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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Slash Film, First Showing, Film School Rejects, Mania.com, Entertainment Weekly, Variety, All Headline News, Movie Web, Empire Online, Ain't It Cool, Collider, io9.com, M. Night fans, Coming Soon
I think we should merge this article into a bigger one with the sources we've got. So, I going to make some edit on it.
World Cinema Writer ( talk) 07:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
There were some good edits in the mass revert I recently did, but there were way too many problems to keep it as it was. - Dylan0513 ( talk) 10:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
← Please don't follow a blind revert after an explained revert with script-assisted formatting. The script assistance is useful but cannot be easily separated from the blind revert. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 19:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
We have a new party in ChaosMaster16 ( talk · contribs). Look, reverting back to an old lead with unnecessary praise for the cartoon, cites and and old casting section is not how we do things, ok? Alientraveller ( talk) 11:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it Paramount, MTV or Nick Films that will be distributing this film? I'm assuming Paramount but I don't think I've seen that for sure anywhere. Skyrocket ( talk) 18:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I am pretty sure the edit now encompasses the whole article. Mabey just add a sentence or two in it, but we don't need to say the stars two times in the lead and two times in the article, one time in the lead and two times in the article is fine. What do you guys think? Please respond BEFORE editing. ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 00:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
In the cast section, should there be an red link to Jessica Andres or should it be bolded, as in Jessica Andres? ChaosMaster16 has been changing it to bold in his last three edits, and I don't really want to start/continue the edit war. Garyzx ( talk) 03:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Do not create red links to articles that will never be created, including articles that do not comply with Wikipedia's naming conventions. Note that the illustrative red link created at the beginning of this article is an example of this type of normally-unwanted link. ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/04/28/the-last-airbender-teaser-trailer-attached-to-transformers-2/
Not sure where to put this or even if it belongs in the article. - Dylan0513 ( talk) 22:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
In the introduction it says that the film will be headed by M. Night Shyamalan and then goes on to state some of the people who will star in the film (incorrectly - it says dev patel will play three charecters). Should some of the charecters be listed in the intro when the cast list is just below? Beazermyst ( talk) 20:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The plot summery is poorly written, I propose a total rewrite that includes proper grammar/spelling/capitalization/et cetera. 68.8.152.183 ( talk) 11:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I have removed all references to the film having a $100-130 million budget. The Hollywood Reporter article only mentions $250 million for the entire trilogy but not the $100-130 million figure. I could not find a citation anywhere. If a reliable source can be found, feel free to readd it. - kollision ( talk) 13:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Isn't there a policy saying to avoid quotes in an article if possible? I really think the Rathborne quote and the recently added Ebert quote should be incorporated without just quoting the source. - Dylan0513 ( talk) 16:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The film has not been released, but we have test screening reviews available. I thought to include it until more information comes to light. -- Nemogbr ( talk) 13:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
On February 3rd 2010, the producers had a test screening of the film, in Phoenix, Arizona. [1] There were two highly divergent views.
- For the positive, was the reviewer who thought highly of Noah Ringer as Aang and as they hadn’t gotten around to doing a face replacement yet, found it fun to watch Ringer’s stunt double, identified as a woman with a shaved head, ( Jade Quon), performing the fight scenes. The best thing in the movie was Shaun Toub as Uncle Iroh and Dev Patel was also good casting. Unfortunately, Jackson Rathbone is accused of over acting.
- For the negative review, found that the film had some of the most wooden acting. The lead child actor was the main culprit and he seemed amateurish compared to some of the others, his two friends (Peltz and Rathbone) weren't much better. Coming across unscathed were Cliff Curtis and Dev Patel.
aintitcool.com is not a fan website. It is informative with various reviews. -- Nemogbr ( talk) 00:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Trustworthiness:Vendor reliability:Privacy:Child safety:
Several Vbloggers were invited to the Avatar premier in London and their subscribers would have watched their review avidly. Two had over 70,000 subscribers between them and the rest had a minimum 30,000 each. All video, nothing in print. They were not professional film critics.
The amateur reviews can be kept till the film is released and then replaced with reviews from people like Roger Ebert. -- Nemogbr ( talk) 03:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
This article needs additional citations for
verification. (February 2010) |
-- Nemogbr ( talk) 03:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Blogs do not use it and neither do newspapers or television news. When I read the entries, I always take them with a pinch of salt and then look at the reference links.
Apart from science blogs, I can understand why blogs have a bad reputation due to their ability to be biased, but at the same time we are supposed to only use "reliable sources". What happens when that so-called reliable source took the information from a blog?
Below is a good example: regarding Keith Olbermann http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oGni9J2SeQ
In our case, we ended up with two amateur reviewers of the film. They cannot post their information in any other way. A reporter would be blacklisted and a youtuber(unreliable source) would suffer the same. -- Nemogbr ( talk) 10:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I will take over the making of a Racebending page and it's use in Yellowface and The Last Airbender from here on out. I'm an unbiased, source driven editor who is also one of the first supporters and regular member of the Wikipedia NYC ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City) group. If fan edit wars continue to exist on said articles (such as rampant deleting and editing) I will communicate this problem to the rest of Wikipedia NYC and the Wikimedia Foundation on Wikipedia Day NYC ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC). And none of us want that do we? -- Sidepocket ( talk January 20, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC).
Thank you for judging my editing ability to edit and create Wikipedia articles by my off sites rather than my actual Wikipedia edits and articles. Very professional and in no way are you exorcising your non-existent E-Penis.
I have brought up the issues of this article in it's current form to my friends at Wikipedia NYC and they have alarm about this article because in it's current state it is too anti-casting biased and wrong. To summaries what I said before on this talk: "The problem with this view is that it's actually distorting the facts. For instance, the current Wikipedia page in question makes it sound like that the protest was an event that happened in the past when in fact it's on going and getting more and more publicity. Also, I do agree that the article should be written from a neutral point of view and thus like other movies there should be a section in the page with the controversy with both positive and negative arguments balancing them. The fact that a movie has not come out before has not stopped films on Wikipedia in the past having such pages and with the absent of such a section the page is unbalanced, inefficient and less accurate on the whole. I vote that this needs to be reformatted with a controversy section not only to make it fully accurate but for consistency with all other pages on Wikipedia that have controversy sections."
My edit is going to be a simple one that will expand the page and yet keep it at a fact by fact level. I never state anything on Wikipedia without sorcing it from an qualified external source and I don't post any information that leans either way. Ergo, I post facts, not opinions.
If we can stop this grudge match and actually work on this article making it accurate to the actual conflict going on then we don't have to be filed under the "Scum and Villany" section of other academic proffesionals hit list as an example of power abuse with in the community. -- Sidepocket ( talk January 21, 2010
Fair enough since you already insulted me with my credentials here for making neutral articles on Wikipedia based on my personal sites. I'm going to work on some edits to make this article as close to neutral as possible. No hard feelings, lets see is these edits will work, end of discussion. -- Sidepocket ( talk January 21, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC).
""The casting of white actors in Asian roles triggered negative fan reaction marked by accusations of racism ...""
this sentence implies that the roles ARE Asian, which I believe is a point of contention ... air and water benders are not from a mainland area ... I could see an argument that fire and earth benders are Asian, but it's not definitive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.191.221 ( talk) 01:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Mike DiMartino: We knew that Nickelodeon was looking for a [particular fantasy] kind of show, so we kind of took that directive and set about creating our own mythology. And we wanted to base it in Asian rather than European background, and use the elements; to use martial arts as kind of the basis for the magic in the show. Even though we don't call it "magic," it is the supernatural element of the show.
The Dancing Dragons ( talk) 07:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I do agree with Sidepocket's assessment that the section regarding casting is being distorted. There is no entry about the many fans who are still having problems with this film. When it is already in post production and there are still calls for a boycott.
Changed the entry from a "mostly white" cast to an "all white cast". Originally the main cast members were all white. It was changed after McCartney was replaced with Dev Patel.
For some reason the Robert Ebert information regarding casting was posted before the Rathbone interview. Chronologically the Robert Ebert comment on the casting happened long after the interview.
I have now placed it at the end of the Casting section.
I vote for a longer critique of the casting practices. Nemogbr ( talk) 15:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The article currently states: "Shyamalan originally offered the roles of Aang to Tae Kwon Do-trained Texan Noah Ringer; Sokka to Jackson Rathbone (Twilight); Katara to Nicola Peltz (Deck the Halls); and Zuko to Jesse McCartney.[6] The casting of mostly white actors in the Asian influenced Avatar universe triggered negative fan reaction marked by accusations of racism and white-washing, a letter-writing campaign, and a protest outside of a Philadelphia casting call for movie extras."
This is correct. Changing it to all white makes the statement factually inaccurate. If you wish to change it to say they were protesting the main cast initially being all white you can. Also quotes should be avoided. Integrate your information into the article without quotes. - Dylan0513 ( talk) 02:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
@Dylan:
I can see you post information in the ATLA wiki. It still has not sunk in that the Avatar world is made up of the East Asian and Inuit heritage? The way you skew the Last Airbender article is akin to someone claiming that "Lord of the Rings" is not of European mythos.
The original main casting was for all white caucasian actors. The protests started when they were announced. Are you denying that fact?
Paramount started with the non-white extras afterwards and that made more fans incensed.
The quotes have been there for awhile now and you only changed them when I placed them in chronological order.
There is a longer entry regarding the systemic racism in the casting with the Last Airbender wiki and in the yellowface article. There is also a shorter article called racebending. Nemogbr ( talk) 02:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
From what I can see, you are clearly biased towards the film makers' position. You do not care for the neutrality of the article and have a different agenda that is not conducive to supporting the fans. Dismissing the casting controversy as merely minor and deleting data, is an obfuscation, of the facts.
You are doing a disservice to the creators of the Avatar the Last Airbender and the fans. Nemogbr ( talk) 04:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
@Dylan Tell me how you're protecting the neutrality of the article when you refuse to allow the other side of the argument to exist. Yes, you may think it's okay to have the main cast to be mainly Caucasian because it's fantasy. And there are others who will disagree with you. And one of those would be Roger Ebert (a quote stating he thought it was clearly wrong which you so intently removed). Added with the protests, last time I checked, that's something you call a controversy.-- 98.207.58.247 ( talk) 06:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
For a fan, you do not even ackowledge the racebending of the film. The fans know and should be given all the details. Wikipedia is only one source, but it is first stop for people. You are attempting to obfuscate the matter.
I have now reposted along with the dates; to provide a timeline of events. As you can see the protests over the white washing and racebending started, from the casting of the main lead characters.
They were casting non-whites, only as background long before Dev Patel replaced McCartney.
I also provided data regarding removal of the Chinese calligraphy in the film. Nemogbr ( talk) 13:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I have added a link to the yellowface entry for last airbender. It contains chronology and links. Nemogbr ( talk) 00:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
06 January 2010
Primary reason for casting conflict was Caucasian or any other Ethnicity. If the casting ad stated All Ethnicities, there would not have been conflict, although having all the main cast picked were all white caucasian actors, would make people suspicious. I posted as reference a screen capture of the original casting ad.
Having a film with all Asian origins for the Chinese martial arts, Oriental architecture, Japanese, Chinese and Inuit hairstyles, Oriental foods and then having an all white main cast does show prejudice on the part of the film makers.
Then removal of the "I need to shave my hair and get a TAN" from Rathbone simply camouflages the issue. THere were many sites where that insensitive statement was published. Not including it in the Casting section does not show neutrality. Nemogbr ( talk) 15:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone looked more into the casting or the sequel film? The article states something about Night writing a script to the second film while in pre-production of the first. The first has finished filming and is pretty much finished with post-production on it's way to premiering! Wouldn't he be done with the script by now and filming or casting for the second film? When does that pre-production start? (They mentioned one for the sequal to Percy Jackson and the Lightning Theif already) Just curious if anyone knew anything about that since this IS a planned trilogy with an already-laid out story unlike other 3-part films that sometimes are just an addition to the previous film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.211.12 ( talk) 08:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The additions of Roger Ebert and Frank Marshall have the appropriate links and pertain to the casting controversy. Dylan0513 would prefer not to include the details and ignore the fans.
Passing it off as a blip in the system, when many fans of the show are calling for a boycott, is deception.
As for the controversial material? Roger Ebert has the clout for his assessments to stick.
Ebert's movie reviews are syndicated to more than 200 newspapers in the United States and worldwide.In late 2007, Forbes Magazine named Ebert "the most powerful pundit in America," edging out Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs and Geraldo Rivera.
Nemogbr ( talk) 22:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
So far, the article has one citation from an actor in the movie. That is all. Rathbone hold no importance to the production. He is an employee of the studio. He was the one who started the yellowface debate.
The addition is from the film producer, Frank Marshall, who made the decisions for the movie. Roger Ebert is a movie reviewer who has his views syndicated in 200 newspapers.
Why do you keep deleting their views?
You do not think the film producer and the pundit who holds sway over a majority of the viewing public holds any importance? -- Nemogbr ( talk) 02:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Have created a new sub-section called Controversy. This indicates that there was a controversy over the casting. That there is an ongoing controversy and no matter what some people may "type" or promulgate otherwise, there will be an ongoing controversy.
This is not a Point Of View, this is the reality of the situation. Going into any fansite that mentioned the live action film indicates that the controversy is alive and well. -- Nemogbr ( talk) 10:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
It is a major change in the article. So far, all you will allow is one actor defending the casting. No links on the detractors.
Why?
The fans already know of the systemic racism. Afraid others will learn of the controversy and make their own investigations? -- Nemogbr ( talk) 00:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The quotes have been removed and added as part of the Controversy section. You are waiting for other opinions, but insist that it be removed in the meantime.
How can it become part of the discussion when you have deleted the entry? -- Nemogbr ( talk) 02:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
11:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Those entries were posted on that page before I removed the quotation marks. You removed the entry completely.
Before you started deleting every mention of the controversy, the consensus was to leave it in the article. --
Nemogbr (
talk)
22:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
There were two quotes added. One from Roger Ebert and another from Frank Marshall. Both are more important than Rathbone's statement.
If we look at the film 21, there was a controversy section and it presented the views of the critics and the film makers.
The entry for Last Airbender does not. It is not informative and simply becomes advertisement for the movie. -- Nemogbr ( talk) 00:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
[8] how's this for a respectable source?-- Silvercell2 ( talk) 07:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)silvercell2
Good link, thank you.
Not sure how some here would think of the source. They would believe it too biased. Already found it difficult to have FRank MArshall, the producer and Roger Ebert, film pundit, accepted.
Henry Jenkins even if he is the Provost's Professor of Communications, Journalism, and Cinematic Art at the University of Southern California....might not be credible or important enough. -- Nemogbr ( talk) 09:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
That's a blog, I'm pretty sure it's not a credible source. - Dylan0513 ( talk) 14:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
An interview with an actor for MTV, seems to hold more credibility. -- Nemogbr ( talk) 16:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Is it alright if I add a link to the Racebending.com (the main protest site for the movie) to the article's main link sections? Zobango ( talk) 22:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
At most, wouldn't there merely be mention that there was controversy over it? There is, so there's nothing more needed to be added. We don't need 2 controversies on Wikipedia (1: over the link. 2: over racism specifically towards whites) based on the controversy of the film that's already been mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.141.176.86 ( talk • contribs) 16:07, April 12, 2010
The element symbols (Air, Water, Earth, and Fire) are different from that of the show. Both articles, the movie and the show, do not cover this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.177.47 ( talk) 22:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
What you are stating is incorrect. Al the symbols are taken from the show. I don't have it here right now. But I can find a source if necessary. Randysem ( talk) 11:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
you go do that, the symbols have been changed. [9] look at the symbols for each element. [10] why, they're exactly the same!-- Silvercell2 ( talk) 14:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)silvercell2
You're confusing the nation's symbols with the elemental symbols. The symbols shown on the movie banners are the nation ones. 76.114.198.95 ( talk) 23:19, 28 April 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Fine. Dylan0513 wanted a discussion about adding a Controversy section, so I'm bringing one up. Aside from news articles from Yahoo, Google, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, Roger Ebert, Gene Yang, etc, what more evidence does anyone need that the casting for the film is angering many fans, members of the Asian-American (as well as other minority) communities, and advocates of fair representation in today's media?
And in case people weren't aware, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia meant to inform the general public about almost any topic and their relevent sub-topics. The casting controversy and its unfortunate implications following a history of discriminary practices is completely relevent.
Also, 300, 21, and other films have similar controversy paragraphs on their pages. And, frankly, I think enough fans are outraged over the casting for it to warrant a little notice. - User:EricSpokane —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC).
Akerans, the point is not negativity. The point is that this is being treated as a minor issue when it isn't to a lot of people. While the information can be perceived as negative, it counter-balances the rosy portrait Paramount Studios needs in order to sell this movie to mass audiences and continue being part of a Hollywood system that relegates actors of color to background/villainous/stereotypical roles. Besides, I highly doubt an extra section is going to bring down the grosses on this film. It's mainly to spread awareness about this problem.
Wikipedia is about information. Factual information, both positive and negative. Treating this site like some un-biased news company is rather naive. Why else would Conservapedia be created?
By the way, suggesting the other articles remove their "Controversy" sections to remain neutral smacks of "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil." I disagree with the controversies revolving around Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, but that doesn't mean I have the right to rob those critics of a platform to voice their opinions. - User:EricSpokane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.208.246 ( talk) 00:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Akerans. Also, we've had many discussions about this none of which have ended in a consensus for adding a controversy section. - Dylan0513 ( talk) 01:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
First, to the anonymous poster, the studios are relying on technicalities like "brown-skinned blue-eyed" people to justify casting white actors in the main roles and discriminating against actors of color. So the characters have blue eyes? Any other specific traits about them or their culture that says they are more Caucasian than Inuit? Hm?
Akerans, the entire page itself is an agenda to sell the movie. Paramount has been taking big financial losses lately and are relying on certain films (including The Last airbender) to make money. A "Controversy" section is not an agenda, it is a major part of the movie's public image now. Just look at all the news articles and entertainment insiders' comments on it, for goodness sake.
All I am asking is that a "Controversy" section be added to counter that and, gasp, provide information about why so many people are angry, not just about the film but Hollywood's discriminatory practices. Heck, if you'd like, I'll find the web site where Shyamalan and the studios both posted reactions to the controversy and add those to the section to counter-balance the so-called negativity.
And on a final note, I'm sorry, but you're only delaying something that's inevitable. A "Controversy" section is going up at some point whether you or I like it or not. Enough people are angry about the casting for the issue to keep popping up. - User: EricSpokane —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC).
Okay, I and many others are angry about this, but not enough to warrant giving the controversy its own page. It is not a political or sex scandal, it is racial discrimination that is inexplicably intertwined with the film itself. There is no need for an extra page, just an extra section, which, again, is going to happen eventually anyway. There is already a page on yellowface, thanks.
You keep saying a "Controversy" section is a wrong fix when numerous other film articles ( 300, 21, Dogma, Cannibal Holocaust for obvious reasons, and even Superman II for crying out loud) have such sections. A whole 'nother page is a bit much (overkill, actually), but not allocating a section to the issue is tantamount to denying such an issue exists or it's not important enough to warrant notice. It is not major enough to justify its own page, nor is it minor enough to relegate to one miniscule paragraph.
Like I said, I will add responses by Paramount and M. Night Shyamalan to the controversy in the proposed section to give it a more balanced narrative, but I will not budge on the complete lack of such a section when it has become such an issue that many fans are boycotting the film. - User:EricSpokane —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC).
So this film's article has special immunity from reasonable criticism (even two-sided, as I have suggested)? Very well.
By the way, the first edit was my attempt at creating the section, which was removed with a note attached asking for discussion, so that was hardly malicious. The second edit, I admit, was out of sheer frustration and incredibly stupid, but Rathbone's dismissal of the controversy smacks of ignorance and allusions to blackface and was highly offensive.
Again, I only want the section because this controversy is very much a major part of this film's public image now. You don't want it, fine. So far, I'm not hearing a community consensus siding with you or me on the matter. Just you and me debating. But if creating a whole new article is the only way this "Controversy" thing is going to happen, alright. I still think it's overkill, but I despise putting down or minimizing the opinion of an angered community (particularly an ethnic community) even more. You have your separate article. EricSpokane ( talk) 00:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
And The Dancing Dragons, Temporal88, Sidepocket, Nemogbr, Oconel, and others all seem to hold the same position as mine against you in previous discussions over this issue. Just because I'm currently the only critic of this film commenting on this discussion doesn't mean I'm alone. That is my point. This is not a minor issue, it is a very big deal. And I am agreeing (albeit, reluctantly) with your compromise for creating a separate article about the controversy.
But your and Dylan0513's continued suppression of this issue is starting to sound biased in and of itself. How can one be neutral if one refuses a platform for critics but is willing to provide one for supporters? Neutrality is not about suppressing opinions, but giving equal measure to differing opinions, or at least trying to. Paramount Studios and the filmmakers, as well as supporters of the film are having their say, and I plan on giving them their say in a proposed "Controversy" section or article; let the critics have theirs, and don't patronize them by treating it as a minor issue. Racism is not a minor issue, nor is depriving actors of color of work. EricSpokane ( talk) 02:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I hear you. Loud. And. Clear.
I don't see information about the original casting calls' clear preference for Caucasian actors in main roles and non-Caucasian for background roles, the production's callous (Note: I can remove objective words like "callous", if that's preferrable) dismissal of any and all letters of protest up until this last month, the producers' asnd filmmakers' (insensitive or reasonable, depends on the perspective) responses to the controversy, as well as the debate between supporters and critics. And how do I know such information will not be deleted for giving the paragraph too much clout or weight? Suppression by minimization; a common tactic used to portray people protesting racism or racist practices as "whiners" and belittling their protests as a minor issue not worth any serious notice or debate.
With what I know about the controversy, all the information is going to require its own section. If that is not agreeable, however, then a separate article might suffice. I would just have to find more sources than I have to make such an article justifiable. More homework, joy.
I apologize for my frustration, but I'm afraid I can't be dissuaded in this. I will agree to compromises, but a lack of substantial discussion of the controversy is not agreeable to me. It's tantamount to treating it as if it's either minor or in the past, when it's not. EricSpokane ( talk) 04:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The issue is not whether the controversy exists. It's whether the controversy deserves its own section. As it stands the controversy has a prominent place in the article. I argue against a controversy section because the controversy is a very small part of the movie overall and not even larger than the casting. It's a part of the casting which is why it belongs in the casting section. - Dylan0513 ( talk) 22:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Nemogbr ( talk) 22:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Skyrocket ( talk) 17:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
@Dylan0513: Your bias has been noticed. You insist upon deleting parts of the article in order to support this film. Others attempt to be as informative as possible, whilst you prefer a bland advertisement for Paramount Studios. Do you work for them?
@Skyrocket: Point taken about the dicussions on the net. The controversy is gaining more of an audience due to the mainstream media taking notice. As the release date approaches, more people will desire information.
The wikipedia page needs to be ready or people will get annoyed at the dearth of current and reliable information. A couple of paragraphs regarding the controversy would suffice.
Nemogbr ( talk) 23:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The controversy is now on the page. Previously it was kept off the article by the supporters of Paramount and the film makers. It took awhile before the whole mass of data available gave them no choice.
Nemogbr ( talk) 21:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Can someone nominate the article created for the controversy for deletion? I'm not too knowledgeable on the deletion process but the controversy is obviously not notable enough to get its own article. - Dylan0513 ( talk) 01:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for being away so long. Anyways, I created a "casting controversy" article, as Dylan0513 has pointed out, at the behest of Akerans' suggestion for a separate article. I have a vast array of information and sources available at the moment, not all of them from blogs, mind you, and the sources that are are from blogs that I consider to have excellent accountability (or will look into their accountability practices). I do not plan on using RaceBending.com as a primary source of information. I am currently working on sorting the sources out, particularly Shyamalan's and Paramount's reactions. I'm trying to get others to help me out.
And, as I've said before, I agree with Akerans that giving the controversy its own article is overkill, considering there aren't hundreds of thousands of people protesting this film (that I'm aware of, anyway) but neither are there so few or celebrities/industry members so unnotable (C'mon, Roger Ebert, Gene Yang, and even Giancarlo Volpe, a director from the show!) in opposition to this film to warrant the controversy a minor footnote. To me, it's similar to what history textbooks do: Give two or three chapters to WWII while reducing the Phillipine-American War to a couple paragraphs. I know the analogy is a bit stretched, but that's how it seems.
Whether it's an article or a section (I'm afraid it has to be one or the other), however, I admit neutrality is a must. Just because I disagree with Neo-Nazis doesn't mean I'll deny them their First Amendment rights. EricSpokane ( talk) 15:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It has to be a section because the information on the controversy itself is too extensive for a "Casting" section (yet definitely not extensive enough at present to warrant its own article, or rather a large article, though Akerans suggested it, so I went with it), and it will probably dwarf the rest of the section. If I were to add information on the original casting calls, the protests, as well as Paramount's & Shyamalan's response to the film, the information would need at least another couple paragraphs. By that point, the casting section will have more information on the controversy than the casting. Is there any possibility for a "Casting" subsection, maybe? EricSpokane ( talk) 03:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
-Why don't you guys just try and make a racebending page? This way, you could get an entire page devoted to the cause that you support. For the article, I think the casting section is fine. I would hardly call the yahoo news a reliable thing. The article you're referring to was a small two sentence mention in an article about controversial comments, not to mention, all of the comments on that yahoo news page were supporting the film. Now here's what I think. Once the movie comes out and the critics express dismay in the casting, and it becomes more consistent, I think it'd be a great idea to add a controversy section, but not until then. -- Jason Garrick ( talk) 00:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I recently prefaced the "Casting" section with "Main: The Last Airbender Casting Controversy." After which, someone removed it. There is no reason to delete a link to the main article. It was well placed, and contained more information important to section. I will put the link back up as long as the Main article is still there, unless the individual who deleted it (ChaosMaster16), or someone else, can provide a decent reason why it should be removed.-- 173.63.104.211 ( talk) 19:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that there have been a lot of reverts lately and it seems that everyone has different reason for undoing everyone else's changes. I feel that maybe everyone that is heavily involved in editing this page ( User:Dylan0513, User:ChaosMaster16, User:TheRealFennShysa, and User:Nemogbr all spring to mind) should take a bit of time off to discuss here what you guys feel like we should be doing with this page and maybe the direction we should be taking it in, and then maybe we can come to some sort of comprimise. Besides I think that we're close to violating WP:3RR and I dont want this page to become locked... again. So how about we talk this out everybody? I Feel Tired ( talk) 00:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I am reverting the casting section back to the way it was because recent changes (specially adding quotes) haven't been discussed. And I've had a quotes topic here for weeks waiting for replies! People need to stop randomly changing the article and discuss before they do so. - Dylan0513 ( talk) 00:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
If it's a major problem with editing, can we put a lock on the article? -- Jason Garrick ( talk) 02:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
What about people who don't know about this little plan? This site IS meant for the general public to edit, add and subtract certain information based on their best knowledge. Those kind of things we'd only need to change if it violates a rule or if it's just vandalism, but if it's actual information shouldn't someone investigate it if they want to take it off to see if it's worth keeping? Also, there has been a Japanese trailer, second theatrical trailer AND another TV spot reveailed but none of these are added to the list of promotions after the currently listed trailers! JeffPalmer on YouTube seems to be laying out more information than Wikipedia right now and he's one person merely making updates in VIDEOS! He, himself, is not a reliable source but he seems to be laying out information that is backed up! And some of the things he provides ARE facts (such as actually SHOWING the trailers and clips, toys of Appa and Momo that have not been mentioned on Wikipedia.) I'm not saying to use him as a source. I'm just saying if that one guy can gain all that information, Wikipedia should! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.141.176.86 ( talk • contribs) 16:16, April 12, 2010
Can we get an anonymous lock to reduce the reverts? 76.21.122.234 ( talk) 05:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I added a FAQ in the discussion page so people would stop asking about the controversy. Someone change this into a table, the way the FAQ table is on the Barrack Obama discussion page. 76.21.122.234 ( talk) 14:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
After the deletion of the page about the casting controversy regarding The Last Airbender, I restored the information into the article. The original casting call, and the other information was pertinent to this article. The reason the other page was deleted was because that was all it contained. It was short enough that the pertinent information could be merged into this article. If Dylan0513, who removed the information, or anyone else has any objection to their inclusion, please discuss it here before removing. The inclusion of this information is not biased, as it is factual, well-source information; simply stating the controversy is not akin to bias.-- 173.63.104.211 ( talk) 17:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
I agree with Dylan0513 that the IP editor's full addition gives undue weight to the casting controversy. At *most*, I would add the paragraph reading 'The original 2008 casting calls in Philadelphia, expressing a preference for Caucasian actors over actors of color, has been used by critics of the film as evidence of racial bias, intentional or not.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://racebending.com/castinglead.jpg}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.racebending.com/v3/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/CastingFlyer-Airbender.jpg}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.myentertainmentworld.com/mew/audition_film-tv.html}}</ref>', as that seems more than sufficient to meet the IP editor's concerns.— -- Andrensath ( talk | contribs) 05:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC) |
Glad we reached a consensus on this and I think this only helped make the article more informative. - Dylan0513 ( talk) 19:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I seem to recall reading that a budget for the film was mentioned somewhere but I can't recall where I read it. Since I've seen it in other film boxes I think we should add it here. Skyrocket 16:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-airbender-20100625,0,1232454.story "With a production cost of $150 million and a blockbuster-size $130-million marketing budget, "The Last Airbender" is more than twice as expensive as any of Shyamalan's previous eight films." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.112.238 ( talk) 03:59, 25 June 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Slash Film, First Showing, Film School Rejects, Mania.com, Entertainment Weekly, Variety, All Headline News, Movie Web, Empire Online, Ain't It Cool, Collider, io9.com, M. Night fans, Coming Soon
I think we should merge this article into a bigger one with the sources we've got. So, I going to make some edit on it.
World Cinema Writer ( talk) 07:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
There were some good edits in the mass revert I recently did, but there were way too many problems to keep it as it was. - Dylan0513 ( talk) 10:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
← Please don't follow a blind revert after an explained revert with script-assisted formatting. The script assistance is useful but cannot be easily separated from the blind revert. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 19:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
We have a new party in ChaosMaster16 ( talk · contribs). Look, reverting back to an old lead with unnecessary praise for the cartoon, cites and and old casting section is not how we do things, ok? Alientraveller ( talk) 11:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it Paramount, MTV or Nick Films that will be distributing this film? I'm assuming Paramount but I don't think I've seen that for sure anywhere. Skyrocket ( talk) 18:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I am pretty sure the edit now encompasses the whole article. Mabey just add a sentence or two in it, but we don't need to say the stars two times in the lead and two times in the article, one time in the lead and two times in the article is fine. What do you guys think? Please respond BEFORE editing. ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 00:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
In the cast section, should there be an red link to Jessica Andres or should it be bolded, as in Jessica Andres? ChaosMaster16 has been changing it to bold in his last three edits, and I don't really want to start/continue the edit war. Garyzx ( talk) 03:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Do not create red links to articles that will never be created, including articles that do not comply with Wikipedia's naming conventions. Note that the illustrative red link created at the beginning of this article is an example of this type of normally-unwanted link. ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/04/28/the-last-airbender-teaser-trailer-attached-to-transformers-2/
Not sure where to put this or even if it belongs in the article. - Dylan0513 ( talk) 22:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
In the introduction it says that the film will be headed by M. Night Shyamalan and then goes on to state some of the people who will star in the film (incorrectly - it says dev patel will play three charecters). Should some of the charecters be listed in the intro when the cast list is just below? Beazermyst ( talk) 20:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The plot summery is poorly written, I propose a total rewrite that includes proper grammar/spelling/capitalization/et cetera. 68.8.152.183 ( talk) 11:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I have removed all references to the film having a $100-130 million budget. The Hollywood Reporter article only mentions $250 million for the entire trilogy but not the $100-130 million figure. I could not find a citation anywhere. If a reliable source can be found, feel free to readd it. - kollision ( talk) 13:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Isn't there a policy saying to avoid quotes in an article if possible? I really think the Rathborne quote and the recently added Ebert quote should be incorporated without just quoting the source. - Dylan0513 ( talk) 16:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The film has not been released, but we have test screening reviews available. I thought to include it until more information comes to light. -- Nemogbr ( talk) 13:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
On February 3rd 2010, the producers had a test screening of the film, in Phoenix, Arizona. [1] There were two highly divergent views.
- For the positive, was the reviewer who thought highly of Noah Ringer as Aang and as they hadn’t gotten around to doing a face replacement yet, found it fun to watch Ringer’s stunt double, identified as a woman with a shaved head, ( Jade Quon), performing the fight scenes. The best thing in the movie was Shaun Toub as Uncle Iroh and Dev Patel was also good casting. Unfortunately, Jackson Rathbone is accused of over acting.
- For the negative review, found that the film had some of the most wooden acting. The lead child actor was the main culprit and he seemed amateurish compared to some of the others, his two friends (Peltz and Rathbone) weren't much better. Coming across unscathed were Cliff Curtis and Dev Patel.
aintitcool.com is not a fan website. It is informative with various reviews. -- Nemogbr ( talk) 00:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Trustworthiness:Vendor reliability:Privacy:Child safety:
Several Vbloggers were invited to the Avatar premier in London and their subscribers would have watched their review avidly. Two had over 70,000 subscribers between them and the rest had a minimum 30,000 each. All video, nothing in print. They were not professional film critics.
The amateur reviews can be kept till the film is released and then replaced with reviews from people like Roger Ebert. -- Nemogbr ( talk) 03:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
This article needs additional citations for
verification. (February 2010) |
-- Nemogbr ( talk) 03:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Blogs do not use it and neither do newspapers or television news. When I read the entries, I always take them with a pinch of salt and then look at the reference links.
Apart from science blogs, I can understand why blogs have a bad reputation due to their ability to be biased, but at the same time we are supposed to only use "reliable sources". What happens when that so-called reliable source took the information from a blog?
Below is a good example: regarding Keith Olbermann http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oGni9J2SeQ
In our case, we ended up with two amateur reviewers of the film. They cannot post their information in any other way. A reporter would be blacklisted and a youtuber(unreliable source) would suffer the same. -- Nemogbr ( talk) 10:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I will take over the making of a Racebending page and it's use in Yellowface and The Last Airbender from here on out. I'm an unbiased, source driven editor who is also one of the first supporters and regular member of the Wikipedia NYC ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City) group. If fan edit wars continue to exist on said articles (such as rampant deleting and editing) I will communicate this problem to the rest of Wikipedia NYC and the Wikimedia Foundation on Wikipedia Day NYC ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC). And none of us want that do we? -- Sidepocket ( talk January 20, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC).
Thank you for judging my editing ability to edit and create Wikipedia articles by my off sites rather than my actual Wikipedia edits and articles. Very professional and in no way are you exorcising your non-existent E-Penis.
I have brought up the issues of this article in it's current form to my friends at Wikipedia NYC and they have alarm about this article because in it's current state it is too anti-casting biased and wrong. To summaries what I said before on this talk: "The problem with this view is that it's actually distorting the facts. For instance, the current Wikipedia page in question makes it sound like that the protest was an event that happened in the past when in fact it's on going and getting more and more publicity. Also, I do agree that the article should be written from a neutral point of view and thus like other movies there should be a section in the page with the controversy with both positive and negative arguments balancing them. The fact that a movie has not come out before has not stopped films on Wikipedia in the past having such pages and with the absent of such a section the page is unbalanced, inefficient and less accurate on the whole. I vote that this needs to be reformatted with a controversy section not only to make it fully accurate but for consistency with all other pages on Wikipedia that have controversy sections."
My edit is going to be a simple one that will expand the page and yet keep it at a fact by fact level. I never state anything on Wikipedia without sorcing it from an qualified external source and I don't post any information that leans either way. Ergo, I post facts, not opinions.
If we can stop this grudge match and actually work on this article making it accurate to the actual conflict going on then we don't have to be filed under the "Scum and Villany" section of other academic proffesionals hit list as an example of power abuse with in the community. -- Sidepocket ( talk January 21, 2010
Fair enough since you already insulted me with my credentials here for making neutral articles on Wikipedia based on my personal sites. I'm going to work on some edits to make this article as close to neutral as possible. No hard feelings, lets see is these edits will work, end of discussion. -- Sidepocket ( talk January 21, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC).
""The casting of white actors in Asian roles triggered negative fan reaction marked by accusations of racism ...""
this sentence implies that the roles ARE Asian, which I believe is a point of contention ... air and water benders are not from a mainland area ... I could see an argument that fire and earth benders are Asian, but it's not definitive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.191.221 ( talk) 01:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Mike DiMartino: We knew that Nickelodeon was looking for a [particular fantasy] kind of show, so we kind of took that directive and set about creating our own mythology. And we wanted to base it in Asian rather than European background, and use the elements; to use martial arts as kind of the basis for the magic in the show. Even though we don't call it "magic," it is the supernatural element of the show.
The Dancing Dragons ( talk) 07:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I do agree with Sidepocket's assessment that the section regarding casting is being distorted. There is no entry about the many fans who are still having problems with this film. When it is already in post production and there are still calls for a boycott.
Changed the entry from a "mostly white" cast to an "all white cast". Originally the main cast members were all white. It was changed after McCartney was replaced with Dev Patel.
For some reason the Robert Ebert information regarding casting was posted before the Rathbone interview. Chronologically the Robert Ebert comment on the casting happened long after the interview.
I have now placed it at the end of the Casting section.
I vote for a longer critique of the casting practices. Nemogbr ( talk) 15:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The article currently states: "Shyamalan originally offered the roles of Aang to Tae Kwon Do-trained Texan Noah Ringer; Sokka to Jackson Rathbone (Twilight); Katara to Nicola Peltz (Deck the Halls); and Zuko to Jesse McCartney.[6] The casting of mostly white actors in the Asian influenced Avatar universe triggered negative fan reaction marked by accusations of racism and white-washing, a letter-writing campaign, and a protest outside of a Philadelphia casting call for movie extras."
This is correct. Changing it to all white makes the statement factually inaccurate. If you wish to change it to say they were protesting the main cast initially being all white you can. Also quotes should be avoided. Integrate your information into the article without quotes. - Dylan0513 ( talk) 02:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
@Dylan:
I can see you post information in the ATLA wiki. It still has not sunk in that the Avatar world is made up of the East Asian and Inuit heritage? The way you skew the Last Airbender article is akin to someone claiming that "Lord of the Rings" is not of European mythos.
The original main casting was for all white caucasian actors. The protests started when they were announced. Are you denying that fact?
Paramount started with the non-white extras afterwards and that made more fans incensed.
The quotes have been there for awhile now and you only changed them when I placed them in chronological order.
There is a longer entry regarding the systemic racism in the casting with the Last Airbender wiki and in the yellowface article. There is also a shorter article called racebending. Nemogbr ( talk) 02:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
From what I can see, you are clearly biased towards the film makers' position. You do not care for the neutrality of the article and have a different agenda that is not conducive to supporting the fans. Dismissing the casting controversy as merely minor and deleting data, is an obfuscation, of the facts.
You are doing a disservice to the creators of the Avatar the Last Airbender and the fans. Nemogbr ( talk) 04:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
@Dylan Tell me how you're protecting the neutrality of the article when you refuse to allow the other side of the argument to exist. Yes, you may think it's okay to have the main cast to be mainly Caucasian because it's fantasy. And there are others who will disagree with you. And one of those would be Roger Ebert (a quote stating he thought it was clearly wrong which you so intently removed). Added with the protests, last time I checked, that's something you call a controversy.-- 98.207.58.247 ( talk) 06:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
For a fan, you do not even ackowledge the racebending of the film. The fans know and should be given all the details. Wikipedia is only one source, but it is first stop for people. You are attempting to obfuscate the matter.
I have now reposted along with the dates; to provide a timeline of events. As you can see the protests over the white washing and racebending started, from the casting of the main lead characters.
They were casting non-whites, only as background long before Dev Patel replaced McCartney.
I also provided data regarding removal of the Chinese calligraphy in the film. Nemogbr ( talk) 13:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I have added a link to the yellowface entry for last airbender. It contains chronology and links. Nemogbr ( talk) 00:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
06 January 2010
Primary reason for casting conflict was Caucasian or any other Ethnicity. If the casting ad stated All Ethnicities, there would not have been conflict, although having all the main cast picked were all white caucasian actors, would make people suspicious. I posted as reference a screen capture of the original casting ad.
Having a film with all Asian origins for the Chinese martial arts, Oriental architecture, Japanese, Chinese and Inuit hairstyles, Oriental foods and then having an all white main cast does show prejudice on the part of the film makers.
Then removal of the "I need to shave my hair and get a TAN" from Rathbone simply camouflages the issue. THere were many sites where that insensitive statement was published. Not including it in the Casting section does not show neutrality. Nemogbr ( talk) 15:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone looked more into the casting or the sequel film? The article states something about Night writing a script to the second film while in pre-production of the first. The first has finished filming and is pretty much finished with post-production on it's way to premiering! Wouldn't he be done with the script by now and filming or casting for the second film? When does that pre-production start? (They mentioned one for the sequal to Percy Jackson and the Lightning Theif already) Just curious if anyone knew anything about that since this IS a planned trilogy with an already-laid out story unlike other 3-part films that sometimes are just an addition to the previous film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.211.12 ( talk) 08:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The additions of Roger Ebert and Frank Marshall have the appropriate links and pertain to the casting controversy. Dylan0513 would prefer not to include the details and ignore the fans.
Passing it off as a blip in the system, when many fans of the show are calling for a boycott, is deception.
As for the controversial material? Roger Ebert has the clout for his assessments to stick.
Ebert's movie reviews are syndicated to more than 200 newspapers in the United States and worldwide.In late 2007, Forbes Magazine named Ebert "the most powerful pundit in America," edging out Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs and Geraldo Rivera.
Nemogbr ( talk) 22:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
So far, the article has one citation from an actor in the movie. That is all. Rathbone hold no importance to the production. He is an employee of the studio. He was the one who started the yellowface debate.
The addition is from the film producer, Frank Marshall, who made the decisions for the movie. Roger Ebert is a movie reviewer who has his views syndicated in 200 newspapers.
Why do you keep deleting their views?
You do not think the film producer and the pundit who holds sway over a majority of the viewing public holds any importance? -- Nemogbr ( talk) 02:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Have created a new sub-section called Controversy. This indicates that there was a controversy over the casting. That there is an ongoing controversy and no matter what some people may "type" or promulgate otherwise, there will be an ongoing controversy.
This is not a Point Of View, this is the reality of the situation. Going into any fansite that mentioned the live action film indicates that the controversy is alive and well. -- Nemogbr ( talk) 10:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
It is a major change in the article. So far, all you will allow is one actor defending the casting. No links on the detractors.
Why?
The fans already know of the systemic racism. Afraid others will learn of the controversy and make their own investigations? -- Nemogbr ( talk) 00:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The quotes have been removed and added as part of the Controversy section. You are waiting for other opinions, but insist that it be removed in the meantime.
How can it become part of the discussion when you have deleted the entry? -- Nemogbr ( talk) 02:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
11:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Those entries were posted on that page before I removed the quotation marks. You removed the entry completely.
Before you started deleting every mention of the controversy, the consensus was to leave it in the article. --
Nemogbr (
talk)
22:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
There were two quotes added. One from Roger Ebert and another from Frank Marshall. Both are more important than Rathbone's statement.
If we look at the film 21, there was a controversy section and it presented the views of the critics and the film makers.
The entry for Last Airbender does not. It is not informative and simply becomes advertisement for the movie. -- Nemogbr ( talk) 00:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
[8] how's this for a respectable source?-- Silvercell2 ( talk) 07:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)silvercell2
Good link, thank you.
Not sure how some here would think of the source. They would believe it too biased. Already found it difficult to have FRank MArshall, the producer and Roger Ebert, film pundit, accepted.
Henry Jenkins even if he is the Provost's Professor of Communications, Journalism, and Cinematic Art at the University of Southern California....might not be credible or important enough. -- Nemogbr ( talk) 09:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
That's a blog, I'm pretty sure it's not a credible source. - Dylan0513 ( talk) 14:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
An interview with an actor for MTV, seems to hold more credibility. -- Nemogbr ( talk) 16:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Is it alright if I add a link to the Racebending.com (the main protest site for the movie) to the article's main link sections? Zobango ( talk) 22:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
At most, wouldn't there merely be mention that there was controversy over it? There is, so there's nothing more needed to be added. We don't need 2 controversies on Wikipedia (1: over the link. 2: over racism specifically towards whites) based on the controversy of the film that's already been mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.141.176.86 ( talk • contribs) 16:07, April 12, 2010
The element symbols (Air, Water, Earth, and Fire) are different from that of the show. Both articles, the movie and the show, do not cover this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.177.47 ( talk) 22:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
What you are stating is incorrect. Al the symbols are taken from the show. I don't have it here right now. But I can find a source if necessary. Randysem ( talk) 11:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
you go do that, the symbols have been changed. [9] look at the symbols for each element. [10] why, they're exactly the same!-- Silvercell2 ( talk) 14:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)silvercell2
You're confusing the nation's symbols with the elemental symbols. The symbols shown on the movie banners are the nation ones. 76.114.198.95 ( talk) 23:19, 28 April 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Fine. Dylan0513 wanted a discussion about adding a Controversy section, so I'm bringing one up. Aside from news articles from Yahoo, Google, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, Roger Ebert, Gene Yang, etc, what more evidence does anyone need that the casting for the film is angering many fans, members of the Asian-American (as well as other minority) communities, and advocates of fair representation in today's media?
And in case people weren't aware, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia meant to inform the general public about almost any topic and their relevent sub-topics. The casting controversy and its unfortunate implications following a history of discriminary practices is completely relevent.
Also, 300, 21, and other films have similar controversy paragraphs on their pages. And, frankly, I think enough fans are outraged over the casting for it to warrant a little notice. - User:EricSpokane —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC).
Akerans, the point is not negativity. The point is that this is being treated as a minor issue when it isn't to a lot of people. While the information can be perceived as negative, it counter-balances the rosy portrait Paramount Studios needs in order to sell this movie to mass audiences and continue being part of a Hollywood system that relegates actors of color to background/villainous/stereotypical roles. Besides, I highly doubt an extra section is going to bring down the grosses on this film. It's mainly to spread awareness about this problem.
Wikipedia is about information. Factual information, both positive and negative. Treating this site like some un-biased news company is rather naive. Why else would Conservapedia be created?
By the way, suggesting the other articles remove their "Controversy" sections to remain neutral smacks of "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil." I disagree with the controversies revolving around Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, but that doesn't mean I have the right to rob those critics of a platform to voice their opinions. - User:EricSpokane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.208.246 ( talk) 00:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Akerans. Also, we've had many discussions about this none of which have ended in a consensus for adding a controversy section. - Dylan0513 ( talk) 01:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
First, to the anonymous poster, the studios are relying on technicalities like "brown-skinned blue-eyed" people to justify casting white actors in the main roles and discriminating against actors of color. So the characters have blue eyes? Any other specific traits about them or their culture that says they are more Caucasian than Inuit? Hm?
Akerans, the entire page itself is an agenda to sell the movie. Paramount has been taking big financial losses lately and are relying on certain films (including The Last airbender) to make money. A "Controversy" section is not an agenda, it is a major part of the movie's public image now. Just look at all the news articles and entertainment insiders' comments on it, for goodness sake.
All I am asking is that a "Controversy" section be added to counter that and, gasp, provide information about why so many people are angry, not just about the film but Hollywood's discriminatory practices. Heck, if you'd like, I'll find the web site where Shyamalan and the studios both posted reactions to the controversy and add those to the section to counter-balance the so-called negativity.
And on a final note, I'm sorry, but you're only delaying something that's inevitable. A "Controversy" section is going up at some point whether you or I like it or not. Enough people are angry about the casting for the issue to keep popping up. - User: EricSpokane —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC).
Okay, I and many others are angry about this, but not enough to warrant giving the controversy its own page. It is not a political or sex scandal, it is racial discrimination that is inexplicably intertwined with the film itself. There is no need for an extra page, just an extra section, which, again, is going to happen eventually anyway. There is already a page on yellowface, thanks.
You keep saying a "Controversy" section is a wrong fix when numerous other film articles ( 300, 21, Dogma, Cannibal Holocaust for obvious reasons, and even Superman II for crying out loud) have such sections. A whole 'nother page is a bit much (overkill, actually), but not allocating a section to the issue is tantamount to denying such an issue exists or it's not important enough to warrant notice. It is not major enough to justify its own page, nor is it minor enough to relegate to one miniscule paragraph.
Like I said, I will add responses by Paramount and M. Night Shyamalan to the controversy in the proposed section to give it a more balanced narrative, but I will not budge on the complete lack of such a section when it has become such an issue that many fans are boycotting the film. - User:EricSpokane —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC).
So this film's article has special immunity from reasonable criticism (even two-sided, as I have suggested)? Very well.
By the way, the first edit was my attempt at creating the section, which was removed with a note attached asking for discussion, so that was hardly malicious. The second edit, I admit, was out of sheer frustration and incredibly stupid, but Rathbone's dismissal of the controversy smacks of ignorance and allusions to blackface and was highly offensive.
Again, I only want the section because this controversy is very much a major part of this film's public image now. You don't want it, fine. So far, I'm not hearing a community consensus siding with you or me on the matter. Just you and me debating. But if creating a whole new article is the only way this "Controversy" thing is going to happen, alright. I still think it's overkill, but I despise putting down or minimizing the opinion of an angered community (particularly an ethnic community) even more. You have your separate article. EricSpokane ( talk) 00:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
And The Dancing Dragons, Temporal88, Sidepocket, Nemogbr, Oconel, and others all seem to hold the same position as mine against you in previous discussions over this issue. Just because I'm currently the only critic of this film commenting on this discussion doesn't mean I'm alone. That is my point. This is not a minor issue, it is a very big deal. And I am agreeing (albeit, reluctantly) with your compromise for creating a separate article about the controversy.
But your and Dylan0513's continued suppression of this issue is starting to sound biased in and of itself. How can one be neutral if one refuses a platform for critics but is willing to provide one for supporters? Neutrality is not about suppressing opinions, but giving equal measure to differing opinions, or at least trying to. Paramount Studios and the filmmakers, as well as supporters of the film are having their say, and I plan on giving them their say in a proposed "Controversy" section or article; let the critics have theirs, and don't patronize them by treating it as a minor issue. Racism is not a minor issue, nor is depriving actors of color of work. EricSpokane ( talk) 02:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I hear you. Loud. And. Clear.
I don't see information about the original casting calls' clear preference for Caucasian actors in main roles and non-Caucasian for background roles, the production's callous (Note: I can remove objective words like "callous", if that's preferrable) dismissal of any and all letters of protest up until this last month, the producers' asnd filmmakers' (insensitive or reasonable, depends on the perspective) responses to the controversy, as well as the debate between supporters and critics. And how do I know such information will not be deleted for giving the paragraph too much clout or weight? Suppression by minimization; a common tactic used to portray people protesting racism or racist practices as "whiners" and belittling their protests as a minor issue not worth any serious notice or debate.
With what I know about the controversy, all the information is going to require its own section. If that is not agreeable, however, then a separate article might suffice. I would just have to find more sources than I have to make such an article justifiable. More homework, joy.
I apologize for my frustration, but I'm afraid I can't be dissuaded in this. I will agree to compromises, but a lack of substantial discussion of the controversy is not agreeable to me. It's tantamount to treating it as if it's either minor or in the past, when it's not. EricSpokane ( talk) 04:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The issue is not whether the controversy exists. It's whether the controversy deserves its own section. As it stands the controversy has a prominent place in the article. I argue against a controversy section because the controversy is a very small part of the movie overall and not even larger than the casting. It's a part of the casting which is why it belongs in the casting section. - Dylan0513 ( talk) 22:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Nemogbr ( talk) 22:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Skyrocket ( talk) 17:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
@Dylan0513: Your bias has been noticed. You insist upon deleting parts of the article in order to support this film. Others attempt to be as informative as possible, whilst you prefer a bland advertisement for Paramount Studios. Do you work for them?
@Skyrocket: Point taken about the dicussions on the net. The controversy is gaining more of an audience due to the mainstream media taking notice. As the release date approaches, more people will desire information.
The wikipedia page needs to be ready or people will get annoyed at the dearth of current and reliable information. A couple of paragraphs regarding the controversy would suffice.
Nemogbr ( talk) 23:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The controversy is now on the page. Previously it was kept off the article by the supporters of Paramount and the film makers. It took awhile before the whole mass of data available gave them no choice.
Nemogbr ( talk) 21:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Can someone nominate the article created for the controversy for deletion? I'm not too knowledgeable on the deletion process but the controversy is obviously not notable enough to get its own article. - Dylan0513 ( talk) 01:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for being away so long. Anyways, I created a "casting controversy" article, as Dylan0513 has pointed out, at the behest of Akerans' suggestion for a separate article. I have a vast array of information and sources available at the moment, not all of them from blogs, mind you, and the sources that are are from blogs that I consider to have excellent accountability (or will look into their accountability practices). I do not plan on using RaceBending.com as a primary source of information. I am currently working on sorting the sources out, particularly Shyamalan's and Paramount's reactions. I'm trying to get others to help me out.
And, as I've said before, I agree with Akerans that giving the controversy its own article is overkill, considering there aren't hundreds of thousands of people protesting this film (that I'm aware of, anyway) but neither are there so few or celebrities/industry members so unnotable (C'mon, Roger Ebert, Gene Yang, and even Giancarlo Volpe, a director from the show!) in opposition to this film to warrant the controversy a minor footnote. To me, it's similar to what history textbooks do: Give two or three chapters to WWII while reducing the Phillipine-American War to a couple paragraphs. I know the analogy is a bit stretched, but that's how it seems.
Whether it's an article or a section (I'm afraid it has to be one or the other), however, I admit neutrality is a must. Just because I disagree with Neo-Nazis doesn't mean I'll deny them their First Amendment rights. EricSpokane ( talk) 15:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It has to be a section because the information on the controversy itself is too extensive for a "Casting" section (yet definitely not extensive enough at present to warrant its own article, or rather a large article, though Akerans suggested it, so I went with it), and it will probably dwarf the rest of the section. If I were to add information on the original casting calls, the protests, as well as Paramount's & Shyamalan's response to the film, the information would need at least another couple paragraphs. By that point, the casting section will have more information on the controversy than the casting. Is there any possibility for a "Casting" subsection, maybe? EricSpokane ( talk) 03:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
-Why don't you guys just try and make a racebending page? This way, you could get an entire page devoted to the cause that you support. For the article, I think the casting section is fine. I would hardly call the yahoo news a reliable thing. The article you're referring to was a small two sentence mention in an article about controversial comments, not to mention, all of the comments on that yahoo news page were supporting the film. Now here's what I think. Once the movie comes out and the critics express dismay in the casting, and it becomes more consistent, I think it'd be a great idea to add a controversy section, but not until then. -- Jason Garrick ( talk) 00:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I recently prefaced the "Casting" section with "Main: The Last Airbender Casting Controversy." After which, someone removed it. There is no reason to delete a link to the main article. It was well placed, and contained more information important to section. I will put the link back up as long as the Main article is still there, unless the individual who deleted it (ChaosMaster16), or someone else, can provide a decent reason why it should be removed.-- 173.63.104.211 ( talk) 19:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that there have been a lot of reverts lately and it seems that everyone has different reason for undoing everyone else's changes. I feel that maybe everyone that is heavily involved in editing this page ( User:Dylan0513, User:ChaosMaster16, User:TheRealFennShysa, and User:Nemogbr all spring to mind) should take a bit of time off to discuss here what you guys feel like we should be doing with this page and maybe the direction we should be taking it in, and then maybe we can come to some sort of comprimise. Besides I think that we're close to violating WP:3RR and I dont want this page to become locked... again. So how about we talk this out everybody? I Feel Tired ( talk) 00:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I am reverting the casting section back to the way it was because recent changes (specially adding quotes) haven't been discussed. And I've had a quotes topic here for weeks waiting for replies! People need to stop randomly changing the article and discuss before they do so. - Dylan0513 ( talk) 00:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
If it's a major problem with editing, can we put a lock on the article? -- Jason Garrick ( talk) 02:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
What about people who don't know about this little plan? This site IS meant for the general public to edit, add and subtract certain information based on their best knowledge. Those kind of things we'd only need to change if it violates a rule or if it's just vandalism, but if it's actual information shouldn't someone investigate it if they want to take it off to see if it's worth keeping? Also, there has been a Japanese trailer, second theatrical trailer AND another TV spot reveailed but none of these are added to the list of promotions after the currently listed trailers! JeffPalmer on YouTube seems to be laying out more information than Wikipedia right now and he's one person merely making updates in VIDEOS! He, himself, is not a reliable source but he seems to be laying out information that is backed up! And some of the things he provides ARE facts (such as actually SHOWING the trailers and clips, toys of Appa and Momo that have not been mentioned on Wikipedia.) I'm not saying to use him as a source. I'm just saying if that one guy can gain all that information, Wikipedia should! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.141.176.86 ( talk • contribs) 16:16, April 12, 2010
Can we get an anonymous lock to reduce the reverts? 76.21.122.234 ( talk) 05:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I added a FAQ in the discussion page so people would stop asking about the controversy. Someone change this into a table, the way the FAQ table is on the Barrack Obama discussion page. 76.21.122.234 ( talk) 14:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
After the deletion of the page about the casting controversy regarding The Last Airbender, I restored the information into the article. The original casting call, and the other information was pertinent to this article. The reason the other page was deleted was because that was all it contained. It was short enough that the pertinent information could be merged into this article. If Dylan0513, who removed the information, or anyone else has any objection to their inclusion, please discuss it here before removing. The inclusion of this information is not biased, as it is factual, well-source information; simply stating the controversy is not akin to bias.-- 173.63.104.211 ( talk) 17:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
I agree with Dylan0513 that the IP editor's full addition gives undue weight to the casting controversy. At *most*, I would add the paragraph reading 'The original 2008 casting calls in Philadelphia, expressing a preference for Caucasian actors over actors of color, has been used by critics of the film as evidence of racial bias, intentional or not.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://racebending.com/castinglead.jpg}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.racebending.com/v3/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/CastingFlyer-Airbender.jpg}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.myentertainmentworld.com/mew/audition_film-tv.html}}</ref>', as that seems more than sufficient to meet the IP editor's concerns.— -- Andrensath ( talk | contribs) 05:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC) |
Glad we reached a consensus on this and I think this only helped make the article more informative. - Dylan0513 ( talk) 19:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I seem to recall reading that a budget for the film was mentioned somewhere but I can't recall where I read it. Since I've seen it in other film boxes I think we should add it here. Skyrocket 16:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-airbender-20100625,0,1232454.story "With a production cost of $150 million and a blockbuster-size $130-million marketing budget, "The Last Airbender" is more than twice as expensive as any of Shyamalan's previous eight films." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.112.238 ( talk) 03:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)