliable' or 'credible', even though the viewpoint should be held by most people once the facts are out, as they already are on blogs in my post-research. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the shape of the Na'Vi ritual knives is almost identical to those from the original 1986 dune film. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If no reliable source is discussing the similarities, then it seems likely that, by WP standards, they aren't considered especially notable. Wikipedia should not be used as a repository of trivia. That's what IMDb is for (I kid)... Doniago (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not trivia. The whole movie seems to be a copy of the dune miniseries, like i said. It is not one of two things, it is literally everything. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy is actually WP:UNDUE rather than WP:Verifiability which states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". What you want to add to the article is a viewpoint, so its importance should be established.  If no-one else gives the time of day to the comparison you have presented here, then why should we include it? Betty Logan (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is covered on a lot of blogs and some facebook threads. However, your comment is interesting, because even though this is almost a copy of Dune, James Cameron failed to mention Dune in ANY of his interviews, choosing instead to reference 'previous scifi works he has read' such as star wars, etc. No mention of Dune. Tat is despicable. In other words, even JC fails to give Dune the 'time of day' as you so eloquently put it. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Making it clear that you're non-neutral with regards to the matter isn't really going to help your case. Doniago (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? The material IS neutral. They are simply facts which can be corroborated, ascertained and referenced by using the original works. The fact that I don't appreciate JC not mentioning Dune has nothing to do with the facts. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, i fial to see why a wikipedia article cannot be critical of a subject. Are only statements that a re 'non-critical' of the work allowed? IE: no dissention, conformity above all. Doesn't sound like much of an encyclopedia to me if all it does it present obvious and non-critical aspects of a subject. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI report on 64.250.81.218's recent edits. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * why has this been reported? I am obviously just discussing here and have not made any reverts... what is your problem? 64.250.81.218 (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)