Jump to content

Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26

Star wars

I see someone keeps adding stars wars in relation to more boxoffice sales....we need a source for this change. -- Moxy (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Source was/is already there. I was the one who changed the article. I did not add anything to the article (without a source) I merely corrected the article section according the the two sources next to the sentences I edited. Please check the sources and demonstrate that my edit is wrong using those sources. Other sources of course my counter the information in the sentences I corrected but that is another issue and is not what I did in my edit. Robynthehode (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I will hit the 3 revert so back here. You said 'how is it possible a source from 2010 says anything about StarWars' I think you are mistaking Star Wars for The Force Awakens. Of course a source from 2010 which is stating an adjusted for inflation figure can refer to Star Wars - Stars Wars: A New Hope - which is exactly what the source is referring to. Before reverting my edits please check the sources. That is what I did and why I made my original edit to correct the article so it was in accord with the sources that the text was supported by. I would urge you to check these sources and change the edit (if it confirms I am correct - I have treble checked the sources) back to what I put. I will check the sources again and change the article tomorrow if my rechecking of the sources support my edit. Robynthehode (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
i am not sure what you are seeing ...its says " Within 31 days of its opening, his new movie Avatar had left Star Wars's box office record in the dust." it mentions StarWars in passing like with The Dark Knight's....would a source with numbers not be better? lets look for a more recent source. -- Moxy (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok after some research i see what is trying to be said. should we look at DOMESTIC GROSSES Adjusted for Ticket Price Inflation for the source?. -- Moxy (talk)
Okay more in depth (much of this written before your last edit Moxy but now merged in so I don't have to rewrite). My original edit was based on the article here [[1]]. And I was editing the sentence 'On a worldwide basis, Avatar ranks third after adjusting for inflation, behind Gone with the Wind andTitanic,[206] although some reports place it ahead of Titanic.[207]' The first citation which is from the Daily Telegraph in 2010 does state 'Within 31 days of its opening etc' (which by the way does not support box office figures nor any rankings and the reference re Star Wars was about box office grosses not grosses adjusted for inflation) but later in the article 'But still, once you adjust those box office records to acknowledge the effects of inflation, it's a slightly different story:

1. Gone with the Wind – $2,984m

2. Titanic – $2,896m

3. Star Wars – $2,199m

4. Avatar – $2,021m

5. E.T. The Extra Terrestrial – $1,897m'

So this is the source and there is Avatar in fourth place which is what I put in the article merely trying to correct the article to match the source. Second citation which is meant to support the text 'although some reports place it ahead of Titanic is from Reuters and on further checking I see I have misread that article which does support this statement. My apologies. However further edits to this sentence after my edits added Box Office Mojo citations. As far as I can see on Box Office Mojo it only supplies information on domestic (USA and Canada I believe) grosses adjusted for inflation not International. The international figures are unadjusted grosses and therefore using Box Office Mojo in this case is not correct. I see the current edit of the article no longer has the Box Office Mojo citation. As per my original statements I was only trying to edit the article to match the sources. This is what a good Wikipedia editor does and if we make mistakes we correct them. I hope this present edit with Avatar in fourth place with no citation from Box Office Mojo is acceptable to all Robynthehode (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I dont see these numbers on that page...but I believe you. So all ok for now-- Moxy (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment LOOK at the DATES on the sources: the Telegraph source is dated FEBRUARY 3, 2010 while Avatar was still playing. The Telegraph article states "Finally surging past Titanic's record last week, Avatar's haul topped $2 billion worldwide". The Telegraph goes on to say "But still, once you adjust those box office records to acknowledge the effects of inflation, it's a slightly different story" and provides the following table:
The Telegraph's chart of adjusted worldwide grosses as of February 2010
Rank Title Worldwide gross
(2010 $)
1 Gone with the Wind $2,984m
2 Titanic $2,896m
3 Star Wars $2,199m
4 Avatar $2,021m
5 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial $1,897m
The grosses for Gone with the Wind, Titanic, Star Wars and ET are all adjusted to 2010 prices. The gross for Avatar represents its gross up to February 3, 2010.


Avatar would ultimately finish its run in 2010 on $2,788 million. If you factor that in to The Telgraph's table, it would look like this:
How the chart would look after Avatar completed its run
Rank Title Worldwide gross
(2010 $)
1 Gone with the Wind $2,984m
2 Titanic $2,896m
3 Avatar $2,788m
4 Star Wars $2,199m
5 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial $1,897m
This chart continues to use The Telegraph's adjusted 2010 grosses for Gone with the Wind, Titanic, Star Wars and ET. The gross for Avatar represents its final gross at the end of its run in 2010 and is taken from Box Office Mojo.


As you can see, using The Telegraph's adjusted figures, Avatar would ultimately wind up behind Gone with the Wind and Titanic but ahead of Star wars, once you take into accounts its final gross rather than its gross of February 2010. However, this is disputed by Reuters which implies that adjusted for inflation that Titanic grossed less that $2.47 billion worldwide:

Director James Cameron's record-setting blockbuster has earned $1.78 billion internationally, with its worldwide tally weighing in at $2.47 billion. In addition to its worldwide record in current dollars, "Avatar" has now beaten 1997's "Titanic's" global box office milestone on an inflation-adjusted basis as well.

So going by the adjusted grosses given by The Telegraph and Reuters and the final gross for Avatar taken from Box Office Mojo, Avatar eventually finished behind Gone with the Wind but ahead of Star Wars, and may have beaten Titanic, which is accurately summarised by this version of the text. Betty Logan (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed comment Betty Logan. However it looks like your conclusions contravene WP:Synth. You have not provided a source that supports your conclusion for combining the two sources (the Telegraph and Box Office Mojo). In addition you are mixing apples with pears. The Telegraph source talks about international adjusted for inflation figures, Box Office Mojo only states international non adjusted figures (but adjusted figures for the domestic market - USA and Canada combined. You can't mix the two without performing original research. Provide the source that support your conclusions Robynthehode (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
How much inflation do you think there was during the first 35 days of Avatar's release? Avatar's gross is NOT adjusted for inflation, nor does it need to be: Avatar had grossed just over $2 billion as of the start of February (see All-Time chart) and The Telegraph is comparing the gross as of February 2010 to the adjusted grosses for Gone with the Wind, Titanic and Star Wars. A few months later Avatar had amassed $2.8 billion. By saying that Avatar came 4th adjusted for inflation (by using an eariler figure for Avatar) is actually misrepresenting facts, because you are ignoring the remainder of Avatar's run in which it added a further $700 million to its total. You are also misunderstanding WP:SYNTHESIS: synthesis does not prohibit combining two sources to source different facts, it prohibits combining two sources to create a new claim. There is no new claim here: we are using Box Office Mojo to source the final worldwide gross for Avatar (as opposed to using a figure that comes just a month into its run) and we are using the Telegraph as the source for the 2010 adjusted totals of the other films. Betty Logan (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your wonderful accusation by calling me a pedant. No I am not misunderstanding WP:Synth. As it says there 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.' You were trying to do exactly that because the conclusion you made (Avatar in third place) was based on information from the Telegraph and Box Office Mojo that was not stated in either of those sources when the figures were adjusted for inflation. And the ' when figures were adjusted for inflation' is the point here because neither you (in supplying a source saying so) or those sources show Avatar in third place explicitly. I am clearly correct on this point. If you can show me the source that explicitly states the worldwide adjusted for inflation figure for Avatar (and all the other films for the date of the theatrical run end of Avatar) then state that here and use it in the article. Then a clear comparison can be made. If I am a pedant for merely wanting Wikipedia article text to correctly reflect the source used to support it then you are simply blind to conceding that another editor wants Wikipedia to be as accurate as you want it to be - which smacks of self righteousness. Robynthehode (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I take it back: you are not a pedant, because you actually seem to be trolling now. As part of my original revert of your misrepresentation of the facts I immediately addressed your intial concern about something not explicitly backed up by the source by by removing the claim that Avatar was ranked third adjusted for inflation. The only claim I left sourced to the Telegraph was the claim that Gone with the Wind and Titanic had both potentially grossed more after adjusting for inflation to 2010 prices, which is corroborated by the source. As editors we select which parts of the source we use: if part of the source is no longer applicable due to the facts changing since publication then it is down to editorial discretion how much of the source we use. The Telegraph's claim that Star Wars was ahead of Avatar was a time sensitive claim that was clearly true at the point of publication, but clearly not applicable a month later considering that Avatar's gross eventually overtook the figure the Telegraph had down for Star Wars. You ask me for a source for "adjusted" figures at the end of Avatar's run a couple of months later? Well, I can just as easily ask you to provide a source to corroborate the claims that the Telegraph made about Avatar still hold after Avatar added a further $700 million—and thus fundamentally altering the premise of the original claim—to its total. Deliberately including information which we know is no longer representive of the facts to mislead readers are counter-productive to the goals of an encyclopedia. Betty Logan (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Wonderful now accused of trolling. Incredible! My initial edit was minor. I attempted to make the text reflect the sources which I did with the case of the Telegraph source. I made an error with regard to the Reuters source and apologised for that and accepted the information the Reuters source stated. This initial edit was not pedantry but trying to make the text reflect the sources. It can said that your edits are pedantry to reflect your particular view regarding the grosses and rankings of the films in question. With regard to your later comments above you are simply moving the goal posts in raising editorial choice. I believe you have violated WP:Synth. You have provided no information to counter that. Rather than trying to fulfil my request to provide a reliable source to support your edit re using the synthesis of the Telegraph and Box Office Mojo source information you have merely asked me to provide a source related to the time sensitive nature of the Telegraph source. Doesn't solve the issue does it? If you believed my edit was misrepresenting the facts then you should have changed the article to reflect the end of run Avatar information (with a source) and edited the text related to the Telegraph source to reflect its time sensitive nature. Instead you and other editors merely reverted my edits so the text remained inaccurate in its representation of the Telegraph source. And in all this you accuse me of pedantry, trolling and trying to mislead readers. Unbelievable. Try take a few steps back and reviewing how you have dealt with this. I know you're an experienced editor but we all make mistakes. I know I do and I apologise here very clearly if any previous comments I have made have been counterproductive. Will you? Robynthehode (talk) 08:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I dealt with the issue by immediately addressing your concern by removing the claim that it was ranked third adjusted for inflation (as you can see here). Regardless of whether it was a sufficient ammendment is besides the point, because you fully reverted to your preferred version without making any attempt to accommodate my concerns about outdated claims, as I had attempted to do with your revision. Maybe we would be better served if your reviewed your own actions because all I see from you in the article history is reverts, whereas all my reverts were followed by a pro-active attempt to resolve the problem with the wording. Betty Logan (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Erroneous citation 24

The citation following the sentence: "The stereoscopic filmmaking was touted as a breakthrough in cinematic technology.[24]" is erroneous. It links to http://newsblaze.com/entertainment/features/james-camerons-avatar-film-to-feature-vocals-from-singer-lisbeth-scott_62071/ which talks about the vocals in the film and has nothing to do with the previous sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Errollgarner (talk • contribs) 17:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2016

Remove citation 24 which does not refer to the sentence before.


Errollgarner (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: See the archived version. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 33 external links on Avatar (2009 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2017

77.77.75.64 (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Done  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 34 external links on Avatar (2009 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Avatar (2009 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

How best to cover Avatar's decline in popularity?

I've been been meaning to address this, but what is the best way to cover the decline in popularity for this film? For what I mean on its decline in popularity, if you don't know, see here, here, here and here, for example. This article is already huge, which was a concern back when I was heavily involved in building it and seeing that it reached WP:GA status. In fact, years later, we should probably reevaluate whether some things should be trimmed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll contact WP:Film about weighing in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Video games will tend to split "development" out first when a video game article gets to the "heavy" stage, as it's trivial to establish the split article's notability. We might conceivably also merge the cast list into the plot-proper--we don't need such-detailed character information if the plot is fully-realized here. (Aside: Fictional universe of Avatar and Pandoran biosphere probably need a merge.) --Izno (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The sequel information will also inevitably be spun off when that film gets to principal photography. --Izno (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Izno, I'm not clear on what you mean regarding the video game material. You are suggesting that we merge the small video game section with the Development section, and move it out of the Marketing section? And for the Cast section, you are suggesting that we get rid of it and let the cast names exist in the Plot section, while leaving a link to the Fictional universe of Avatar article for further detail? If so, are you suggesting that we move the Cast section to that article? I haven't seen film articles work without a Cast or Casting section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Video games: I was drawing a parallel to the usual spinouts for video game articles, of which the first is usually the development (and other "pre-release" information), while the second is the sequels. Occasionally the gameplay of a video game gets spun off, but that's more rare (and doesn't have a good films analog). Other spinoffs include a dedicated characters list or several characters articles, but these only usually appear where their associated works are in extended series, due largely to their susceptability to quality degradation and notability-based deletion.

Cast: My suggestion is that the current cast section is a mix of plot/characterization details and of production information (the castings). Cut the character details as they are IMO something of-low-weight in an article this size and move the casting information to the production section (while the cast<->character linkage can be placed in either of the two sections). Then, you might consider spinning out the production to a separate article, production of Avatar. --Izno (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

One other observation: We might plausibly reduce the current weight of the "Themes" section in this article, given its dedicated article linked prominently. --Izno (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
The article currently has 72kB and 12,000 words of readable prose, which is only just outside the suggested limits of 60kB and 10,000 words of readable prose per WP:SIZERULE. I would say that since the article lies just outside those limits the size is justified by its scope. It is worth bearing in mind that once the sequel is released the "sequel" section will also be excised from the article and incorporated into a new article which leave the readable prose at around 11,000 words. As Izno points out the character descriptions could be moved over to the Fictional Universe of Avatar article and we could just retain a basic cast here. If you really want to get it under 10,000 words the themes section could be completely merged out to the themes article, although I don't really think it's essential to do that. I would be against cutting out the development section because I think readers who visit the article would ordinarily expect to read about the film's development as they can do at most other film articles. Betty Logan (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Consistency with other films articles should not be a goal here. I'm of the opinion that readers can figure out where to go as long as we give them a pointer. WP:SUMMARY is important when we start getting into questions of WP:SIZE. --Izno (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
It is when it reflects MOS:FILM which advises that film articles should include a production section. The article is only just over the suggested size limit and as already pointed out will come down in size naturally once the sequel is released because the sequel content will form the basis of a new article. Betty Logan (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Izno, so you are okay with where the video game material currently is placed in the article? Or do you want it merged with the Production section? If so, I could agree to that. But why move it from the Marketing section? Also, it's only a little bit of material. As for the Cast section, what is there is typical. See The Dark Knight (film) article or the Star Wars: The Force Awakens article, for example. It's common to include casting and character description in the Cast section. In some cases, the casting material has its own section in the Production section (as in the case of the Star Wars: The Force Awakens article) or is simply a part of the Development subsection in the Production section. Personally, I prefer to have the casting material and bit of character detail in the Cast section; I think it's best to go ahead and have the material there where readers can easily find it and are likely to look for it. I agree with Betty that we should keep the Production section; I don't really see it as a valid option to completely cut or significantly downsize it and ship the rest of it off to a separate article. It doesn't need its own article. Plus, I don't like splitting out content and sending readers to another article...unless necessary. This topic already has enough spinout articles. I'd rather not cut the Themes section, but we could downsize it since we have the Themes in Avatar article for further detail. It we do downsize it, it should adequately summarize the Themes in Avatar article, per WP:SUMMARY. There is some content in that section not covered in the Themes in Avatar article; I think we should retain that somehow. And, if doing so is possible without cutting anything important, we could downsize the General section of the Box office section since we have List of box office records set by Avatar for further detail. That stated, the main article is simply a list at the moment; it currently doesn't provide context like the List of highest-grossing films article does. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
"so you are okay with where the video game material currently is placed in the article" This was never a question for me--you just misinterpreted what I originally wrote as caring about where the video game information is placed when it was actually about how video game editors tend to deal with large articles. (The video game section is fine where it is.)
As for the rest of both of your comments, feel free to steam at whatever heading you wish--I'm just providing a possible guiding star if in fact there is genuine concern that this article is too big (my feeling is that it is indeed too big, and minor low-hanging fruit like the box office and themes sections don't seem of sufficient size to noticeably reduce this article's size). --Izno (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment I just don't buy this "decline". No cultural footprint? There has been a major 3D revival. Avatar is forgotten? Really, why do we keep getting constant updates about the status of the sequel then? No fanbase—how do you you even qualify that? It seems to me this is just a handful of hacks writing for low-rent publications that are presenting anecdotal evidence in place of empirical evidence, their own prejudice in favor of impartial analysis. I'm no great fan of the film so I am not going out of my way to defend it, but I just don't see any hard facts to back up this so-called perceived decline. Obviously the excitement about it has subsided a bit, and there have been no sequels so far to retain/rejuvenate interest, but that does not equate to a decline in popularity. Has there been any major critical retrospective of critics re-evaluating their opinions or audience surveys that quantify this perceived decline?

It is worth considering Rotten Tomatoes. The tomatomer has been fairly static between 2011 and 2017. There has been 15 new reviews over that period and 13 of them were "fresh", so in line with its 83% score; in fact the average rating has risen from 7.4 to 7.5. The biggest shift has been with the audience score, dropping from 92% to 82%, but interestingly the average audience rating has remained static dropping from just 4.2 to 4.1. What that indicates is that the 20% of the audience who are marking it down now are not marking it down as severely as the 10% who were marking it down at the time of its release i.e. in place of one person marking 0/10 you are probably getting two people marking it 3/10 or 4/10 so that the average remains more or less consistent. This is a well known statistical phenomenon: the consensus at the extreme ends—both high and low—converges to the average. So yes, it's lost a bit of love over the years but the backlash has died away too and the current critical and audience consensus doesn't seem to have drifted from the average consensus at the time of its release going by the average ratings. Betty Logan (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Betty, the decline seems to be mostly among fans. I can't count the number of times I've seen guys dismiss or trash the film; this is despite the fact that most of them liked or loved the film in the beginning. I think that the sources have made good points on the matter and that we should at least cover it a little. I'm not stating that we need a lot of material on this. We could split the "Critical reception" section up so that we have an "Audience response" section and then add the "decline in popularity" aspect there. Also, what do you think of what Izno stated above? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
What I am saying is that I don't see any empirical evidence of a decline in popularity. I see some low-rent publications saying it has declined in popularity, but they provide no evidence to back up their assertion. If you look at that Rotten Tomatoes link the user poll indicates that more people have voted on it since 2011 than before 2011, and the average rating is virtually identical—4.2 down from 4.1. Obviously interest has subsided (i.e. people don't talk about it any more because it is 7 years old) but that doesn't equate with popularity. I see no evidence—either critics reviews or audience surveys—indicating that people like it substantially less now than when it came out. Betty Logan (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't consider the above sources to be low rent, except for maybe ScreenCrush. They are not any more low rent than the many other media sources we use in the article. I understand what you are stating, but my argument is that many men (and no doubt women too) who liked or loved this film no longer like it and that this occurrence is common enough that it has been covered in reliable sources. Even WatchMojo lists the film at number 1 in this regard. Titanic is number 2, and we specifically note the backlash and hatred that Titanic received and still receives; this is seen in the "Commercial analysis" section and "Critical response" section of the Titanic (1997 film) article. In the "Critical reception" section of the Avatar (2009 film) article, we don't really talk about backlash or consistent hate the film receives; we instead have a paragraph where the film is somewhat criticized for similarities.
Whether we want to call the "decline in popularity" aspect regarding Avatar "empirical evidence" or not, it's a matter that reliable sources cover and it's not like they are simply stating "Avatar has declined in popularity"; they offer up arguments, some of which I consider to be valid. If we look at this 2015 Complex source, it lists Avatar as one of "The 25 Worst Movies That Won Oscars." If we look at this 2016 The Daily Telegraph source, its titled "Avatar: how the biggest film of all time got left behind" and it states, in part: "But Avatar's bloom would quickly fade. Far from taking up permanent residency in the affections of the fan community, Cameron's rhapsody in blue has shrunk from the public consciousness. The debut this November of an Avatar-themed Cirque du Soleil show in North America ('Toruk The First Flight') is the first Avatar-related activity in over half a decade. The past several years have been untroubled by Avatar video games or novels. Cosplayers have shown little inclination to dress as Na'vi, the long-limbed natives of the lush and deadly moon Pandora. Cameron's bestiary of exotic monsters – a blur of boggle-eyed nightmares such as 'Leonopteryx', 'Stingbat', 'Direhorse' – has gained minimal traction in the fan community. Avatar, it seems, is a sandbox nobody wants to play in."
Clearly, a number of reliable sources have analyzed this topic. And it's why I feel that we should cover it, at least briefly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
So maybe we should have a Cultural impact section for the article and talk about the positives and negatives. But given the size of this article, I'd rather that we simply briefly cover this "decline in popularity" content with existing material. For a point of reference, though, Frozen (2013 film) is a big article and has a Legacy section that covers cultural impact. Template:TOC limit was recently added to that article because of the number of subsections it has. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I did not read all of the external links which you provided. I just read the Nicole Laporte article from the Daily Beast, called "The Avatar Backlash". Did you actually read the article or pay attention to its publication date? It was published on 17 December, 2009. It mostly describes a screening of the film in an annual film festival in Austin, Texas, and the disappointed reactions of the 200 viewers who watched it.

The film was brand new and fans did not like the film. That does not mean it has "declined" over a period of several years.

Then the journalist (and various colleagues) speculate on why fans did not like it: "The problem, it seems, is that Avatar is proving to be a little too much like Titanic—a dramatic love story that, to fan boys, is all about the sinking ship scene—as opposed to the James Cameron films that geeks hold closest to their hearts, such as Terminator I and II and Aliens. In other words, there are no tricked-out, never-before-seen gadgets, and non-stop fight scenes until the very end of the movie. Geeks can also do without the political and eco-commentary that are woven throughout Avatar, which amounts to a thinly veiled criticism of the United States’ might-makes-right foreign policy."

Because science fiction fans supposedly do not care for drama, love stories, ecology, or political criticism. Right... Dimadick (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Dimadick, yeah, I read that article. I was showing articles over a range of years, which is what I commonly do when arguing a case. I also noted that the Avatar (2009 film) article currently doesn't really mention a backlash, which is why I included that aforementioned backlash article above. Would you consider looking at the other sources I included, and any more that may concern this topic? They do address the decline aspect I mentioned. I have nothing else to state on the topic regarding that, as I'd simply be repeating myself. I felt it was best to ask about the matter on the talk page before implementing the text. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
DrNegative, in addition to Betty Logan, you were there with me from the beginning. I've been wondering if you have any opinions on these topics (popularity decline and article size). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
As long as it's properly sourced and widely prevalent enough to justify the weight, I have no qualms about article size. On another note, 8 years...seems like yesterday. :) DrNegative (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:SIZE, we do need to keep size in mind when adding things to this article, though. And, yeah, time flies by fast. To me, it flies by too fast these days. When we're children, it seems like times goes by slow. I couldn't wait to be age 13, for example. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Skin color of avatar

Can any one tell me that why avatar is blue not other colors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LieqiangGUO TPT (talk • contribs) 20:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

in the view of James Cameron, skin color is great, and it’s also great thematically, because skin color is obviously such a big issue on our planet. But all the warm tones — from pallid Canadian pink, to beautiful warm browns and, well, pallid Australian pink — were all taken. So the skin color avatar can be chosen in blue and green basically — and green had been taken by all those Martian movies with the little green men, then the blue is chosen.--YunzhiWU TPT (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

But I read some papers, one of them was written by Mr. Casilli Antonio, it's called "Les avatars bleus". In this paper, Mr. Casilli proposed some different opinions about why avatars are blue. I recommend you to read it. I sure you can find some interesting things.--LieqiangGUO TPT (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your recommendation, I have read it. But it is in French, so it is not very easy to understand, can you do some explanations for me.--YunzhiWU TPT (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I try me best. If you find it is not the same as what you thought, welcome to share your opinions about it. In "Les avatars bleus", it said that a ghost has been haunting the global imaginary all throughout the 1990s : the paradigmatic "avatar", shaped as an androgynous, hairless, slim - and blue - body , is a recurring feature within computer imaginary. it outlines an historical and geographical mapping of this iconic template, culturally locating the contributions of academic postmodernism, feminism, the New Age movement, comics and pop culture to the building of a mythographic pattern stirring up this blue "virtual body". and it displays three cultural borrowing methods : 1) détournement, 2) propaganda, 3) substratum interference.--LieqiangGUO TPT (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

That is very great. But what is the relationship between the article and the film avatar?--YunzhiWU TPT (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, it is a good question. I think that avatars in James Cameron's film also represents something, but I can tell exactly what they are. In my personal opinons, I think that depends on different people. Everyone may have his own opinion about it. But from the academic view, we care more about the things beyond the skin color. We compare it with other things, and try to find out some patterns.--LieqiangGUO TPT (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

how to use a calendar

As this article is semiprotected, I won't try to make a change, but I can recomend it to fanboys who stop through.

In the opening paragraphs —

  • Avatar 2 was scheduled for release in December 2018 before being delayed, with the sequels following in December 2020, 2022, and 2023, respectively. The sequels are scheduled for release in 2020, 2021, 2024 and 2025.

Go, Team WP: consecutive sentences, yet. As the Dire Straits song says, "One of them must be wrong."
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2017

116.66.188.10 (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 12:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Avatar (2009 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Avatar (2009 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Budget

Betty Logan and others, any thoughts on this edit by TropicAces? Any WP:Undue weight concerns? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

If I remember correctly the $450–500 million figures came from an NY Times article which had included marketing and 3D R&D—neither of which counts as the budget. You can get the full background at List_of_most_expensive_films#cite_note-avatar-38. The Vanity Fair article (found at my link) effectively debunked the 400 mil and 500 mil figures. Betty Logan (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Zoe Saldana's name

Arcadeice, regarding this and this, how does whatever reliable source you've added justify you changing the formatting of Zoe Saldana's name? The WP:Hidden note quite clearly states, "As in most of her work, she's credited as 'Zoe,' not 'Zoë,' 'Saldana' not 'Saldaña.' Please see her article for sources." This is a fact that still stands today. Also look at the title of her Wikipedia article. You have not justified changing "Zoe Saldana" to "Zoë Saldaña" or "Zoë Saldana." So do stop doing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Sequel titles

BBC News reports that the four sequels will be titled Avatar: The Way of Water, Avatar: The Seed Bearer, Avatar: The Tulkun Rider and Avatar: The Quest for Eywa. Just wondering if we should add these. This is Paul (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

BBC is very clear that they are only possible titles, both in the heading "Avatar sequels titles revealed?" with a question mark, and in the article text: "BBC News has seen documentation regarding future Avatar plans which makes reference to four specific projects". BBC doesn't say the documentation shows they are film titles. Any mention should both say it is from BBC and make it clear they are not actually claimed titles by BBC but only possible titles. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like a sensible plan. This is Paul (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
After reverting others who claimed it as fact, I mentioned Avatar: The Way of Water [2] as a possible title in Avatar 2. It was reverted [3] with edit summary "Fake news. Not the real title." PrimeHunter (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
And by someone with a handful of edits no less. A person in the know, perhaps? Maybe we should defer to their greater knowledge, and lament that even that bastion of journalism known as the BBC can be guilty of speculation. This is Paul (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Putting a disambiguation note

Since this is semi-protected, can someone please edit and put a disambiguation note at the start? like this..

This page is about the 2009 film. For the concept in Hinduism, see Avatar. For the computing use, see Avatar (computing). For other uses, see Avatar (disambiguation).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.53.115 (talk • contribs)

Why does an article called "Avatar (2009 film)" need a note telling readers it is about the "2009 film"? Who is going to come to an article called "Avatar (2009 film)" expecting it to be about Hinduism or computer avatars? Betty Logan (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

On this article's semi-protection

Semi-protection was added to this article in 2012. I believe that the semi-protection is unnecessary in 2019, seeing as that talk of the film has died down a lot, and it doesn't seem to be a page that would be a target for vandals in 2019. ImYourTurboLover (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm against it. Any Wikipedia page will be a target for vandals. I prefer stable articles, where I don't have to worry about IPs or new registered accounts and their vandalism or disruptive editing. At the Titanic (1997 film) article, which, as you likely know, is another article about a James Cameron film, we get significant vandalism or disruptive editing every time the semi-protection is taken off that article. As of 2017, that article is currently semi-protected. Sure, that film has a lot of haters or people who just like to poke fun at it even if they love it, but the same goes for Avatar. Like I stated on this talk page before, Avatar's legacy hasn't held up as well as one would have thought it would. Yes, we can give unprotection another try with this article. But why? The article is a WP:Good article and has been stable for years. What help from IPs and new registered accounts does it need? And why isn't allowing IPs and new registered accounts to request changes here on the talk page enough? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
It's still the highest-grossing film and still holds many records so I am against it too. It gets 6,000–10,000 hits per day so is still a page that gets a lot of traffic. If I had my way Titanic would be protected too based on the level of disruption we get there. Betty Logan (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The Titanic (1997 film) article is semi-protected, Betty. See where I noted that it's been semi-protected since 2017? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry Flyer, I misread your comment. That said I think it just reinforces the argument. The reasons these articles are protected is because they sustained serious disruption and it is still ongoing. These articles are highly developed so would not benefit from having their protection rescinded. Betty Logan (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2019

In the lead section, please add the full dates (December 19 and December 17) for Avatar 4 and 5 in alignment with the dates for the other two sequels. Alternatively, reduce all four sequels' dates to a shorter format, but so that it is aligned. The source for the edits is the THR source already used to confirm the new dates. 134.61.85.157 (talk) 05:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 07:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"American"

Betty Logan, any thoughts on this edit I reverted TropicAces on? I remember you being involved in the "American" discussions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

yeah, there wasn’t any discussion on the talk page, and both AFI and LUMIERE say it’s a UK co-production. Like with films like Dunkirk, there are some conflicting reports on what countries helped make it but when that happens don’t we list all options (just like budgets)? Tell me if I’m wrong. TropicAces (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)tropicAces
TropicAces, we obviously have archives. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn lol ok with the passive-aggressive attitude, they’re not accessible on mobile, which is what I tend to operate from. So I went off what two reputable sources said. TropicAces (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)tropicAces
(that was semi-passive-aggressive on my end too, I apologize haha) TropicAces (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)tropicAces
TropicAces, I wasn't trying to be passive-aggressive. I was just stating that discussions don't stay on the talk page...if an archive is set up. The hidden note should have pointed to one or more specific discussions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
So we should go with TropicAces's edit or something similar? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
If the AFI and the European Audiovisual Observatory regard it as an international co-production then I suppose the question is on what basis are we challenging that? These are two authoritative organizations that have drawn to the same conclusion. Betty Logan (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
TropicAces, see Betty Logan's comments above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I see that you made this edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn / Betty Logan ha I can’t seem to win for losing here. Yeah obviously I’m in the “more than one source has it as a co-production so it should be listed as such” camp, but at this point I’ll just settle on having the infobox and lead section being on the same page haha... TropicAces (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

Possible box office error

The box office figures used in this article derive primarily from the boxofficemojo.com site.

On 17 July 2019, Box Office Mojo's totals for Avatar read $760,507,625 (Domestic), $2,027,457,462 (International), $2,787,965,087 (Worldwide). It had remained the same for quite some time.

On or around 21 July 2019, these totals were changed to $760,507,625 (Domestic, unchanged), $2,029,172,169 (International), $2,789,679,794 (Worldwide).

I have not found any evidence of another re-release of Avatar recently: there's no mention of a recent release on IMDb, Box Office Mojo, other industry sites or general news sites.

It is possible that the added scrutiny over Endgame surpassing Avatar uncovered some $1.7 million that needed to be added to the Avatar total that had previously been overlooked, but it is also possible that an error has been made. I've contacted Box Office Mojo. It's something to keep an eye on. Ordinary Person (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not an error. Disney reported the official final Avatar numbers on June 20. The numbers on Box Office Mojo were not up to date and were missing some of the latest reissues in other countries. Once Disney sent those numbers out, Box Office Mojo updated them the next day. Read Disney's press release here. Starforce13 13:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

I have found three sources in this article that have changed locations since they’ve been placed in the article, and I would like those changed to their current location, and in one case, have the info about the source match.

"James Cameron supercharges 3-D" is now at https://variety.com/2008/digital/features/james-cameron-supercharges-3-d-1117983864/

"Cameron sets live-action, CG epic for 2009" is now at https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cameron-sets-live-action-cg-127505

and SciFiWire's "Avatar's Cameron shrugs off buzz – and promises a sequel" is now (on Syfy) at https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/avatars_cameron_shrugs_of

I recommend access dates being updated as well. By the time I do location checks on every reference in this article, I’d probably be established by then BaseFree (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Note: All of those citations have been archived. Are we supposed/need to update links that have been archived? Thanks  Darth Flappy «Talk» 18:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 Already done: @BaseFree, I see that you made the requested edits yourself. Nice job! Next time, please remember to mark the edit request as answered so that the page will be automatically removed from the list of edit requests. TJScalzo (talk) 06:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I do apologize for forgetting to mark it off. I figured if i didn’t get the proper response in time, I’d take care of it when I was autoconfirmed. And as for why update sources to their current URL homes when they’re already archived? An archive does not mean you have to stop tracking the life of a page. Yes, it’s great to have an archive but at least care to keep up with the source's life. IGN, People, Entertainment Weekly, and The A.V. Club for example have all consolidated their archives off of subdomains, but if you search well enough, they keep their archives pretty darn well. Fox Sports and the Today show moved off of MSN years ago, but their independent domains are pretty reliable. I just wish people.com Wikipedia searches for the old article URLs with zeroes and commas were a little easier--BaseFree (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
No worries! It's truly fascinating how many sources that were automatically archived by a bot can still be found on the original website, just at a different location. I will sometimes go through archived references myself and see if the original can be found anywhere. It's one of the small things I enjoy doing to improve Wikipedia, in addition to going through and helping with edit requests. I wish you luck on your journey through Wikipedia! TJScalzo (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Back at no. 1

Is this worth adding? Kailash29792 (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The updated box office numbers should be added, and Endgame's mention should be changed. ภץאคгöร 17:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to Avatar:The Last Airbender

I want to ask y'all whether or not it would be a good idea to include a redirect to Avatar:The Last Airbender. Some folks get that series confused with the James Cameron movie, so it might be a good idea to include such a redirect (and one on the A:TLA page to this article). Accurateworldwar (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so, and the Shyamalan movie was not titled Avatar because of this. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel like we totally should include a redirect to the Avatar: The Last Airbender, as both this movie and the series share the same name (Personally, I think that 'The Last Airbender' is just a subtitle). We don't have to include a redirect to the M. Night Shyamalan movie as the title is just 'The Last Airbender'. Bigboithena (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Bad link for note '3'

Link on note 3, AVATAR 2D is going to a page giving "error 410" Astenor (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Related Media

I feel like the "Related Media" section should be removed from this article and moved/merged with Avatar_(franchise) page. This page is about the 2009 movie whereas the Avatar_(franchise) page is about the franchise. Stage Adaptation, Theme Park, and Novels are about the franchise and not the first movie. 2600:1700:D8:8040:9551:D02F:89D8:7DF0 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

2021 re-release

The main text does NOT include any sort of mention of the 50+M revenue from the 2021 Chinese release. Considering it gave the "title" back it should be mentioned somehow in the main text. 188.27.42.181 (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Avatar (franchise) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Avatar (franchise) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avatar (franchise) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Box Office Error

There seems to be a box office error, stating: "Avatar is the second highest-grossing movie of all time after Gone with the Wind with a total of more than $3 billion.

Gone with the Wind actually grossed over 390 million worldwide, as opposed to 3 billion. 216.30.159.210 (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussed at Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 26#Star wars. DonIago (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2022

Please add the following template to the article:

2601:241:300:B610:7D07:2974:4F71:665E (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Whitespace?

Is anyone else seeing a lot of whitespace between the lead and the Plot section, possibly due to the TOC and infobox considerably narrowing the margins? Not sure whether it may be specific to my viewing conditions. If it's not specific to me, do we have options for cleaning that up a bit? DonIago (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Doniago: I only see whitespace to the right of the TOC. Is that what you mean? It's normal when the TOC is longer than any right-floating content like an infobox and image. We generally don't display article text to the right of the TOC. {{TOC limit|3}} would remove two subsections of "Box office" in the TOC. That would be OK with me. I wouldn't like {{TOC limit|2}} to also remove all level 3 headers. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure why it bothers me in this case in particular (which isn't to say it bothers me that much)...perhaps because the TOC is particularly lengthy. In any case, I didn't observe that setting the limit to 3 made much difference, but I'm a little out of my depth here. Definitely not a big deal. DonIago (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

So I’m gonna add United Kingdom and Hungary as the countries of production due to the fact that Ingenious is a British company and there’s a Hungarian distributor for the 4K re-release

Can I do that? Leo of Monterrey (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Having a Hungarian distributor doesn't make it a Hungarian film. Betty Logan (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok Leo of Monterrey (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)/Archive_26&oldid=1214176934"