Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 7

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

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


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


 * I think it should be removed all together. Gamaur (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't. Seems like most films haven't engendered this much discussion in reliable sources, including the filmmaker's discussion, re plot and themes taken from other films, so it's notable. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * On Tuesday President Medvedev will send a telegram to President Obama to protest the Oscar nominations of the Avatar movie, because it was based on the stolen, unpaid an uncredited plot of an sf novel by the famous soviet-russian authors, A. and B. Strugatsky. Russia wants 15% of the movie revenue to settle. 82.131.134.111 (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't see any mention of that telegram on the internet or news. Does Medvedev still use telegrams? : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually uses, but in this case - it was a joke, I think :) --Luch4 (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


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

Norm Spellman
The article refers to the character Norm Spellman as a "biologist". This reference however mentions that Norm is actually an anthropologist, rather than a biologist. What is the source of the article's information on Norm's profession ? 161.24.19.112 (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * An external wiki is not a good enough source to decide. A viewing of the movie would probably give an answer, and it's also probably stated in one of the books.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the source though that the Wikipedia article's editors used to claim Norm is a biologist ? That is not mentioned in the movie as far as I can tell. The scene where Norm helps Grace to collect samples from a biolectric tree root might suggest he is a biologist, but is not conclusive. 200.168.20.164 (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I just watched the film again last night, and it never mentions what his PhD is in. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotun26 (talk • contribs)
 * Seems that he is an anthropologist, see the ref in the article. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In his original screenplay Cameron calls Norm a "xenoanthropologist". Cinosaur (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

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


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


 * My tightening (call it "censoring" if you wish, but that's not the idea) is based on WP:NPOV itself--in particular, on it's WP:DUE section. Cited statements in the Armond White article indicate that he is viewed as a "critical clown", "a contrarian with political and personal axes to grind", and "a troll". White evidently does not represent a majority, or even a significant minority, view. NPOV does not mean that every position under the sun needs to be explained in detail; and while it's probably reasonable to note that not every single reviewer under the sun likes the film (and to provide an example of a dissident reviewer), it seems like an assignment of undue weight to grant anything but minimal space to a critic whose approach is so unusual that it's dismissed as "trolling" and the like by his fellow critics (including Roger Ebert). So, while it's fine for the article to summarize some dissident's (e.g., White's) views, it doesn't seem right to let the article turn into one naysayer's podium. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. This change is perfectly reasonable, IMO. There's nothing wrong with indicating that somebody holds a contrary view. But when that particular person is known as "a contrarian for the sake of being contrary", one has to doubt that his contrary review is even particularly interesting (let alone significant) in the first place--i.e., one must wonder if the review says more about White as a person (and he already has his own article for that) than about Avatar as a film. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree about including reviews by Armond White. "Troll" is the keyword I've read about his persona; he is not a genuinely authoritative figure when it comes to reviewing films.  Basically, no mainstream critic hated the film.  The closest are lukewarm reviews from Village Voice and Salon, either of which I have no problem being used. Erik (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it for us to decide that he is a "troll"? Whether other critics like him is irrelevant, I would think. He meets WP:RS and unless he is factually wrong, or not considered a professional reviewer, then it isn't our place to decide his reviews are without merit. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And now that we have other reviews there essentially echoing part of what White thinks of the film, such as The Christian Post, mentioning a bit of what he thought is even more justified. This is not a matter of WP:UNDUE; we only presented a bit of what he thought, not some big quote or paragraph. How is mentioning that bit of what he thinks harming Wikipedia? We already mention how he feels about the film. Why not go the extra length and mention a specific, quoted bit of it? Flyer22 (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] Other critics (apparently along with the general public, at least in connection to Ebert) have already decided this for us. As a matter of comparison, if some "scientist" were to declare that humans evolved from unicorns, while the scientific community were to regard this fellow as a delusional quack, he would not get a prominent position (and most likely would get no position whatsoever) in the Human evolution article. The fact that movie critics don't take White seriously is, I would think, just as relevant to this article as the scientific consensus would be to the human evolution one. Anyway, the section seems to have evolved (no pun intended) in the past several hours and to have reached a fairly balanced and informative state. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. As for White's "reliability" as a source, that would seem to be something of a grey area. Yes, White is a reliable source about what White thinks, but what White thinks does not seem to be a reliable representation of Avatar's "Critical reception". White meets WP:N, so perhaps he can have an honorary seat up on the stage; but allowing him to take the microphone could be excessive and distracting. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh c'omn now, Cosmic Latte. You cannot compare this matter to scientists declaring that humans evolved from unicorns. Why? Because scientists would never state such an absurd thing. White is not that damn delusional; he is likely not delusional at all. All the man did on this matter was call the film a "simple-minded anti-industrial critique" and the "corniest movie ever made about the white man’s need to lose his identity and assuage racial, political, sexual and historical guilt." He should be censored for that, and because many critics consider him a joke? I disagree. Plenty of non-conservatives consider The Christian Post and other very conservative people a joke as well, and yet we have included a bit of what they have stated of the film. So far, we have two for White's specific "voice" being heard in this article, and two against. I am okay with letting the Reception section stay as it is now (in fact, I do not feel that I have to expand the Reception section anymore), but I find it silly to censor White's thoughts. He did not have a prominent spot in this article when his thoughts were specified, and he does not now. I simply am not seeing the problem with letting the man call the film corny. Flyer22 (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how much further this thread can be stretched within reason, and don't really want to extend it much further, but just a note on the "unicorn" example: I know that nobody would actually propose that; that was just an off-the-cuff comparison. But somebody might as well have proposed it anyway, because there have been enough... "out-there" ideas, which have found their way into articles, that WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE came into being in the first place. The point is, in the world of film critics, White is out-there. I'm not suggesting that his views should be "censored" because they're "conservative", but rather that they should be minimized because they're on the WP:FRINGEs of film criticism. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There really is no need to keep stressing our points; we clearly disagree on this matter. But I will again state that there is nothing at all wrong with including the bit of White's views that we did. And I did not state that his views are conservative. I essentially stated that plenty of people consider the views of The Christian Post and other very conservative people to be "out there" as well, and yet we have included their thoughts in the Reception section. To go with your line of thinking, White should always be censored here at Wikipedia; I disagree with that, for the reasons I already stated above. His views were already minimized before your censorship. And in this case, they mimic others' views in that same paragraph. But, yeah, I have already made my thoughts about this known. It is not something that I particularly need to get into a long debate about/significantly fight for. If I see his views being censored all over Wikipedia, that is another matter. I am not for censorship, unless what we are censoring is big "fringe" or truly helps the article, and neither is Wikipedia, per WP:CENSOR. Flyer22 (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He kind of seems racist from what I can gather. -- Mike   Allen   04:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While suggesting that the class clown (or the "critical clown" as it may be) should calm down doesn't meet my definition of "censorship", I admit that the wording was vague and somewhat uninformative. I've tried to remedy that problem (and, I hope, to reach a sort of compromise) in a small series of edits that may help the White clause lead up better to the Christian Post clause. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would still prefer his exact words be there, but I had already compromised with you. I did not revert you on this matter again, and instead discussed it here at the talk page...where I stated that I am okay with letting it stay that way. I, of course, still disagree with not letting a bit of White's specific words stand, and believe that the wider Wikipedia community would also be against not letting a bit of his specific words stand, but I have already accepted your compromise. This does not mean the editor who originally added that information will, however, or others. This compromise should not be confused as consensus.


 * On a side note, why do you keep adding a comma to this part of the Reception section? The comma does not belong there, since it is not a sentence fragment. If it were a sentence fragment, then the comma would belong there, per WP:Logical quotation. Flyer22 (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. The only reference in WP:LQ to sentence fragments is, "When quoting a sentence fragment that ends in a period..." The line in question is not a sentence fragment that ends in a period (although it is a fragment, i.e., is not the entirety, of the original line), so I don't see how that part of LQ is relevant. My edits were based on the whole idea of LQ, which is that one should "place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." Take, for example, the line I just quoted. In WP:LQ, the word "not" is followed by a period, so when I quote that line, I include the period after "not". In the film review, the statement from which our line is drawn is, "The screen is alive with more action and the soundtrack pops with more robust music than any dozen sci-fi shoot-'em-ups you care to mention (watch the "Avatar" video game trailer here)." The article's quotation of this line stops at the word "mention", and since there is no comma following "mention" in the original text, there should not be a comma within the article's quotation of that text. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that line does not stop at "mention." I was going by what is in the article. And in the article, it ends at "mention" and is presented as a whole sentence. People are presenting some sentence fragments as whole sentences, and some whole sentences as sentence fragments. Either way, commas are sometimes not a part of quoted material when we state "he said" or "she said." We are sometimes the ones to add the commas right before the "he said" or "she said" parts; if they are conveying a complete sentence, Wikipedia says that we should put the commas within the quotes (like is usually done). In this particular case, however, I am not sure. The "(watch the 'Avatar' video game trailer here)" part is in parentheses. The complete sentence, what the reviewer is saying, is conveyed without that. Maybe the WP:Logical quotation section should be expanded to clarify. It has been interpreted differently by different people more than once, as also seen at Talk:The Twilight Saga: New Moon. I will bring in editor Finell in on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not just White's critical review. All around the world Avatar got several harsh critics. Mostly due to its purported poor artistic merits, and its concentration on technological grounds only. There should be a Criticism section for this movie, dedicated to criticism of the movie per se as well as its political agenda.Tom Peleg (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotun26 (talk • contribs)

Critical Reception
I have no problems with the quote from the New York Press that the film has anti american and anti militaristic themes. But the larger drawn out quote from Michelle Malkin is propaganda of the lowest kind. Avatar is apparently "anti-Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld", please. A graduate from a community college english program who maintains a blog and then became notable for being a talking head on conservative news programs is not, in my opinion, a reliable source for anything. Are there any protests to me removing this drivel? Regardless of whether you think she is a reliable source the criticism from that perspective is already covered adequately in my opinion. Freikorp (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am okay with you cutting it down or summarizing it, but I would say not to remove it. I would prefer that she not be censored, for the same reasons I stated above about Armond White. But you have stressed my point about what I was stating above there -- there are some people who view very conservative people as "out there" as well, and yet we have included the views of very conservative people in the Reception section. Why should White be censored, but not them? Flyer22 (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Malkin provides undue weight and is not an academic of film or any of its themes. She should be excluded in favor of authoritative opinions like historians who have studied imperialism and the like. Erik (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Valid points. But what about The Christian Post? They are not film critics in the traditional sense, and I doubt that most of them are historians (though that may depend on how "historian" is defined in that case). Flyer22 (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care for The Christian Post, either, nor Armond White. Like I said in the Armond White discussion, no mainstream critic truly disliked the film.  The two mainstream tepid reviews, Village Voice and Salon, are better to include. Erik (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree; negative views outside the mainstream of criticism should be condensed into one or two sentences, containing the points addressed, so that undue weight is not carried by voices that seek to inject excessive amounts of politics into the film, such as Michelle Malkin. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree that non-mainstream critics' views of the film should be limited to one or two sentences, though two or three sentences is usually all it takes to relay a film critic's thoughts of a film. Wikipedia has not made a call on condensing non-mainstream critics' views. A film critic is a film critic. What is mainstream and what is not mainstream has already been called subjective in a recent past discussion (currently seen above, which Erik was also involved in), about Metacritic and even Rotten Tomatoes (though I disagreed with most of those thoughts). Some of these mainstream critics are people the general public does not even know about. Flyer22 (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

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

AniRaptor, Re "voices that seek to inject excessive amounts of politics into the film" - Have you seen the last paragraph of Themes and inspirations? It looks like the filmmaker included his own politics when he made the film.
 * The film also contains implicit criticism of America's conduct in the War on Terror and the impersonal nature of mechanized warfare in general, as acknowledged by Cameron.[48] Although Cameron had said this was not the main point of Avatar, he did add that Americans had a "moral responsibility" to understand the impact of their country's recent military campaigns and those killed during them.[48] In reference to the use of the term "shock and awe" in the film, Cameron stated, "We know what it feels like to launch the missiles. We don't know what it feels like for them to land on our home soil, not in America. I think there's a moral responsibility to understand that."[48] Cameron additionally noted how mechanized warfare, allows one "the ability to do warfare at a distance, at a remove, which seems to make it morally easier to deal with, but its not".[48]


 * 48.

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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas to you too, Flyer22. If I've overstated any of my points, it's because yours have challenged me to think, and to re-examine my own positions. I respect your work on here, and I'm glad you've taken such an active interest in the article. Best wishes, Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cosmic Latte. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Reviews need to be limited to film critics, who are authorities about the film, and academics of subject matter covered by the film. For example, films like 300 and Apocalypto would benefit from the opinions of historians and anthropologists.  Malkin's opinion is purposely politicizing and has no place here.  As for Armond White and The Christian Post, these are vehemently negative reviews that are the tiny minority of the overall critical reception.  So undue weight very much applies.  That is why White and the Post should be replaced by Village Voice and Salon.  Avatar was critically acclaimed, and the virulent opinions should not be included for the sake of including.  Cosmic Latte said it well. Erik (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that reviews need to be limited to film critics and academics of subject matter covered by the film. When there is a big controversy about a film, for example, the reception section is not just limited to film critics and academics covered by the film. White and The Christian Post are not about some big controversy, but they should still be included. Their being "vehemently negative reviews that are the tiny minority" does not mean that they should not be represented. This is where WP:NPOV applies. There is nothing WP:UNDUE about including a bit of their thoughts. Even when a film is critically acclaimed, we still present the minority view -- those who disliked the film. White and The Christian Post should not be replaced by Village Voice and Salon. Village Voice and Salon should be added in front of them. AnmaFinotera made it clear in one quick statement above, in the section about Armond White, about not giving the impression that no one disliked this film. There are "non-mainstream" critics who also disliked this film, and certainly pass as reliable sources. There is no ban here on their inclusion in reception sections either, and it has already been stated by more than one editor that "mainstream" is subjective. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no "big controversy" about this film! Did you even read WP:NPOV?  WP:UNDUE is a section under it, and it says, "The views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."  You just contradicted this policy.  We do not include the completely opposite viewpoints just for the sake of inclusion.  WP:UNDUE addresses this: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."  The film is clearly critically acclaimed, and even the positive reviews don't exactly give the film an A+ grade, like A. O. Scott's review.  We will not have White, the Post, Village Voice, and Salon.  That degrades the critical acclaim of this film further.  The tepid reviews that are mainstream (as opposed to White and the Post) can explain the film's weaker points just fine. Erik (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * You contradicted the policy. With WP:NPOV saying, "The views of tiny minorities should not be included at all," you said, "Their being 'vehemently negative reviews that are the tiny minority' does not mean that they should not be represented."  Contradiction.  It is clear that the film has received critical acclaim, and White and the Post are not part of the group from Rotten Tomatoes' Top Critics nor Metacritic that is cited for these reception sections.  Their inclusion disrupts the balance of critical reception in this article because their opinions are played up as real opposition when they are just the tiny minority.  That's why I think Village Voice and Salon are better cited to demonstrate the film's weaknesses.  Please let me know what you think about a proposed "Social commentary" section below; this would allow classic film reviews in the "Critical reception" section and more non-review commentary in the "Social commentary" section, so we can summarize the thoughts on imperialism and so forth. Erik (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You see it as a contradiction, but I do not. I was quoting you when I called them a tiny minority. I have already made it clear that I do not believe they are a tiny minority. Even if they were, I personally do not believe they should not be represented; that was my point on the "tiny minority" bit. White and The Christian Post not being a part of the group from Rotten Tomatoes' Top Critics or Metacritic does not matter. Their inclusion does not disrupt the balance of the Critical Reception section; their opinions are "real opposition." Who is to say what "real opposition" is in this case? That is not our judgment call. And, yes, I will comment below on your proposal. Flyer22 (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merry Christmas to the whole Avatar family here on wiki. Regarding the reception section, I believe we can take the opportunity to consolidate the vast range of critique surrounding this film, and properly consolidate it in a way that is representative of that reception as a whole. If conservative voices (film critics, pundits, whatever) have made a point of criticizing the film, let it be known. If environmentalists appreciate the film, let it be known. If President Obama had stated that he enjoyed the film, we would probably be putting that in here, even though he certainly isn't a mainstream critic. We should present as many points of view as possible, but give the most space to criticism that comes from established voices, and almost no space to those who are simply spewing politics, pro- or anti-imperialist/america/etc. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, AniRaptor2001. Thank you for the change in attitude about this. Flyer22 (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


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

← I propose a rewrite of some elements of the article. This is what I propose: Moving "Themes and inspirations" out of "Production" and into its own section, perhaps as "Social commentary". If desired, White and the Post can be placed there because it is desired, but this article seems like a good place to begin critical interpretation outside of the classic film reviews which widely acclaim the film. Village Voice and Salon can be added as classic film reviews. In the "Social commentary" section, we can have non-film critics' commentary there. Erik (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems reasonable, as the movie's themes and inspirations are clearly at the root of a substantial portion of the criticism, outside of the film's production values. Is there any precedent for this in film articles? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


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


 * Pardon my jumping in, but personally, I'm fine with either Erik's suggestion or Flyer22's "alternative" proposal. I just don't like seeing folks who aren't established as "film critics" being lumped together with those who are; but insofar as either suggestion could achieve some de-lumping, I'm perfectly fine with it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, you're not jumping in, Cosmic Latte. You were already a part of this discussion, and your opinions are clearly welcomed. White is an established film critic, though established with ridicule, but I already know how you feel about him (LOL). Thanks for trying to compromise further on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cosmic is certainly right, we shouldn't include voices outside mainstream criticism without clearly indicating who they are, i.e.: conservative blogger, liberal think tank, political pundit, etc. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * When it is a "non-mainstream" critic from a reliable source, such as the various ones found at Rotten Tomatoes, I doubt we can appropriately categorize them, other than stating what publication they are from...unless they categorize themselves as liberal or conservative, etc. For example, one editor in the Mainstream critics in association with Metacritic section above feels that Time Out New York is non-mainstream. But I state that we would not title them as "non-mainstream." We would just state "[So and so] of Time Out New York stated..." Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I am letting you all know that I will be seeing the Avatar film tonight. Because of this, I will properly be able to help out with the plot section if needed. Since I am getting ready now, and will be leaving soon after that, I will not be commenting here for a few hours; I may not be back here until even later. Talk with you guys then. Flyer22 (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just got back from seeing this film, and "whoa." The film is simply awesome. Wait, it's not really "simple," but you get what I mean. I would go into further detail about my feelings regarding it, but this is not a forum. In basic Wikipedia terms, I feel better equipped to edit this article now, especially the Storyline section....and still without bias. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Amazing, isn't it :) There's a lot going on, and the plot section does need to be a little bit long to get everything in. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, sorry I haven't been here a while, just taking my vacation. Considering the plot section, I think that the length is good for now. Now ya'll know what I meant by length ;)-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC))


 * I find the criticism too American-centric, but that's just my opinion. The film has an amazingly deep message that appeals to the human spirit, and different people will have different reactions to it. Therefore Conservatives are not likely to understand the message as well, because all they can do is dismiss it as pro-Green and anti-American. But this completely misses the big picture that the film is attempting to portray. I found a connection with environmentalism, the Amazon rainforest...and the faliure of the Copenhagen Conference (considering it was released on the last day). At the end of the film, Jake opens his eyes to his own kind. He "wakes up" to his actions and to humanity's conscience, all the while the humans are telling him to wake up. Therefore he is stranded forlorn, in the middle of two worlds. At the end of the film, Jake "sees" what is going on. This is also a self-reference in the fact that his avatar dies in one world where his body is still intact in the human one. The film is not about American imperialists against Native Americans. To think so misses the point as well as the bigger picture. It as about humanity against itself. The criticism is separated by ideology, just as humanity itself is. Political, religious and historical barriers. The film invites a person to examine those barriers, and find that they are not worthwhile and in fact, detrimental to our own existence. Just some uncensored food for thought. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 20:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)