Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 4

semi-protect due to fan cruft?
I came here to update the last sentence from Avatar (2009 film):
 * Outsiders estimate the film cost over $300 million to produce, and another $200 million for the distribution and other costs, thus totaling to about half a billion dollars, more than 50% over the total cost for the most expensive film before it.[51] However, a studio spokesperson, speaking with film website The Wrap, said that the budget “is $237 million, with $150 million for promotion, end of story.”[2]

with the following:


 * Outsiders estimate the film cost over $300 million to produce, and another $200 million for the distribution and other costs, thus totaling to about half a billion dollars, more than 50% over the total cost for the most expensive film before it.[51] According to the Los Angeles Times, "Fox and its financing partners Dune Entertainment and Ingenious Film Partners ... spent about $280 million to produce Avatar after the benefit of tax credits, and Fox spent an additional $150 million to market and distribute it worldwide."

I resort to this request because I find the article semi-protected for the second time by citing "unsourced, fancruft" as the reason. "Unsourced fancruft" applies to a lot of existing articles in Wikipedia. I find nothing in WP:Protection policy or even the WP:Rough guide to semi-protection essay to justify Tedder's actions. Regardless, I'm forced to resort to a request to get my change into the article. One would think the weekend that a big film opens is a particularly good time to avoid resorting to semi-protecting an article, since a high-profile movie release is an opportunity to welcome new editors to the project. 67.101.5.235 (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Fox have stated the budget is $237 million it should remain in the article. It is the only official statement about the budget and the rest are just estimates.  If you want to add further estimates that is fair enough, but you shouldn't be removing sourced information. Betty Logan (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * @IP 67.101.5.235: what's so difficult about creating an account. I mean really. -- Mike   Allen   23:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * S/he has the option of editing anonymously if he chooses. @67: the article is protected to stop and prevent the addition of said "unsourced fancruft" to the article.  Intelligent  sium  23:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said they didn't have an option, I asked a simple question. Thank you. -- Mike   Allen   00:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First to Betty Logan 's comment: Both The Wrap and the LA Times are quoting studio sources; I proposed replacing the former with the latter because of its extra detail and because the LA Times is a more-widely known source of the business side of Hollywood than The Wrap. If the article wasn't semi-protected, I could have made the change, had someone like you make the case you're making, and we'd probably end up with both sources quoted.  Or come to some other arrangement.  Regardless, it is all made more difficult, and hostile to interested newbies, to have the article be semi-protected.  67.101.6.234 (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect to the LATimes article no studio source is quoted. In The Wrap a spokesman is explicitly quoted.  Like I said, I have no objection to further more recent estimates being added to the article but unless a more up to date statement about the budget is officially released by Fox then The Wrap article should be kept in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * W.r.t. MikeAllen : Since semi-protection requires a newbie to get confirmed before being able to contribute to this article, the suggestion is a non-starter. Thanks.  67.101.6.234 (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In reply to Intelligentsium 's comment&mdash;"the article is protected to stop and prevent the addition of said "unsourced fancruft" to the article"&mdash;neither WP:Protection policy nor the WP:Rough guide to semi-protection essay consider "unsourced fancruft" as grounds for semi-protection. I welcome citations of policies or guidelines that prove me wrong about that point, but otherwise I'm thinking I should bring this to WP:RFUP...  Thanks. 67.101.6.234 (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was semi-protected because it was becoming unstable. Sourced infomation was being altered or removed and unsourced information and original research was being added.  The hope is that once the opening weekend is out of the way the vandalism will subside so that's why the article was released from protection today.  Everyone has the right to add information to the article and the right to do it anonymously, but editors also have the right to have their work protected if other people are destroying it.  It's a bit of a balancing act. Betty Logan (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just realized that the semi-protection expired, so I applied a modified version of the edit, taking in account Betty Logan's concern. 67.101.6.234 (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC).
 * I've incorporated your addition into the range of estimates: . I think it looks neater rather than having lots of different estimates.  If you don't like how it's worded feel free to revert it back. Betty Logan (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thanks.  67.101.5.20 (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)  P.S. And its great to see the community avoid resorting to semi-protection...

Groundbreaking and revolutionary film
So why isn't it included? I can site you a variety of wikipedia articles that mentions how a certain film was considered groundbreaking - unsources btw - while I have a slew of notable sources that say this film is groundbreaking. So with that I ask why it's not included in the opening? Watlol9 (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: the article needs to have a neutral point of view. It's only three days after the premiere, too soon to say if the film really was groundbreaking and revolutionary, and had a lasting effect on the way movies are made. That will be decided in the coming years.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Beside which if this film gets any more slobbering hype from Wikipedia I'm going to puke and you guys will owe me a new keyboard. Kid Bugs (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm? It's an objective, inarguable fact that the film is groundbreaking. You're thinking of whether or not the film the is influential or not. Sure, we're not sure if this will be influential, that's for sure. However it's inarguabel that this film is groundbreaking; all news sources and critics point to this as well. I'm going to add it in the opening. Watlol9 (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There was an NPR report, which I linked somewhere above, saying that the film's use of head-mounted apparatus for recording the facial expression was groundbreaking as far as CGI is concerned. I don't know much else (and have been avoiding looking at this article because I'm not going to be able to see the film until the 24th). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 19:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Unobtanium vs. Unobtainium
While minor, and it is spelled unobtanium, without the initial 'i', on http://avtr.com/. -FeralDruid (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If we compare google searches, "avatar unobtanium james cameron" returns 15,000 results, and "avatar unobtainium james cameron" returns 27,000 results. Pandorapedia, which seems to be a firsthand source, calls it "unobtanium". While it's an atypical spelling (google results for "unobtanium": 51,500 vs. "unobtainium" 114,000), it seems to be the official one. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest that maybe it is a typo on that Avatar site, until I saw that it's not just a one-time thing. Still, maybe it is a repeated typo on there. Flyer22 (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The book Avatar: A Confidential Report on the Biological and Social History of Pandora calls it Unobtanium as well. This is interestingly different from the spelling used by Oakley for their trademark, which may be the reason. In any case, I have to agree with the assessment that the name is rather lazy and does its part to spoil the suspension of disbelief in the movie. Fortunately, they don't actually call it out by name very often. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Another editor, Rwalker, changed it back to unobtainium moments ago; I pointed that editor to this discussion.


 * It seems that unobtanium is an actual alternative spelling, as even Wiktionary shows (though it was recently altered that way at Wiktionary). Perhaps the best solution to this matter for this article would be to put the unobtanium spelling while putting the unobtainium spelling in parentheses, as "or unobtainium," upon first mention. Flyer22 (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the spelling again, based on a number of sources. First, the avtr.com web site I mentioned previously.  Second, the aforementioned Avatar: A Confidential Report on the Biological and Social History of Pandora.  Third, the book James Cameron's Avatar: The Movie Scrapbook.  These two books were written by Dirk Mathison and Maria Wilhelm.  In this article by Mathison, he comments on the two authors working with Cameron and Landau.  I would imagine, given this level of collaboration, that they're using the officially sanctioned movie spelling in their respective books.  -FeralDruid (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I support keeping "unobtanium", for the abovementioned reasons, as well as the fact that the substance has a given name, which is similar to but is not "unobtainable"-"ium"; in fact, it clearly is obtainable, and would thereby not justify the use of the "proper" name. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Updating box office numbers
In this link, editor EV1TE states that the "World wide gross as of December 20, was incorrectly written 'As of December 21.'"

I state that I most likely put "As of December 21" because it was just updated to that today, on December 21, at Box Office Mojo. But I take it that we should stick to not naming a day until that day is over, seeing as "the actual new estimates" do not come in until after then? Flyer22 (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "As of" basically means "From" in this context, so personally I would say that the cumulative gross at close of business on the 20th would be "As of the 21st". It is clearly not "As of the 20th" because you can find a point in the day where it hadn't grossed that much.  If it's the semantics that are causing problems maybe it could be written like "the worldwide gross up to December 20th is..." - it doesn't sound so good but it removes the ambiguity. Betty Logan (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like putting a date at all. Wikipedia is supposed to be up-to-date (since it's not a paper encyclopedia), so adding "As of" is redundant. I think I've read this somewhere too. --  Mike   Allen   03:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no use in trying to keep the box office numbers updated on the weekends anyway. Anonymous (and users) come in and report highly bloated results reported by the company on the weekend. The most accurate results will come in on Mondays. Other than that (sorry I may have been ranting), a date needs to be noted when the numbers were taken, but it doesn't necessarily need to be in the prose; it can be noted in the accessdate of the reference. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 03:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is true. It has either grossed that amount or it hasn't. The date itself isn't a notable fact.Betty Logan (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Betty, Mike, and Bovineboy. I used to be against putting "As of" as well; it is only recently that I have not minded. I have come across editors who feel that it is beneficial to note the last time the box office numbers were updated for films currently playing in the movie theatres, in case they are not updated as soon as they should be here at Wikipedia (or even at Box Office Mojo; for example, The Numbers website may sometimes be updated before Box Office Mojo).


 * The film's opening day gross is mentioned, and the opening weekend days are obvious. Some feel that it flows better to continue that with the most recent date for the film's worldwide gross. When it is a film that is out of theatres, the "As of" issue is hardly ever an issue. Flyer22 (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The date should only be in the reference. But editors and IPs are good at updating the numbers (both box office and reviews) and never update the accessdate.  A big pet peeve of mine.  Bovineboy, good to know about the box office on weekends.  I've been trying to keep numbers updated daily, didn't know numbers were not very accurate on weekends. ;)  Flyer, The-Numbers usually has the most accurate foreign figures. :) --  Mike   Allen   03:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, Mike, about not updating the accessdates. Yeah, I have seen editors who hate that.


 * Right now, part of the Box office section says:"Avatar's worldwide gross was an estimated $232,180,000 after three days,[16][3] the ninth largest opening-weekend gross of all time, and the largest for a non-franchise, non-sequel and original film.[3] As of December 21, 2009, the film has grossed $241,571,046 worldwide.[3]"


 * Any suggestions from you all how this can flow just as well and make just as much sense if "As of" is removed? Flyer22 (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I unusually write it "The film has come to gross $77,025,481 domestically and $164,545,565 internationally, with a worldwide gross of $241,571,046."  --  Mike   Allen   04:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Seems okay, though I feel that we should leave the "ninth largest gross, and the largest for a non-franchise, non-sequel and original film" stuff in. Flyer22 (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I didn't say remove that. lol -- Mike   Allen   19:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, I mean leave it in the paragraph; incorporate it into the paragraph you came up with. I'll change it soon. Flyer22 (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought...putting in the domestic and international grosses, in addition to the worldwide gross, is extra updating work. I did that with Jennifer's Body and Zombieland, and would rather not do that here. If you feel that you are up for updating all that in the upcoming days and months, then go for it. Right now, I'll leave it as it is, except for when updating the worldwide gross. Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can change it. I'll put it on my priority list to keep it updated. :) --  Mike   Allen   21:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. We're counting on you, though I'm sure some IPs will help. Flyer22 (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Reception
The piece added underneath the critic's reviews, about viewers feeling nauseous, is based on a made up account from a single blog in November, and the Daily Mail is not a reliable source, given that it's "evidence" is an anonymous viewer of an apparently anonymous screening. I suggest it be removed, unless better evidence is found. There have been no reports from the 15 minute preview in August, nor any of the recent premiere screenings, which were shown to thousands of people, of anyone feeling nauseous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ithilgore (talk • contribs) 01:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely agree, after seeing the film I imagine that you would have to be retarded to think that this is valid criticism. I shall remove the reference. --Spuzzdawg (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if it should have been removed, better sources have reported on it as well; ABC news is one example: The 3D Effects in Blockbuster Movie 'Avatar' Are Claimed to Be 'Vomit Inducing' Flyer22 (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think they discovered the Moon. But hey, Pandora is a moon, after all... Every single 3D movie I watched a few years ago made me at least a little uncomfortable and nauseous at worst. Come on, this is not relevant information. 67.68.126.93 (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Be careful about length of plot
I am just reminding editors to be careful about the length of this article's plot section, per WP:PLOT. I realize that this film is not over in two simple hours, but still be careful not to add too much. Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Already discussed above, but I don't mind seeing the reminder after having trimmed the section twice in two days. I might recommend WP:FILMPLOT as a more pertinent link though. :) Doniago (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just moments ago restored the Plot section to your edited version, after an editor expressed concerns about the Plot section being too long by placing a plot tag on it. I take it that your version does not need to be trimmed any further? I would trim the plot section myself, but I still have not yet seen this film and do not want to read any big spoilers (though I caught a glimpse of part of the ending spoiler). Flyer22 (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT states ''Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range.'' There is nothing unconventional or complicated about Avatar's plot, so the synopsis should adhere to the stated word count. Betty Logan (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm not sure when it comes to this Avatar film; it is a long film. I'm sure that the The Dark Knight (film) article's plot section is as long as it is because of that film's length. For Avatar, Doniago stated, "[P]lease try to keep under 1,000 words per WP:FILMPLOT." So maybe 900 or 1,000 words is okay in this case? Flyer22 (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Betty Logan on this one. I really can't see any reason why this film's plot should need to be above 700 words. The Dark Knight's doesn't need to be that long either (and yes, it is GA, but GA review does not include compliance with WP:MOSFILMS). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, I have not yet seen this film; because of that, I feel that I cannot properly judge on whether it should exceed 700 words or not. Still, a film as long as this one or longer makes me think that its plot section being longer than 700 words is justified. Maybe some important information would be cut if it was formatted to only about 700 words. I just do not know. That is why I have left this Plot section in the hands of others. Flyer22 (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, neither have I and I want to, so I'm not looking at it too hard. However, in general very few films, even one of this length, need to exceed 700 words. A lot can often be culled just because its overly wordy, but I haven't looked at this one too closely yet. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In a topic further down, we've been discussing how even at 1000 words the plot description leaves out certain elements that provide insight into the character's actions. But I suppose it shouldn't ever replace a viewing of the movie.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * AniRaptor2001, have you seen this film? If so, you are a perfect opinion on this matter, on if whether slimming this article down to about 700 words will cut out any important details. If it will, then this is clearly one of those special cases where the plot section should exceed 700 words (though I doubt that if it were slimmed down to 701 words, it would need that extra character taken out. LOL). Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have indeed seen the film twice, and I've worked on cutting the plot summary down as much as possible. What we have right now is very play-by-play, and gives a good superficial account of the film's events. I'll try not to spoil it for you guys too much, but I do think that there could be room for a few more words on what makes Pandora so special; after you get back from the movie we can discuss on whether or not the plot really covers everything that's needed. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Different endings
I just returned from 5pm screening in Germany and the ending there is different, it doesn't fade to the avatar logo out of jake's avatar face but his avatar face opens its eyes and then it cuts to black followed by the logo, thus making sure the transfer was succesful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.195.70.6 (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the version that is being shown in 2D and 3D in the United States, or at least at theaters in Houston! AniRaptor2001 (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh so in the U.S version you see his eyes open? weird because in the one I saw it just fades to black. I was like "you've got to be kidding me!" nice to know that the transfer was successful. 86.42.193.90 (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it is worth adding a section relating to the different endings of the film depending on region/format? --JoeHazzers (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Kid safe? What ages? RATED PG-13 battle, warfare, sexual innuendo, language, smoking -- 3 hours long
Pretty basic information for any movie, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.11.38 (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

MPAA RATING PG-13 battle sequences warfare, sensuality, language smoking.

At 3 hours long, it is beyond the attention span of many younger children.


 * Yeah but don't forget the British ratings. This is also a British film. --  Mike   Allen   21:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, kids can see it. Its not THAT bad, and there is like 0 sensuality. Just one 5 second scene, which is not that bad, just say there kissing too hard or something lol. And the battle sequences aren't THAT bad either, mostly because there is no blood. And yea, the 3 hours are probably what will make kids 5-10 not want to go see it, but other than that, it isn't THAT bad or suggestive.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16


 * Google for the rating in your country. MPAA ratings are not included in film articles by overwhelming consensus as they are American specific, and this is not the American Wikipedia. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Needs link at the top "Were you looking for Avatar, the Last Airbender"
Needs link at the top "Were you looking for Avatar, the Last Airbender" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.11.38 (talk)


 * Airbender is not a 2009 film, so I don't imagine anyone typing in exactly "Avatar (2009 film)" to be looking for that. And just typing "Avatar (film)" correctly redirects you to the disambiguation page. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for letting us know.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)ChosMaster16


 * I also question the need for the disambiguation link pointing specifically to the nickelodeon franchise. Avatar (film) leads to a disambiguation page, and Avatar (2009 film) can only refer to this movie. The disambiguation link at the top of Avatar pointing to the James Cameron film was put there in anticipation of increased traffic to this page. I'm going to change the disambig on this page to point to the films section of the main disambiguation, as well. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * When you type "Avatar" by itself in the search bar, it even pulls up the choices for you, with "Avatar: The Last Airbender" second as an option. I would think that people who unintentionally land on the Avatar: The Last Airbender article would be looking for this film more than the other way around (hey, it happened to me about a week or so ago). But I do not mind either way, about including the disambiguation tag or not. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree, the link is unnecessary. This is a disambiguated film, so little likelyhood of anyone accidentally getting here while looking for Avatar, the Last Airbender. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)