Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

The name of "the corporation"

Currently, the plot and the article as a whole is a mish of references to the entity that mines Pandora. From the film, all that can be deduced is that we're dealing with some sort of corporation, and that its name is "RDA" from the logos on ships and equipment. Other material available on the internet (and perhaps in the official books) reveals it to be the "Resource Development Administration", a quasi-governmental organization that developed from a much smaller company over the course of many years, and holds a monopoly over all resources in the Alpha Centauri system. How much of this should be mentioned in the article?

Once that's cleared up, we need to make a distinction between the corporation (RDA) and its security detail (creatively named SecurityForces). I doesn't seem right that the Avatar Program, a scientific/research initiative, would be operating under SecFor, if so, Quatrich would have had much more control over the scientists than he actually did. Equally confusing is the matter of who Jake was actually working for; the Avatar and his brother would be part of the AP, not SecFor; yet his participation began as security detail, and Quatrich expected him to report back to him... bleh, maybe I'm just turning myself in circles here.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It was the Weyland-Yutani Corporation!170.190.25.16 (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As AniRaptor2001 seems to claim, I believe that both SecFor and the AP seem to both work for the larger corporation so therefore they would both take orders from the administrator. I do not believe that the name of the corporation is at any time given during the film. --JoeHazzers (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The name of the corporation is RDA - Resources Development Administration --JoeHazzers (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis

Would it be considered WP:SYNTHESIS for me to take the domestic box office total from Box Office Mojo, and then take the foreign box office total from The-Numbers and added them together to come up with the worldwide figure? Since BOM has the highest domestic and T-N has the highest foreign? Just looking to make the total accurate.--Mike Allen 20:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as it would be taking two seemingly conflicted sources and adding A+B = D. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Figured it would be, wanted to make sure. --Mike Allen 20:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Racism

Why is there no mention of the racist undertones of the movie?[1] Snakemeets012 (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The content from this post seems like it could be integrated into the negative critical reception portion. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Plot

The plot section has been expanded to being a full account of the story, from start to finish. Obviously the plot section should only include a films synopsis. Gamaur (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Though it is usually difficult to enforce this in the early days of a film (or novel's) release. So the plot section will probably require periodic pruning, and then after the initial excitement dies down, it'll be easier to move in and craft something that will last longterm. --Elonka 10:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Betty Logan (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, but this should be watched closely. Gamaur (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The plot section currently reads like a teaser by the production company. Things like the end are missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.192.211 (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reworked the plot a bit, but it is still teaser-ish. Can somebody suggest improvements? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A user has again extended the plot to being a full account of the story-line. Please post your reasoning in this section prior to making any further changes. The plot section is only to contain a films synopsis, albeit a more elaborate version than you'd find given by the studio, for very obvious reasons. Please watch this section closely. Thank you. Gamaur (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I made some changes to the plot just a few minutes ago. It seemed the synopsis was being a little to brief in regards to the second half of the film, summarizing it in a sentence.alach11 (talk) 06:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm happy to go in and prune the plot, though doing it twice in two days (once from 1600+ words, once from 1200+) seems a bit excessive. I concur that the need for this will (hopefully) fade in time...just wish people would pay more attention to WP:FILMPLOT to begin with. Doniago (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a frustrating problem. To explain, a plot should NOT contain spoilers, or a scene by scene breakdown. Detailing the final scenes is obviously in direct breech of this. Please read the link provided by Doniago on plot sections, as well as WP:Spoiler to see the correct protocol. Although this issue may diminish as time goes on, unfortunately it's imperative right now as the article is seeing extreme traffic flow. To put it into perspective, over one million people have viewed the article in the past few days, which is roughly a 15% portion of the opening weekends audience (based on 3D tickets being more expensive). Gamaur (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is incorrect. The plot SHOULD contain spoilers and it should contain all major points of the plot, start to finish. It should not have minute details, but removing anything because it is a "spoiler" should be reverted. WP:SPOILER is very clear on this point, as is WP:MOSFILM and WP:WAF. Wikipedia is NOT a spoiler free zone. If someone doesn't want to be spoiled about the film plot, don't read an encyclopedic article about it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly, I am mistaken regarding spoilers. However, the main issue here is with regard to WP:FILMPLOT, which suggests linear story-lines should only have a 400 - 700 word plot summary, without minute points as you say. Gamaur (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The need to trim the plot is not a reason to remove "spoilers". The length is being discussed in another section...man this page is WAY too active. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This section was essentially to do with length from the beginning, and it was created first. There was no need for the second section on plot to be started. Gamaur (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a reason; this section was being overlooked, and I needed to remind registered editors and IPs to stop adding so much plot to the article. It did not stop them, clearly, but that section's heading is clear about what is being discussed. Flyer22 (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am really not feeling good that the plot section doesn't cover the Na'vi side of the story and is very lopsided. What could have been the facts according to the movie have been left to the assumptions of the Pandora's natives' characters. The plot section should have enough information that justifies thier cause. Right now it looks like tribals fighting for they don't want friendship. --Manyfacetsoflife (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Na'vi"

In simple terms, if human and Na'vi are both species, and Omaticaya, Cherokee, Navajo, etc. are tribes or clans, is it appropriate to capitalize Na'vi, or should they be referred to as na'vi? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be na'vi, as it is a species name and not a proper noun. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The official site does mention the natives of Pandora as Na'vi. Though, is Na'vi even a species name? This is a small quote from the website (am I allowed to mention sites?) "...he learns to respect the Na'vi way and finally takes his place among them." To me it sounds like they are referring to them as a proper noun. (I'm new, by the way ;)) Prove me (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be "Na'vi". Like other science fiction shows, with the exception of "humans", other species' names are capitalised. E.g. "Vulcan" and "Klingon".--Forward Unto Dawn 05:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it should be Na'vi. I noticed some problems with this and am changing them. JEN9841 (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, if the standard practice here on wiki (and in most sci-fi) is to capitalize the species name, we should preserve that. Here's an interesting [link to read], seems that Wookiepedia came across the same dillema and decided to go all the way and capitalize all species names. I'm curious as to the larger issue of capitalization of fictional sentient races, and also the nature of the Na'vi as a clan/tribe/species/peoples. The first time the word is heard used in the film, the subtitles read something to the effect of "back off, people" or "calm down, people" (sounds like mahwe, na'via). Among some human tribes, the word for "person" is the same as the tribe name, and thus people outside the tribe are not actually human, and do not enjoy the same rights in their eyes. Thus we can assume that "the people" are the Na'vi, which also happens to be their species. The name of a peoples is usually capitalized, though the species name is not. It is curious then, that the Na'vi seem to behave as numerous peoples within a species (they have warriors, which suggests that they fight amongst themselves). The Omaticaya clan would be one of these peoples, and indeed, at one point Jake Sully refers to "my people, the Omaticaya", not "my people, the Na'vi." I wonder if this is indicative of good worldbuilding or poor worldbuilding on Cameron's part. Any other anthropology buffs out there? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yesh, when Jake Sully refers to the Omaticaya, that's the clan of Na'vi, as that's just a general name, but as you see in the film (if you've watched it), there are different clans and they have different names. Oh, and also when he says "back off, people", not all languages are structured around the same way as English :)Prove me (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sequels

the page doesnt mention sequals, except that some characters are signed on for one. If there has been any talk about a sequal it should be mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by NTC TNT (talk • contribs) 07:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the lead states that "He [James Cameron] has stated that if Avatar is successful, two sequels to the film are planned.", and in the production section of the article, it says: "In June 2006, Cameron said that if Avatar was successful, he hoped to make two sequels to the film. In a 2009 interview, he stated that the story arc he developed is large enough to cover two more films." Nothing else has been confirmed by Cameron or the production company. Mathias-S (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sam Worthington's legs

I haven't noticed anything about this in the article, but does anyone know if there were some sort of effects used for Jake Sully's legs in the film? In the few scenes where you get a glimpse, they clearly look like the legs of someone who's been wheelchair-bound for a long time, so I assume they aren't Worthington's legs (AFAIK he's not wheelchair-bound in real life; after all, he isn't during the motion capture part of the filming or in Clash of the Titans). I wasn't sure what's going on there, and haven't been able to find it discussed online anywhere. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Mercenaries or U.S. armed forces?

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but is it ever mentioned in the movie that the soldiers are mercenaries? They give all the appearance of being members of the U.S. armed forces and that's how they are identified in at least one review by Roger Ebert.[2] Also, in the article there is discussion of Jake being accused of committing treason and that would seem to indicate that it was a government operation, rather than a private one. Now, I've seen the soldiers referred to as mercenaries in a lot of places online but if it's not mentioned in the movie, all those interpretations may be bogus. Does anyone recall from the movie that the soldiers were mercenaries? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It is explicitly mentioned in the first 10 minutes or so of the movie that the soldiers (former members of the U.S. armed forces) are mercenaries hired by the private corporation that is mining the "unbotainium" on Pandora. Therefore, it is not strictly speaking a government operation. Nevertheless, if the Pandorapedia [3] is to be taken as a canonical source, the RDA (i.e. "the company") is officially sanctioned by the UN, which granted the company a monopoly over extraterrestrial mining rights. A possible analogue in real-world history would be something like the British East India Company or its Dutch analogues, which were government-sanctioned, but employed private armies.

The only puzzling fact to me is that all RDA employees and private security seem to be Americans, which is rather implausible as Pandora mining would most likely be a multinational operation. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks for the info. Re the lack of multinational participation, it may be Cameron's style to use only American characters for military personnel, as in Aliens, although the American characters in the military in that 1986 movie weren't portrayed as villains, as in the current movie, and the extraterrestrials were quite different. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The corporation (the RDA, or Resource Development Administration) is an American company, or at least was born of an American company, according to the backstory. It is apparently wealthy and powerful enough that its status exceeds that of most Earth governments (though that statement could be easily applied to a theoretical conglomerate of the Earth's top five richest corporations today, for example). The RDA hires former soldiers as its security forces, in a clear parallel to the private military contractors employed by the United States in Iraq, such as the notorious Blackwater Worldwide. American soldiers would likely continue to be among the best-trained in the world, even in the 22nd century, making them a logical choice for the job.

Regarding the choice of word of "mercenary"; can former soldiers hired by a PMC be referred to as mercenaries? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that depends on who you ask. Most members of the military and PMC's would say there's a difference. Most students at a Liberal Arts college would likely say mercs. In the broadest sense, I guess you could consider PMC's mercenaries, as they are combatants who fight under contract for financial compensation. Still, most modern PMC's have relatively strict codes of conduct (yes, there are always bad apples and extraordinary circumstances) and operate at the behest of one particular government and it's allies who share similar ideologies irregardless of the money involved. (e.g.- I doubt you'd ever see DynCorp or Blackwater PMC's working for Castro in Cuba or the junta in Burma.) In this sense, they do not fit the popular image of the "classic" mercenary who simply fights for the highest bidder with little or no ideological or political consideration.

That being said, from what's seen in the movie, I'd lean more towards RDA being a large multinational corporation with considerable resources, including a subsidiary PMC company to provide "in-house" security. While this is only an inference, given what we know about multinational corporations today and the type of operations seen in the movie (everything on Pandora was RDA- the scientists, the miners, the Security Forces, the maintenance personnel, etc.) it stands to reason to be a likely scenarioPaladin127 (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead Section Edits

Pandora "Earth-sized"?

In the article's lead, Pandora is refered to as "an inhabited Earth-sized moon of Polyphemus". However, during the movie, it is made clear that Pandora has a weaker gravity than Earth: all the Earth-like life forms are larger than on Earth; Colonel Quaritch says while training that he needs to because otherwise his muscles would be weaker than if he'd stayed on Earth. These details imply that Pandora has a noticeably smaller mass, and thus is also much smaller than Earth. In my opinion it'd be better to simply not call Pandora Earth-sized unless there's something to back it up. Mathias-S (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources refer to pandora as Earth-like, not Earth-sized, that should be changed back. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI though, Pandora could very well be the same size as Earth and at the same time have a weaker gravity field than Earth. This would mean that Pandora's density is less than Earth's. It's like Jupiter and Saturn; both are similar in size to each other, but Jupiter's density is about twice that of Saturn's. Consequently, Jupiter's gravity is much stronger than Saturn's.--Forward Unto Dawn 05:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI the following source [4], also referenced in the French-language Pandora article, claims that the Pandora's mass is equal to 72 % of the Earth mass. Pandora's diameter on the other hand is quoted as being equal to 11447 km, i.e. approximately 0.9 times the mean diameter of Earth (12742 km ?).200.168.20.215 (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Destruction of"?

I would like to recommend that "the destruction of" be removed from the sentence "...resist the colonists' expansion, which threatens the continued existence of the na'vi and the destruction of the Pandoran ecosystem," in the first paragraph of the page. It seems that the meaning of the sentence and its words may be at odds.

Shaverbh (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Done Welcome and thanks for contributing. Celestra (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Unobtanium

Also, where "unobtainium" is referenced: it is possible that the use of the word "unobtainium" in the movie is more a joke than it is the actual name of the material, as the term is often applied to difficult-if-not-impossible-to-OBTAIN materials or materials that perform every desired function perfectly, too good to be true. It is a generic, nearly humorous term, so it may be appropriate to make this distinction. For example: in the first paragraph of the "Plot" section, the sentence "The humans aim to exploit Pandora’s reserves of unobtainium, a valuable mineral," could be changed to "The humans aim to exploit Pandora’s reserves of a valuable mineral, referenced in the film as 'unobtainium'."

Thank you

Shaverbh (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Re unobtanium (note spelling), it didn't appear to be a joke in the movie but the actual name of a fictional mineral. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggest not editing the audio that was shown in the theater to edit out (or turn down) the voice of Dr. Grace Augustine when saying the word "cripple" to Jake Sully in the context of "Don't make me force feed a cripple" When she was urging nutrition he was reluctant to ingest due to timing issues with the eminent doom.

Please let us decide what we want to hear with our own brains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.114.193 (talk) 07:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Home realease, Blu-Ray?

No section on that? Arent there a Blu-Ray coming out in 2010? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.149.29.247 (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

We only can provide information that is backed up by sources. If you have one, put the url here and someone will add it, or feel free to do it yourself. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 00:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

How does Tsu'Tey know that Jake and Neytiri have "mated?" As soon as they walk up he accuses them of the act. What did I miss or is it just understood they can tell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.217.236 (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a guess, but the two of them holding hands as they entered might have been a clue. Who knows, maybe only Na'vi who've mated are allowed to hold hands? Paladin127 (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No confirmed release date as of yet but there is some great info about the Blu-ray release here [5] that could probably be implemented into the article. DrNegative (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible sources must be included

Given the obvious similarities, it is inconceivable that the Wikipedia article does not mention the above-cited SciFi novels that might have been sources of inspiration for the 'Avatar' plot, e.g. Call me Joe, The Word for World is Forest, ore Disquiet. More subtle sources include movies like Dances with Wolves, The Last Samurai or even Solaris. Finally, we should notice the similarities between Avatar's Pandora and Blue Moon from National Geographic's special Extraterrestrial (most notably, an Earth-sized moon orbiting a gas giant, lower gravity and a toxic atmosphere that is denser than on Earth, giant trees, etc.). 200.168.20.215 (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll quote what Bonvineboy2008 said right above "We only can provide information that is backed up by sources. If you have one, put the url here and someone will add it, or feel free to do it yourself." —Mike Allen 12:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There are at least two possible "sources" as defined above: the aforementioned novels themselves (whose plot significantly overlap with Avatar's) and, in some cases, the authors of the alleged plagiarized novels themselves. The only "source" who refuses to acknowledge the inspiration behind his script is James Cameron himself.

Anyway, this website [6] for example describes several possible references in classic Sci-Fi that may have been merged in the Avatar screenplay. 200.168.20.215 (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Until there is reliable sourcing establishing that the movie -is- based on those sources, you're talking about theories, not facts, and consequently material that is inappropriate for inclusion, as MikeAllen said above. Doniago (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The novels themselves are primary sources so are only eligible for plot details etc, not the interpretation of those plot elements. To say that certain works of fiction have influenced or drawn influences from others is an interpretation of that text and requires a reliable third party source. If the New York Times observes that Avatar has copied plot elements from other stories, that can be mentioned in the article. If some bloke on Wikipedia thinks the film has similarities with other works then that can't be included in the article. As for the "Dark Roasted Blended" site I don't know to what extent that is a reliable source. If it employs professional writers it would probably qualify, if it is just an amateur site run by one man his dog then it is no different to a blog which are not reliable sources. I suggest you enquire at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Betty Logan (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, those works of fiction in the above-mentioned website, that have repeated sci-fi themes of humans colonizing other worlds etc., somewhat vindicates the filmmaker since they seem to indicate recurring ideas and themes in the sci-fi genre, and thus it isn't worth noting every source that they are in. It may be like noting for a western that includes a scene of the fictional style of gunfight known as the quick draw, every previous work of fiction that includes a quick draw gunfight. For Wikipedia, we should report notable connections and this has been done in the sections Critical reception and Themes and inspirations. Since connections have already been mentioned in the article, it's not clear to me what the purpose of this discussion is. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The 1982 episode of Doctor Who - Kinda (Doctor Who) has a LOT of similarities to Avatar. That episode even links to The Word for World is Forest as being very similar. What I find interesting is plot details that Avatar and Kinda share which the book doesn't appear to contain - the human controlled mechs for one. Zenex13 (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Did that observation appear in any reliable sources? If not, the best you can get is congratulations for your original research, as some compensation for it not being acceptable for the article, according to WP:NOR. Cheers, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

GA (Good Article) status

I am going to nominate this article for Good Article status. Any objections before I do that? If so, of course list why. If it is a matter of one or a few references improperly formatted, that can be easily fixed. But judging this article as a whole, it is clearly GA status...as I see it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It is preferred that an article is stable before being nominated for GA status. An article that undergoes 500 revisions in a week is absolutely not stable. I like the article as it is currently written, but it's still changing too much, too quickly. I suggest you give it a couple months before shooting for GA. Trusilver 22:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the Trusilver. Stability is a part of the GA criteria. Theleftorium 22:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Academic question: if an article with GA status becomes unstable due to current news or vandalism even does it lose its GA status? Betty Logan (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, an article can be delisted from GA status. It doesn't happen all that often, and when it does it is usually to fairly contentious articles, but it still happens. Laura Schlessinger, for example, was a GA article that was delisted after current events caused it to diminish in quality. Trusilver 23:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I was also thinking about how fast this article changes. But then I thought, "Plenty of very active articles are of GA status." Maybe they are that way -- more active -- because it is after the GA process (in other words, they simply returned to being like that). But it is clear that you two mean how much this article has been changing (due to the back and forth on the Plot section, and other additions that may be made due to this being a very new and successful film). I'll take your advice not to nominate it for GA just yet.

And, Betty, the vandalism to an article would have to be quite extensive and difficult to fix (due to in-between edits) before an article were to lose its GA status because of vandalism. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that it is best if we wait until all the hype around the film settles down before nominating the article for anything.--Twilight Helryx 00:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If you think the article is GA status now, it should be nominated for GA status now. If it diminishes in quality at some point in the future, it should be delisted at that time. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 01:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

While it may be beneficial, especially with all the editors here, to "strike while the iron's hot", things might not go well during the GAN. This may be a good article one day but a horrible one the next if no one's around to stop newbies and IPs from messing things up with WP:OR among others. But still, if the edits show signs of slowing down, and no one's edit-warring, then I say go for it; it's an excellent article about an excellent movie and I don't see why it shouldn't attain GA status. Really, it's up to you. Besides, it typically takes forever before someone reviews an article (especially given that the movies section is filled to the brim) so by the time this article's reviewed, things should have quieted down by then. ;) --Twilight Helryx 01:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have read the entire article and it is a great read. I will agree that it is worthy of GA status but I must also agree with the others that we should wait till the "edits per day" drop down a little before moving foward with the nomination. Alot of new info is going to be pouring in about this film in part due to its early success at the box office and could easily lose its GA status just as quickly as it was nominated.DrNegative (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)