Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:50, 4 October 2013

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Avatar. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Avatar at the Reference desk.

	Avatar (2009 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 28, 2010 Good article nominee Listed June 1, 2010 Peer review Reviewed April 6, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on January 26, 2010. Current status: Good article

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: British / New Zealand / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the British cinema task force. This article is supported by the New Zealand cinema task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Science Fiction High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Animation: Films / Computer Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Computer animation work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Cinema Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as High-importance).

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

Avatar as Noble savage

I wrote some about the lot of critical where written Avatar work with idea of Noble savage but it was removed. I know it is literary term, but some critical was mark that that is an week point of the story. In the real not so happy everything. Some people was depressed by this paradox! So it is a critical! Let search in google about "Avatar and Noble savage" there will be over 300.000 hit but in this article no one sentence about it! --Szente (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Forexample not so hard to see the connection between Avatar effect and Noble savage sory. --Szente (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying that Avatar is not a "noble savage story", but I meant to say in the summary that if "Avatar is a noble savage story" is a fact, it could not belong in "Critical reception" because it cannot be disputed. If you mean to talk about how that is used negatively, then that needs to be explained as well. Your edits did not contain any information besides the fact that it is a "noble savage story". The "Avatar effect" article you pasted does not seem to have anything to do with "noble savage" and trying to connect that to it would be original research. It might be possible to work the term into "Critical reception" where it would make sense, but where you placed it made the paragraph jump topics. The term alone could belong in a section talking about themes, but there is no talk of Jake's "heroism" in "Themes and inspirations" and that section is already well developed with Cameron's own reasons and inspirations.

Also, if you're using Google hits, avatar + film + noble savage gives 1.77 million while avatar + film yields 494 million, so "noble savage" is mentioned in 0.358% of the pages containing both "avatar" and "film" and I don't see how that could help your argument. (An argument which I am not arguing with, might I add.) – Jonadin93 (talk) @ 00:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So if I see the connection between "Avatar effect" and that fact the Avatar film is a "noble savage story" that is an original research? Maybe as much like 1+1=2.

What is a Noble Savage? "...There are several problems with the noble savage myth. The first is that it bears no basis in reality; many “primitive” cultures have the same problems that Western civilization does, including brutality, war, lying, over-exploitation of resources, and selfishness, suggesting that these characteristics may be more innate to human society than goodwill..."

Many criticism say Avatar is a "noble savage story". And if for you clear what is the noble savage, you know that is romantic term and as well have some negatív meaning too about reality. So it could be a complete criticism when I say "that is a noble savage story". I have just wanted write this not more. --Szente (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

About the numbers. I think follow your thinking way we have to delete Qatar from wikipédia 'cose it population less than 0.358% compare to world population. --Szente (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

First off, you are getting a bit too worked up over this. All I said was that I believed where you placed the sentence was incorrect, not that I did not think that it belonged in the article. However, yes, that is precisely what original research is. This is directly from the first paragraph of WP:OR: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." If you placed the equation "1+1=2" into an article, you would need a source for that because this is an encyclopedia. You are surmising that the article is referencing a "noble savage story" because it does not mention the phrase. Even though it may be known, you do not have a source explicitly stating that the information is true.

The "article" from wisegeek that you reference is talking about "noble savage" applying to civilizations throughout history, not its literary usage used to describe a work of fiction. Also, you completely misinterpreted my reference of the page hits. You attempted to justify that the mention of "noble savage" belongs in this article using page hits that are not significant, and all I did was show how you did not help your (nonexistent) argument because they are insignificant. Opinions held by an extreme minority are not notable because all of them cannot possibly be covered reasonably in an article. Although only 0.358% of the pages about Avatar that come up on a Google search mention "noble savage", I am not saying that it is not notable even if it is a minority opinion. If it's a literary term and is simply labeling the movie as a "noble savage story" then this is all irrelevant! – Jonadin93 (talk) @ 08:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not understanding the point you are trying to get across by adding your sentence to the article. If it is possible for you to work the sentence into the article so that it allows for smooth progression between points in the section it is placed in, I think that you should just add the sentence to the article and I will leave it alone. This argument is going nowhere, and by doing so, we will hopefully see whether or not other editors believe it is a constructive addition. – Jonadin93 (talk) @ 08:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry I don't want to do big argument about this. My goal was only that to note that this is a "noble savage" story. In fact this film is the most "noble savage" movie in the last years. There are many article by sites about this, but here wasn't any sentence. I just wanted a short note, not any more. I don't want to over explain. I choosed the critical section, because this is a fact and criticism too.

All Right I will think over this and try find out something to write this into the article. --Szente (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Billion box office

Hello everyone, I'm wikipedist from Spanish Misplaced Pages and I came here to search information about the box office between this film and The Avengers. In the section of "Box office" states: "On the 19th day of the film's international release, it crossed the $1 billion mark worldwide, making it the fastest film ever to do so", at this point, Avengers is in fact the fastes film to achive that title, considering its realese at worldwide range. Since 4th May to 13 of the same month -being only 9 days-, Avengers has collected $1 billion in tickets. I let this to your information and complete this article. Regards, Gtr. Errol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtr. Errol (talk • contribs) 04:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gtr. Errol. Thank you for letting us know! However, the first source for the sentence (in addition to the actual sentence) on The Avengers (2012 film) says that the record is tied between the two films in addition to the last Harry Potter film. So, I have adjusted the sentence (around here) to reflect that source. – Jonadin93 (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Avatar named one of the 100 greatest films of all-time by the TIME magazine.

http://entertainment.time.com/2012/05/17/movie-masterpieces-richard-corliss-expands-times-list-of-cinematic-greats/#avatar ....... All-TIME 100 Movies

http://entertainment.time.com/2012/05/17/top-10-movies-of-the-millennium/#avatar-2009-u-s ......The 10 Greatest Movies of the Millennium (Thus Far)

I think the first link should be in the introductory paragraph. Time has the second most reputed "greatest" films list ... It think that is a decent achievement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmystewart1991 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I updated the sentence about Time at the bottom of the critical reception section using your sources. DrNegative (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Avatar 3: The Na'vi's Final Stand???

The opening line of this article gives the film's full title as "Avatar 3: The Na'vi's Final Stand", but having googled this phrase, the only place it is mentioned on all of the internet is on this page. Surely it has to be wrong/made up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.43.155 (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Note for archive: It was made up indeed, and was reverted with this edit. Having the opening line (and other parts of the article, but especially the opening line) titled that, despite Avatar 3 not having been made yet, if it is to be made at all, and therefore this article not being the Avatar 3 article, was pure stupidity on the vandal's part. That is, if he wanted his vandalism to last longer than it did. But then again, vandalism isn't a smart thing to do to begin with. Flyer22 (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it was a rumour?--88.111.123.155 (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

HFR Interest

Should mention James Cameron's interest to shoot the film in 48 fps or 60 fps?--88.111.116.8 (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Small plot error

Tried to make a small correction to the plot summary but kept getting a conflict error. I'm pretty sure the army chap (Quidich, or whatever his name is) ejects from his own helicopter-like aircraft and not from the huge bomber as is currently stated. Mr Morden76 (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder why you kept getting a WP:EDIT CONFLICT message. Although this editor edited not long before you did, you were the only one editing when you made the following changes: Flyer22 (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless it was some type of other edit conflict you were getting; like you stated "conflict error." Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

"Home media "

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is a date of "home media release. It should be added also in this category or other date of TV release e.g.:

"First release of Avatar in TV varied by countries. For example in Poland first "small screen" projection was on 4 march 2013."

Reasons:

• The date of TV release is in many articles on Misplaced Pages about films or TV series.
• The countries are especially showed on, because date vary.
• It can give some calculations to known when will be release of next Avatar films.
• It shows still achieved great differences(e.g. there is about 4 years!) just because of company politics.
• Despite gaps, some TV companies buy this, so the audience must be quite great, and it show how popular is film, how many can see, how it raise/lower the income from film.
• Especially because many people still just only watch TV, or don't go to cinema,
• In this case it also shows some interesting premiere plays - e.g. Avatar was first aired on the... Monday in Polish TV.

I don't understand. What change do you say needs to be done?--Launchballer 16:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: I think the general way this is done is to include the first date of release. Mdann52 (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Country

Both the United States and the United Kingdom are listed as countries, I included Britain along with America with a reliable source yet you still reverted it. Why? Anarchistdy (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

See the previous discussion at these two locations: , . There may be more discussions in other archives, but as I and others have said, this has been discussed before and a consensus has been reached before. It's not hard to search the archives to find evidence of such discussions. I managed to do it in less than 15 seconds. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 09:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No consensus was reached on those archives, other than not listing either 'American' or 'American-British' which is what I suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchistdy (talk • contribs) 10:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Anarchistdy, WP:Pipelinked my username in the heading; see here. I have removed it with this post of mine, per Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages.

The first discussion GSK linked to above is about using "American" vs. "U.S."; the second discussion GSK linked to above is about "American" vs. "American-British." The consensus in that latter discussion, based on the weight of the arguments, is to list the film as American. And if some see no consensus there for that, it would be more accurate to state that the consensus was to list the film as American, to not list it as American or British, or that there was no consensus on anything regarding this. There might also be other discussions about the topic in the archives; though I've been at this article for years, I'd have to check the archives to see if there are any other discussions about this in them. Like I told Anarchistdy in one of the reverts shown at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard about edit warring over this county matter, WP:FILM is there to contact about this country-listing topic. Flyer22 (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

1. http://www.polsat.pl/Nasze_Programy,2846/Avatar,1312585/index.html

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Media and drama good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class film articles
• GA-Class British cinema articles
• British cinema task force articles
• GA-Class New Zealand cinema articles
• New Zealand cinema task force articles
• GA-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• GA-Class science fiction articles
• High-importance science fiction articles
• WikiProject Science Fiction articles
• GA-Class Animation articles
• Mid-importance Animation articles
• GA-Class Animation articles of Mid-importance
• GA-Class Animated films articles
• Mid-importance Animated films articles
• Animated films work group articles
• GA-Class Computer animation articles
• Mid-importance Computer animation articles
• Computer animation work group articles
• WikiProject Animation articles
• GA-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• GA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• High-importance American cinema articles
• WikiProject United States articles