![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
This article was receiving 200,000 views per day last week, and now that it's been unprotected, vandalism is occurring regularly. Should it be re-protected until the hubbub cools down? AniRaptor2001 ( talk) 03:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I have added similar movie Pocahontas (1995 film) to see also section. You may like to insert it into article text if you find any good ref comparing the stories. Raise lkblr ( talk) 09:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
Many science fiction fans have noted other close parallels with previous written works. Most notably, the plot point of the dragons bonding permanently with their riders is central in Anne McCaffrey's popular series of books about the dragon-riders of the planet Pern.
The movie's plot, dealing with conflict between colonizers and the natives has reminded a number of readers of Ursula LeGuin's " The Word for World is Forest," and Joan Slonczewski's " A Door Into Ocean." In the first, the conflict between the forest-dwelling natives and the colonizers becomes violent after the colonizers attack and destroy a tree-city (as in Avatar). The natives fight back and drive the earthlings off their planet. In the second, the natives have a scientifically based link to their environment (as in Avatar).
Dionwr (
talk)
01:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
One line of the plot says They attempt to transplant her "soul" into her avatar and another line says The film ends with Jake's consciousness being transplanted into his Na'vi avatar. You should use the same word in both lines. 202.74.194.57 ( talk) 11:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Avatar doesn't seem to fit the description of an epic film that is provided by the wikilink. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 18:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The Los Angeles Times and the Examiner (for some reason, Examiner is on the blacklist) have interesting articles and links about the widespread negative reaction to the film by conservatives and the religious. I currently see only two lines expressing this belief - perhaps it should be expanded to one paragraph? -- haha169 ( talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
That was my argument from the beginning. I do not believe two lines is sufficiently enough to address an issue that found its way onto the mainstream media - as well as this being one of only two major factors that lead to a negative review (the other being cliche and predictable plot). In fact, I would use WP:UNDUE to argue the fact that there is a proportionally longer amount of text referring to positive reviews than negative. Noting the presence of these arguments would serve nicely to balance between the positives and the negatives. -- haha169 ( talk) 05:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
That's a fair assessment. But I still think that there should be an addition, because the current way it is written is simply two quotes from places more obscure than LA Times, ABC, and FOX; and the fact that they aren't mentioned as a "conservative" argument, but simply a quote that lacks reasoning behind it that is followed by another quote. -- haha169 ( talk) 02:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The US and the UK uses the short scale i.e. 1 billion = 1,000,000,000 whereas the majority of the world uses longscale i.e. 1 billion = 1,000,000,000,000. When using the term billion in terms of the worldwide gross I'm concerned that using short scale terminology violates WP:WORLDVIEW. The fact that's it's a UK backed US produced film is a valid point for using short scale for its domestic gross, but the majority of the worldwide gross accounts for long scale regions. To prevent potentially violating WP:WORLDVIEW I recommend not using the term "billion" and using its numerical equivalent i.e. 1,000,000,000 or 1000 million. At the moment we are using US and British terminology for information that mostly lies outside of those regions. Betty Logan ( talk) 15:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
"Pandora, a fictional world in a distant planetary system"
I don't think that Alpha Centauri's, the closest planetary system there is, should be called "distant". Let's change it to "another" or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.181.225.250 ( talk) 21:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
(←) (ec) I am thinking in common use of the language, and the term "distant" is highly dependent on context. For example, I would say an atom is distant from another if one resides in this room and another next door, yet I would say two people are close if one is in this room and another is next door. We can go as "big" as you like: two countries are close if they are next to each other. In terms of planetary systems, a planetary system at AC would be the closest possible planetary system to us (next to us), so I wouldn't use the word distant, instead I would just specify the system and leave it at that. I do think your suggestion of 'another' would also be fine, but if you truly think this would confuse people, then simply mentioning AC is still my preference. Ben ( talk) 00:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I would also say 'distant' is a subjective word, and one that should be avoided. It could easily be re-written as "the closest planetary system to Earth", which actually makes more sense in the context of establishing a mining operation. Since the exact location is actually given, then the exact location should be used instead of a vague geographic term. Betty Logan ( talk) 03:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
There does not appear to be a consensus for the change from "distant", so I have restored it. Please do not revert without consensus. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 17:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
And just out of curiosity, where did the notion that it was around Alpha Centauri come from? I don't remember that being mentioned in the film. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 17:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
And BTW, Proxima Centauri is the closest star to the earth (other than the sun of course), and Alpha Centauri is two stars. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 17:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed quite a few references to New Zealand within the film, no doubt due to the involvement of Weta Workshop? The forest in some parts resemble those found in New Zealand, although not quite so extreme obviously. Ferns and also the Home Tree bears a remarkable resemblence to NZ's Kauri Treet.
Also the two main characters share what looks like to me to be a Hongi, a traditional Maori greeting whereby noses are pressed together and a breath shared. In Maori folklore this shared breath changes the person from a visitor to a person of the land, and they become part of the land and responsible for its upkeep and protection. See Hongi on wiki for clairification, but this seems to fit very well with the overall themes of the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.233.80 ( talk) 21:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Yep, I lknow all about references and hence my thoughts appear in the discussion section and not the main article, i thought someone else may have heard it referenced? The things i'm talking about are present, i'm positive of that, but very subtle. unless you are a Kiwi you would miss them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.215.227 ( talk) 10:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
This article was receiving 200,000 views per day last week, and now that it's been unprotected, vandalism is occurring regularly. Should it be re-protected until the hubbub cools down? AniRaptor2001 ( talk) 03:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I have added similar movie Pocahontas (1995 film) to see also section. You may like to insert it into article text if you find any good ref comparing the stories. Raise lkblr ( talk) 09:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
Many science fiction fans have noted other close parallels with previous written works. Most notably, the plot point of the dragons bonding permanently with their riders is central in Anne McCaffrey's popular series of books about the dragon-riders of the planet Pern.
The movie's plot, dealing with conflict between colonizers and the natives has reminded a number of readers of Ursula LeGuin's " The Word for World is Forest," and Joan Slonczewski's " A Door Into Ocean." In the first, the conflict between the forest-dwelling natives and the colonizers becomes violent after the colonizers attack and destroy a tree-city (as in Avatar). The natives fight back and drive the earthlings off their planet. In the second, the natives have a scientifically based link to their environment (as in Avatar).
Dionwr (
talk)
01:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
One line of the plot says They attempt to transplant her "soul" into her avatar and another line says The film ends with Jake's consciousness being transplanted into his Na'vi avatar. You should use the same word in both lines. 202.74.194.57 ( talk) 11:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Avatar doesn't seem to fit the description of an epic film that is provided by the wikilink. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 18:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The Los Angeles Times and the Examiner (for some reason, Examiner is on the blacklist) have interesting articles and links about the widespread negative reaction to the film by conservatives and the religious. I currently see only two lines expressing this belief - perhaps it should be expanded to one paragraph? -- haha169 ( talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
That was my argument from the beginning. I do not believe two lines is sufficiently enough to address an issue that found its way onto the mainstream media - as well as this being one of only two major factors that lead to a negative review (the other being cliche and predictable plot). In fact, I would use WP:UNDUE to argue the fact that there is a proportionally longer amount of text referring to positive reviews than negative. Noting the presence of these arguments would serve nicely to balance between the positives and the negatives. -- haha169 ( talk) 05:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
That's a fair assessment. But I still think that there should be an addition, because the current way it is written is simply two quotes from places more obscure than LA Times, ABC, and FOX; and the fact that they aren't mentioned as a "conservative" argument, but simply a quote that lacks reasoning behind it that is followed by another quote. -- haha169 ( talk) 02:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The US and the UK uses the short scale i.e. 1 billion = 1,000,000,000 whereas the majority of the world uses longscale i.e. 1 billion = 1,000,000,000,000. When using the term billion in terms of the worldwide gross I'm concerned that using short scale terminology violates WP:WORLDVIEW. The fact that's it's a UK backed US produced film is a valid point for using short scale for its domestic gross, but the majority of the worldwide gross accounts for long scale regions. To prevent potentially violating WP:WORLDVIEW I recommend not using the term "billion" and using its numerical equivalent i.e. 1,000,000,000 or 1000 million. At the moment we are using US and British terminology for information that mostly lies outside of those regions. Betty Logan ( talk) 15:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
"Pandora, a fictional world in a distant planetary system"
I don't think that Alpha Centauri's, the closest planetary system there is, should be called "distant". Let's change it to "another" or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.181.225.250 ( talk) 21:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
(←) (ec) I am thinking in common use of the language, and the term "distant" is highly dependent on context. For example, I would say an atom is distant from another if one resides in this room and another next door, yet I would say two people are close if one is in this room and another is next door. We can go as "big" as you like: two countries are close if they are next to each other. In terms of planetary systems, a planetary system at AC would be the closest possible planetary system to us (next to us), so I wouldn't use the word distant, instead I would just specify the system and leave it at that. I do think your suggestion of 'another' would also be fine, but if you truly think this would confuse people, then simply mentioning AC is still my preference. Ben ( talk) 00:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I would also say 'distant' is a subjective word, and one that should be avoided. It could easily be re-written as "the closest planetary system to Earth", which actually makes more sense in the context of establishing a mining operation. Since the exact location is actually given, then the exact location should be used instead of a vague geographic term. Betty Logan ( talk) 03:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
There does not appear to be a consensus for the change from "distant", so I have restored it. Please do not revert without consensus. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 17:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
And just out of curiosity, where did the notion that it was around Alpha Centauri come from? I don't remember that being mentioned in the film. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 17:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
And BTW, Proxima Centauri is the closest star to the earth (other than the sun of course), and Alpha Centauri is two stars. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 17:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed quite a few references to New Zealand within the film, no doubt due to the involvement of Weta Workshop? The forest in some parts resemble those found in New Zealand, although not quite so extreme obviously. Ferns and also the Home Tree bears a remarkable resemblence to NZ's Kauri Treet.
Also the two main characters share what looks like to me to be a Hongi, a traditional Maori greeting whereby noses are pressed together and a breath shared. In Maori folklore this shared breath changes the person from a visitor to a person of the land, and they become part of the land and responsible for its upkeep and protection. See Hongi on wiki for clairification, but this seems to fit very well with the overall themes of the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.233.80 ( talk) 21:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Yep, I lknow all about references and hence my thoughts appear in the discussion section and not the main article, i thought someone else may have heard it referenced? The things i'm talking about are present, i'm positive of that, but very subtle. unless you are a Kiwi you would miss them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.215.227 ( talk) 10:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)