Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Pandora's neural treeroot architecture

It seems like the mechanism by which Pandora's lifeforms literally communicate with the planet the whole time is rather important and should be mentioned in the synopsis, no? It not only provides a plausible natural explanation that helps the plot make sense, but it also provides valuable context for explaining almost all of the actions of the Na'vi. 74.128.201.242 (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it a significant plot point? if not, the minute details are not really needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, parts of the plot synopsis are rather inaccurate due to the leaving out of this crucial information given in the movie. For example, at the movie's end the main character's "soul" is not transplanted to his avatar, as the synopsis (as of 12/22) claims; rather, in a biological process the planet integrates his brain's information into its global neural network (made of electrical signals that pass through treeroots) and then transmits it back out from there. In other words, it's not the mystical supernatural sort of thing the synopsis would suggest; it's simply a type of biology not found on earth, and a major source of conflict in this film is that the scientists begin to understand this (and therefore understand the need to protect the planet's ecosystem) whereas the mercenaries do not.

Similarly, the entire point of the Na'vi wanting to preserve their "sacred sites" is not some primitive mysical thing like the drivel in the synopsis would suggest; it's because those sites are their link into the global neural net (which also links them to the knowledge of all their dead ancestors). This is all unknown to the Na'vi themselves, who don't understand how it all works, hence their entire culture and religion in the movie. Their diety "Eywa" is the global neural network itself. But the synopsis totally neglects to define Ewya, the Hometree, the Tree of Souls, or any of these things that it mentions for what they really are.

Yes, it's important; it's the sole source of motivation for nearly all of the characters. Someone who has watched this film and who took more away from it than some mystical superficial message needs to make corrections accordlingly, so that this plot can be summarized accurately and in all its fascinating glory. At the very least, someone should paraphrase what I've described here, because right now the article lacks all of this information, and provides a rather misleading view of Avatar's fictional universe.74.128.201.242 (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I'll also point out that the plot synopsis forgets to mention a pretty huge fact about Jake and the primary reason why he suddenly became enamoured with his life as the avatar. In addition to the whole "falling in love with Na'vi culture," there's also the obvious fact that he can actually physically move around as an avatar and isn't a depressed wheelchair-bound marine like in real life. This comparison is a pretty constant theme in the movie. It deserves a line, but right now the synopsis doesn't even mentioned that he's handicapped. I'd add a blurb about this myself if the article wasn't locked. 74.128.201.242 (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. That should certainly be in the article. Dream Focus 18:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Its purely WP:OR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, I think that Dream Focus was talking about mentioning that Jake is handicapped should be included in the Plot section. I did not read all of what the IP stated, though; I do not want to be spoiled on anything significant. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It may be possible to discuss the environment using secondary sources. See this and this. We shouldn't be going on and on about such in-universe detail just by watching the film, though. Erik (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, not on and on; just suggesting a sentence or two. Totally leaving it out of the plot synopsis is like making the Batman movie article and neglecting to make it clear that Batman is not, in fact, an actual bat but is really a man in a batsuit, and then carefully sidestepping the topic during the whole synopsis to make it misleadingly seem like he actually is a bat. This stuff about what Pandora really "is" sets up the entire setting of the movie and so you can't explain what the movie is about without it. These simple facts are not original research; it's in the friggin movie, lol. That's, again, like watching batman and then saying the fact that batman is actually a guy in a batsuit wasn't sufficiently addressed in the movie and is therefore orginal research. No, the movie makes these concepts abundantly clear. I'm starting to wonder if you guys discussing what should go in the synopsis have even seen the movie.[[74.128.201.242 (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Then we'll have to start getting used to the idea that the plot summary is going to be 1400 words long, if we're going to include everything. There's simply too much going on; the film is a fantastic piece of work, nothing is in there just for eye candy, it all plays a part in the story. I've tried to trim it down, but it's difficult. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't even a issue of length; the current synopsis spends as much space carefully stepping around these concepts as it would if it just said them. How much space does it really take to say "the Na'vi, a sentient race with biological parts that enable them to communicate with a sentient neural network of treeroots wrapping around their planet" or something, with a link to the article on what a neural network is? Then take out all the untrue stuff about souls and explain why the Navi and the scientists were really trying to protect the sacred trees/ecosystem, and you're left with an article that's just as long yet actually correct. What's so wrong with simply replacing untrue statements with true ones?74.128.201.242 (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. The current plot is plain wrong. There is no soul transfer or praying to Eywa which suddenly causes wildlife to attack the humans. This is just how the Navi interpret it. The film is very clear about Eywa being the intelligence emerging from the tree root-connections, which is shown to be able to communicate with animals. Augustine's memories are uploaded to the network, then Jake connects to Eywa to warn about the attack and suggest to use Augustine's memories to understand the danger. Even though Neytiri believes Eywa will not take sides, this information is apparently enough to convince it to cause the animals to attack the humans "to protect the balance of life". I think it's more important that the plot be correct, then let's worry about length.87.68.22.45 (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something. Augustine had a theory about the properties of the treeroot system as a neural network but that was only addressed in passing. When they tried to transfer Augustine into her avatar and failed, I don't remember any mention that she was assimilated into the treeroot system. I don't think the treeroot system is important enough to add to the Plot section. Rwalker (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The nuances of how it works is not necessary, its excessive detail. Its enough to say simple "the Na'vi, a sentient race that communicate with a sentient neural network of treeroots wrapping around their planet" without the lines and lines of details. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotun26 (talk • contribs)

Pandora's biological neural net: sentient or not ?

I guess everybody who sees Avatar agrees that Pandora has a biological neural net consisting of biolelectric signals flowing through the tree roots. It is also clear that the net has some hubs such as the "Tree of Souls" or the "Tree of Voices", which the Na'vi can access using their specifically evolved cerebral cortexes and the synaptic conduits that extend therefrom . In theory, the net could function just as giant worldwide web of bio-computers used for data storage and communication. However, there are hints in the movie that it is, furthermore, sentient. Specifically, when Jake taps into the "Tree of Souls" and informs it of the imminent human attack, the central bio-hub apparently responds by telepathically commanding the Pandoran fauna to attack the humans as a form of self-defense.

Shouldn't that be mentioned in greater detail in the plot section of the article as it is a critical point to understand the story ? 200.168.20.13 (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to include it you're welcome to edit the plot summary, though please bear in mind the guidelines at WP:FILMPLOT regarding length of plot summaries (technically I think we're currently already over-long). I didn't regard this as a "critical" point myself, and I believe it's already been discussed above in any case. Doniago (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotun26 (talk • contribs)

Sky appearance on Pandora

Could anyone please add a section with a detailed description of the appearance of the sky at daytime and at night as seen from an observer on Pandora's surface ? 200.168.20.80 (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This would be appropriate for the article Pandora (fictional moon), when and if Avatar becomes notable enough that aspects of its story merit their own articles. That said, Category:Fictional Planets contains a lot of fictional planets that are far less notable than Pandora. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The French-language wikipedia already has a rather detailed Pandora (fictional moon) article of its own. Besides, the appearance of the sky as seen from the moon is an important element to define an alien landscape and is featured prominently in the movie. 200.168.20.164 (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it does, and I would be happy to see more in-universe material in Wiki, but many editors see it as unnecessary fancruft. In the meantime, why not edit the page at the http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Pandora Avatar wikia]? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Two important points missing from article

There are two significant criticisms of the film that are missing from the article. Before doing so, I will add the links here. They both comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability and thus there really isn't reason not to include them. I'm not sure we need a whole section - probably the critical reception space is fine:

a. Motion sickness - while not an issue for everyone, it has been an issue for some viewers and thus deserves a mention since the technology is still developing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/nov/26/avatar-james-cameron-3d

b. Issues concerning plot, themes, and representation:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100020488/james-camerons-avatar-is-a-stylish-film-marred-by-its-racist-subtext/

I'll wait a day for response - otherwise I'll add these links to critical reception. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both items a and b. Mostly, b: the entry as it stands now, seems as written by an admirer rather than as an encyclopedic entry. There should be a section devoted to criticism on the film: both on its artistic merits and its political agenda.Tom Peleg (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There may be something to what you say, but keep in mind WP:UNDUE for any tweaking to get to a neutral point of view, and note that a large majority of the reliable sources have positive opinions about the movie, and that is supported by the general public that votes by buying tickets to it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree that there is a large majority of "positive" reviews. There is a lot of negative voices against the movie, both due to what is generally accepted as "its poor plot" and its "lack of artistic sophistication"; and to it's controversial political agenda. The consensus is positive only on its technological merits. Majority of reviews agree the film is not a masterpiece but deserves a special note due to its technological merits only.

Second, the commercial success is irrelevant here, since we are talking about its critical reception per se. The facts about its commercial success are well emphasized (a thing which I think should be deferred not to the first three paragraphs, but later; since it has nothing to do with the movie--as a movie. But for that I do not care).Tom Peleg (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re "I do not agree that there is a large majority of "positive" reviews. " - Could you give a source that supports your position? My position is based on Rotten Tomatoes. I've seen that you have criticized Rotten Tomatoes elsewhere for being a compilation of only English speaking reviewers, but note that the film was made in English, although it is probably shown with translations in non-english speaking countries. Also, so far you haven't shown any source that tallies non-english language reviews that supports your opinion.

However, 84% positive reviews at Rotten Tomatoes means that there are 16% negative or neutral reviews and you might pursue you point in that regard, i.e. whether those reviews are appropriately represented in the article. Also, you might check the TV show At the Movies. I heard from someone that they rated Avatar at the lower part of the top ten list for 2009. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

a. - I haven't seen any article, including the one you mentioned, that said that anyone got motion sickness from viewing the movie. I think the quote from the end of the article at that link might apply here, "But overall it's a horrible piece of shit."

b. - I think a similar point is already made in the article by the Newitz discussion in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the section Critical reception.

So I don't think they should be added to the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel that the first article's content merits inclusion. I did add a mention from the second one following the Newitz quote in the Reception section, since this author pointed out specific issues with race and ethnicity in the film, while Newitz simply pointed out that the movie is a white fantasy. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The reception of the movie was very positive and race was a small part of the negative criticism and the race aspect is already represented in the section. So I deleted the recently added part about race per WP:UNDUE. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright then, but I'm concerned about the loss of the link to the commentary. How about consolidating the two voices into a single sentence discussing negative criticism of the race aspect? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I considered that but I didn't see a good way to do it without taking up too much space. Also, re the point about black actors that were the voices of the Na'vi, I don't think hardly anyone watching the movie would have realized that, so it seems to be a manufactured issue and not a real issue. Re Newitz, the discussion was specific about what "race fantasy" meant. Also Newitz's point is consistent with the connection of the film with Dances with Wolves. It seems like a good thing to keep alone without abridging. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of positive or negative film reviews but rather what has been reported about the film. "Motion sickness" is a polite term for "nauseous" and whenever a film involves 3-D and/or IMAX this is still a problem for some (but not all viewers). See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/dec/10/james-cameron-avatar-preview

http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/movies/AP/story/1403060.html

I'm not certain why this is deemed irrelevant since the new technology is so important to the discussions of this film. As for the second, there has been a discussion of noble savage as a theme of the film:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/01/is_blue_the_new_black_why_some.html

this is easily verified through a google search. I'm not certain how WP:UNDUEWEIGHT applies in this case since only one source has been given on the topic. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing to be careful about when writing a Wikipedia article about a film like Avatar, is that it is so popular and is thus given so much attention in the press, that there is a greater likelihood that there will be a small number of articles that raise false issues or issues not specific to the film. This is the case with motion sickness, nausea, etc. I haven't seen any article that reports a single case from viewing Avatar. If one is interested in the issue of motion sickness for 3-D films, one might consider working on the section 3-D_film#Criticisms at the article 3-D film. It's interesting that in even that article, it hasn't been given much attention. Perhaps you can change that situation.

Regarding the race issue, the link that you gave mentions Annalee Newitz's article about Avatar and race, which is already used in the Avatar article in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph in the Critical reception section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually all three articles mention that some people had this reaction (nausea) when viewing Avatar. As for the second point, I was perplexed by the WP:UNDUEWEIGHT issue since it is hardly addressed - and no mention is made of noble savage which has received quite a bit of coverage. I've worked on film articles for a number of years on the Wikipedia and thus am pretty familiar with how they are written. However, given Wikipedia:Consensus I'll leave it as is. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as an fyi, here is an article which is very specific on the issue of nausea. So it is out there. But again as I wrote above, I won't push inclusion in the article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1235154/Has-James-Cameron-Hollywoods-scariest-man-blown-200-million-biggest-movie-flop-ever.html

"More worryingly for Cameron, the 3D effects, which are supposed to mean that Avatar is the 'first film of the future', left several viewers feeling nauseous. 'I definitely would not eat before seeing the film,' one told me." -Classicfilms (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts and info. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Note on organization of talk topics above

If anyone is looking for a topic that they can't find, please note that I made some substantive organizational changes and turned a lot of headings into sub-headings to avoid redundancy and clutter. Jotun26 (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26

As I stated to AniRaptor2001 when AniRaptor2001 reformatted headings, I am not sure that changing the order of discussions in the way you did is for the best or not. I do not hugely object in this case, but I prefer that talk page sections are presented in the order they appeared on the talk page, unless it is a section that started at the top of the talk as opposed to the bottom.

It's not a policy...but is a guideline if you specifically alter an editor's comment (a registered user's or an IP's) in some significant kind of way. Guidelines on all this are at WP:TALK; it includes mention of the chronological order matter I was talking about. But what you did might be considered appropriate, per "When talk pages get too long" (also seen in the WP:TALK link). I just thought I should bring it up to you. Some editors object quite a great deal to drastic refactoring of talk pages, especially if their comments are altered. You did not significantly alter any comments, other than the subsection headings, of course, but I just wanted to note this to you. One now banned editor, Tyciol, often got into a lot of trouble for refactoring talk pages (as his talk page edit history shows). Flyer22 (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also advise you against altering editors' comments to where your comment is within theirs, like you did with one of my comments (though I changed it). That is not needed, and it can lead to people thinking you are a sockpuppet of that editor.

And maybe we should speed up the archive bot of this talk page, so that all this refactoring is not thought of as needed. Flyer22 (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Yes, I did not edit any of the contents of the sections, aside from a few headings. Mainly, I just aligned a few topics better with the existing organizational structure. I had forgotten about archiving (still new to this). Jotun26 (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26

Music from the Film

How is it that in the Avatar Trailer the score from "The Island" is played but there is no mention of it anywhere? The specific track name is "My name is Lincoln" by Steve Jablonski...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRdxXPV9GNQ (avatar trailer) http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,3317779,00.html (sample track) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.99.59 (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen that mentioned in any reliable source, probably because it is not unusual for movie trailers or advertisements in general. You might look for a reliable source that discusses Avatar's soundtrack that might mention that. Please keep in mind WP:NOR too. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Omega Code", "The Glass Hand" and "Soldier"

James Cameron had at least two other movies that he acknowledged hijacking: "Terminator" and "The Omega Code". The "Terminator" Was derived from two stories by Harlan Ellison: "The Glass Hand" and "Soldier". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.224.162 (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Appears like American military

I remember as a viewer of the film in the theater, I thought the soldiers were the American military, literally. I either didn't notice or didn't remember the description of them as mercenaries, which apparently was in the first 10 minutes of the film. I suspect that most people seeing the film had the same experience. Perhaps that should be put in, but I don't see how. As it is, it seems like the article has "sanitized" that aspect of the film. I'm very interested and open minded regarding other editors' thoughts and suggestions regarding this. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing that probably made this matter most confusing was what I perceived as the security details' continued use of their military-issued uniforms. I'm not sure if this is common practice among PMCs or not, but I suppose the argument could be made that since there are not other military around, they're free to do as they please, and Quartich would seem the type of personality to want to imagine himself as running his own little army. However the article does mention "mercenary" and "security contractor" quite a few times, while making sure to note that all marines are ex- or retired. I don't think it's far fetched to say that Cameron deliberately wanted the association with the american military to be very obvious, to the point of the viewer subtly forgetting that they were dealing with contractors and not soldiers. I imagine that some conservative voices must have picked up on this. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

To me it was quite clear that the military were civilian-operated, very much a Blackwater-like operation. The many allusions to the real-world Iraq operations (I think I even heard the words "war on terror") definitely are surprising in a normally very mainstream movie. The article does point at it, in a manner which avoids well possible edit wars. As far as the uniforms are concerned, most mercenaries (officers) are former regular military ; they retain their former uniforms and weapons, as their new hire generally does not provide any.--Environnement2100 (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing the "plot" section

"Controversy" over use of word "soul"

During the plot section it mentions twice how the "soul" of the human is "transplanted" into the Na'Vi. This is technically incorrect. The premise of the bio-neurological network is that data can be uploaded and downloaded into a huge mainframe. It would be more correct to say that the "mind" of the human has been "uploaded" into the Na'Vi body, similar to a USB file transfer

Cheers - jdoyle10 Jdoyle10 (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not really incorrect. The "soul" is the mind, unless you view "soul" as being more of a spirit form type of thing. I do not mind either way it is worded, but it is probably better left at "mind" for neutrality (since not everyone believes in "souls, in the physical spirit sense)...even though the Na’Vi seem to believe in spiritual form type of souls. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus as to whether or not the mind is to be identified with the soul. To make such a claim would be controversial. "Consciousness" or "mind" is much more acceptable, as none of these issues are raised with those terms. JEN9841 (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

How is it controversial to identify the mind with the soul, unless the person is thinking of "soul" in the physical spirit sense? I was essentially saying that the word "soul" can simply mean who the person is. People use the word "soul" differently. You seem to be identifying the word "soul" in the physical spirit sense. But the word "soul" is even used by non-religious people to mean who the person is, that person's personality. In other words, that person's mind. We are identifying the mind with the soul anyway by changing "soul" to "mind" or "consciousness," since, in either case, we would be using a substitute for "soul." I also have more to say in the Soul? section below. Flyer22 (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

To walk away from all controversial terms, why not use 'personhood' or 'personality' instead of 'soul' and 'mind'? Whatever one believes to be the essence of one's person, that's what got transfered, and 'personhood' or 'personality' covers that well. Cinosaur (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Cinosaur, I am not sure "personhood" or "personality" would go over well. "Personhood" is not a word that people use too often, and I can see vandals being obscene with that word (if you know what I mean). "Personality" is okay, but does not sound as strong as "mind"; it comes off a bit bland and detached compared to "mind," and I can see that being changed to "mind" really quick. I would rather keep our options at "mind," "soul," or "consciousness." As I stated in the Soul? section below, though, I prefer "soul"...because that is how the Na'vi see it. As a compromise, however, we could put the word soul in quotation marks. Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22, agreed on 'personhood' -- too academic for a vandal to pass up on. Even though I too personally prefer 'soul', but I agree that too many readers will deem it too religious. However 'mind' is too weak here, IMHO, as it is not the entire personality yet, but just a psychic part of it. But, without getting carried away by philosophy here -- what about 'inner being' or 'self' as viable options? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinosaur (talk • contribs) 00:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be awkward to use anything other than 'soul' since the process is being carried out by the Tree of Souls which is mentioned as the place where it happens in the previous sentence? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Cinosaur, I am not seeing how the word mind is too weak; that is a person's entire personality, is it not? But as for any other suggestions, I would have to agree with Bob that the word soul is best in this case (the same you prefer). And with it being in quotation marks, I feel that it lessens its religious aspects; it makes it clear that this is from the Na'vi point of view. However, what do you think of the word consciousness being used instead? Flyer22 (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22: As I said, 'soul' seems most preferable to me. As for consciousness (or mind, for that matter), I like to consider it a product or energy of the soul, because under certain conditions consciousness is either absent entirely (like in coma or deep sleep) or partially (partial paralysis or local anesthesia) while the soul (=personality) remains. I would say that when Jake was operating his Avatar, he was investing it remotely with his consciousness while remaining in his own body. However, when he went for his "birth-again" party, he the 'soul' as the owner of the body got shifted to his Na'vi shell and permanently disowned his human body, which consequently dropped dead. In this paradigm one can compare the soul to fire, and consciousness -- to its light, which illuminates both itself and everything around. Similarly, the soul by means of consciousness illuminates itself ("I") and things around beginning with the body and mind. Sorry for the philosophical digression. Cinosaur (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, what you have stated makes sense. You would be against consciousness being used because Jake was not conscious when he was being "reborn" into his Avatar body, right? I am still not quite sure why you object to mind being used, however, since it does not matter whether he was conscious or not; he is not brain dead, and his mind (as in personality) was still transplanted into the his Avatar body. Another editor, seen in the Soul? section below, though, has changed the word to consciousness. Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I see now that it was the final mention that was changed to consciousness (I did not look at the Plot section some hours ago, since I already knew "soul" was changed); the first mention is still left as "soul," which I think is a good compromise, since that part is without a doubt from the Na'vi point of view. Flyer22 (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Soul ?

The article states that the Na'vi unsuccessfully attempted to "transfer Grace's soul" into her avatar body and, later, succeeded to do the same procedure on Jake. However, as I understand it, it is not really a "soul transfer", but rather transferring Grace's/Jake's "minds" (memories, personality, etc.) into the avatar body using Pandora's biological neural net. The Na'vi might well interpret that as a "soul transfer" according to their own religious beliefs, but, since the article is being written from a human, rather than a Na'vi perspective, a more suitable scientific explanation of the procedure is warranted. 200.168.20.77 (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, IP. This has also been brought up above, with the #Editing the "plot" section topic, and also in actual editing of this article. Seems we should just go with "consciousness," like before. Flyer22 (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[this section now integrated with "Editing the Plot Section" Jotun26 (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26]

Now that I think about it more, "soul" should probably stay. That is how the Na'vi perceive the transfer. They even have a Tree of Souls. If we were talking about the Avatar transfer explanation given by the humans at the beginning of the film, that is a different story. Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what they transfer, the human body would not function normally without either of their 'soul's or 'mind's, so for the purposes of easy explanation, they probably meant what you said. Also, being part of the plot, it's just an opinion, but I'd prefer it to be from the Na'vi point of view as it really goes along with the story ;)Prove me (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no widely accpted definition of the word 'soul' and different cultures have come to use it as they find it convinient. I feel the word soul is approporiate here. And since the story is seen mostly in the eyes of the Na'vi I feel its more approprite to give the story from their perspective only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manyfacetsoflife (talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

James Cameron seemed to make a VERY concerted effort to show that the Na'vi concept of a deity was not supernatural but biological. Souls are supernatural and because of that the use of this particular rhetoric seems inconsistent with both the Na'vi culture and the intentions of the creators of the movie. I strongly recommend the use of the compromise term consciousness as it encompasses more than just the mind, but is decidedly less religious in nature than "souls". This shouldn't affect the plot summary very much at all.HawkShark (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Soul" does not only mean supernatural, as I and Manyfacetsoflife have stated. The Soul article even makes it clear that the word "soul" is sometimes synonymous with mind or consciousness. But like others, I still see the Na'vi as being spiritual beings. I do not see how that is not clear in the film, which even has a Tree of Souls. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Consciousness is better than soul, and it is also better than using "soul" in quotation marks as it is now, as using the quotes could be read by some as disparaging or sarcastic. This discussion has also been occurring above #Editing the "plot" section. Consciousness or mind is the best term; I will change it to consciousness. JEN9841 (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, while I think both mind and consciousness (at least within the scope of this article) could serve equally well for the general reader, I suppose it is possible one could argue that one is better than the other. For now, though, I have changed it to consciousness. JEN9841 (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that "consciousness" is better than "soul" in this case. I thought about people thinking that we are being disparaging or sarcastic with the word soul in quotation marks, but I figured that most would understand what we mean. I am okay with letting the word stay as consciousness. But in the future, JEN9841, I would prefer the consensus of discussions be clearer before changes are made to things that are being debated on the talk page. The consensus on this matter is not as clear. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Just some moments ago...I noticed that you only changed the final mention to consciousness (I did not look at the Plot section some hours ago, since I already knew "soul" was changed); the first mention is still left as "soul," which I think is a good compromise, since that part is without a doubt from the Na'vi point of view. Did you do that on purpose, or rather miss the first soul mention? Flyer22 (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I missed the first one. Leaving soul there as a compromise I think would be a good idea, but this is a tricky issue. The thing that I am concerned about is the fact that "soul" is written with the quotation marks. Do you think the quotes make it non-neutral? JEN9841 (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems perfectly fine to me to leave the first mention in quotation marks; it is saying that the Na'vi believe they are transferring the soul (as in the physical spirit sense) into the Avatar, while some humans (fictional characters or viewers) would not use the word soul in this case (at least not in the physical spirit sense). Flyer22 (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That works for me. We'll keep it the way it is with the first mention being "soul" and the second being consciousness, and fix any changes that deviate from it. JEN9841 (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just my input on this topic, however I will agree to consensus, but I believe the "soul" reference to be the best one to use in all instances. Being a work of fiction, we are bound to that work of fiction and whatever details the film gives us regardless of bias or personal beliefs. "Tree of souls" and the Navi viewpoint of the "soul" is all thats mentioned in the film that I'm aware of. We as editors are using "consciousness" in our own right, even though it is never spoken of in that manner in the entire film. We can only speculate what the humans would call this "transfer", but we do know what the Navi call it, and in my opinion that is what we as the editors should call it. Ok, I'm done. :) DrNegative (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Neolithic" versus "Paleolithic"

It is said that "Pandora is inhabited by the Na’vi, a paleolithic species of sapient humanoids with feline characteristics.[17] Physically stronger and taller than humans, the indigenes have sparkling blue skin and live in harmony with Nature, worshiping a mother goddess called Eywa."... I feel that "paleolthic" is incorrect and should be modified to "neolithic" or at the very least "proto-neolithic" as these beings made use of wild and domestic crops and domesticated animals; and foremost created tribes and chiefdoms as seen in the movie. Paleolithic beings were much less developed and formed as 'bands' or social groups, and not distinct communities. Dlbarabe (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Dlbarabe, the topic of "Paleolithic or neolithic?" is discussed below, in the Paleolithic or Neolithic ? section Flyer22 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[revised: now right below Jotun26 (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26].

Paleolithic or Neolithic ?

The article refers to the Na'vi as Paleolithic humanoids. However, even though there is e.g. no reference in the movie to Na'vi agriculture, the range of Na'vi tools and artifacts, as well as their full domestication of animals, seem to suggest that they are actually more advanced than paleolithic humans, possibly closer to neolithic or, even late neolithic societies on pre-historical Earth.

In fact, from a certain point of view, even though they don't fully understand it, the Na'vi do have full access to a potentially highly sophisticated biotechnology, namely Pandora's biological neural net, which can be tapped into using hubs such as the "Tree of Voices" and the "Tree of Souls". The Na'vi also take advantage of their sophisticated nervous system to establish neural synaptic connections with Pandoran animals and control them. Therefore, despite the seemingly primitive appearance of Na'vi society, they are in a way far more advanced than pre-historical humans. That point, coupled with their superior strength and reflexes, explain why the Na'vi remain a threat to the technologically far more sophisticated 22nd-century humans. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason for labeling them as a paleolithic society came down to whether or not they made use of organized agriculture, which is not apparent in the movie. In official sources, they are referred to as a neolithic-equivalent species, perhaps that should take precedence. Just because the Omaticaya clan did not use agriculture does not mean any others did not. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia articles are written from sourced information, we do not use original research. If you can find a source that specifically refers to the Na'vi as Neolithic or Paleolithic, then by all means include it. If the only source for the inclusion is your own opinion, it does not belong in the article. I actually wonder if the word "paleolithic" is even in the Entertainment Weekly article that's cited, I'm of half a mind to go by the library and take a look at it tonight. Trusilver 22:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Na'vi society is referred to as "neolithic" in the Pandorapedia [1]. Would that qualify as a source ? 161.24.19.112 (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Paleolithic and neolithic are terms referring to Earth cultural periods and I think they shouldn't be used for the cultural periods of other planets, except for example, by saying they are "like" the neolithic period on Earth. Also, info that is not in the movie but in a companion source should be so noted in a footnote, in my opinion. Perhaps material that has details related to the story but that aren't in the movie should be limited to a section in the article for that purpose and so noted? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe official materials all indicate the Na'vi to be "neolithic". Of course, as you point out Bob, the terms paelo and neolithic apply only to Earth's history; we could compromise by saying "neolithic-like" or something of that sort. Regarding where we should put "in-universe" material... I believe it depends on how much this film's influence expands, if more films are made, etc. more separate articles can be created, such as the one that already exists for characters and wildlife. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there are going to be sequels with this kind of popularity and the way the story ended. The only thing we didn't hear was the head of the mining expedition saying, "I'll be back." They could call it Avatars?

P.S. For my info, by "in-universe" do you mean details or material related to the story that are not in the movie? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not big on the sound of "neolithic-like". That sounds incredibly awkward and cumbersome. In my opinion, it's a lot of hand-wringing about nothing. The sources use the word "neolithic", so that is pretty much the beginning and the end of the story. I don't see any need to use any other word, definitely not for the purpose of signifying that neolithic on earth and elsewhere are different and need to be properly represented. I see it as a complete non-issue, but your mileage may vary. Trusilver 23:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Bob, I am indeed referring to that material by "in-universe". Trusilver, I agree that "neolithic-like" isn't the best choice, and going with just "neolithic" is understandable enough. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Neolithic would be general agriculture capability, which includes sedentary behavior, large scale tool making and trading. No such things are seen in the movie. You can see them drink from tree-leafs, not from pottery. You do not see them grow crop nor cattle. So neolithic is off, except maybe for the early pre-pottery neolithic. The Na'vi house and beds definitely are not handcrafted, so they would not even be mesolithic. Animal taming is the exception and would hint at neolithic behaviour, even though you hardly can call it taming. Sophisticated body jewellery too. So the Omaticaya could be in touch with a neolithic civilization, or maybe used to be part of it, but still retain their paleo general behavior.--Environnement2100 (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

On Earth, the use of Bow and arrow would put it in at least the Mesolithic, as would the absence of agriculture. "Stone age" might be accurate enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.52.71 (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Motive for creation of avatars

The plot section says, "Humans cannot breathe Pandora’s atmosphere for long without passing out and dying. In order to move about Pandora, human scientists have created human-Na’vi hybrids called avatars, which are controlled by genetically matched human operators." I'm not sure that avatars were created just to "move about" Pandora, especially considering we see plenty of humans "moving about" just fine with the use of gas masks (a much more cost-effective solution!). I think there may have been some discussion of the motive for the program in the movie, although it wasn't clear to me whether it was meant to be primarily scientific or militaristic in nature...perhaps it actually represented the confluence of two different objectives (one scientific, one militaristic). Jotun26 (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26

According to the backstory, the avatars were created to explore the possibility of using them as locally-adapted mine workers, but the benefits were apparently not great enough to benefit their expense, and the program was redirected into science pursuits (probably to see if any other aspect of Pandora could be exploited for profit). AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That clears it up for me; thanks. Nonetheless, I think this sentence should be revised in a way that reflects this complexity without filling up the synopsis with too many details. Jotun26 (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26

According to the motives mentioned in the film for the recruitment of Jake Sully, unskilled and untrained, for an avatar pilot, his brothers' avatar is 'ridiculously expensive', and it seems logical that would exclude mine working or transportation as a possible motive for a supersophisticated and expensive r&d programme. Also, Dr. Grace Augustine, the creator and leader of the Avatar programme is a botanist. It only seems rational that the purpose for the creation of Avatars is to make use of their neurological networking features and to serve as an interface in the interaction with the locals for the purposes of 'xenology' and 'xenobotanics'. I believe that the sentence as it is now is naive and undermines the credibility of the plot.Tutini (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems I was mistaken, if we look over at pandorapedia, the Avatars were in fact created to facilitate communications with the Na'vi. I can't for the life of me remember where it mentioned that they were originally proposed as mine workers, but it seemed a reliable source at the time. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the direction of this discussion that the part about the purpose of the avatars needs to be fixed. Go for it! --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made the change, though I'm also going to add a Pandorapedia reference, since the motive for the program's creation is never discussed, only its current objectives ("we're on the brink of war, and you're supposed to be finding a diplomatic solution!") AniRaptor2001 (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sentence editing

The plot section also says, "Jake and Augustine are disconnected from their avatars and detained for treason along with Norm. Trudy Chacón (Michelle Rodriguez), a security force pilot who is disgusted by the violence, breaks them out but Augustine is wounded by Quaritch." This should be at least two sentences, an "and" should be included before "breaks them out," and "Augustine is wounded" should not be preceded by "but." Perhaps instead: "...who is disgusted by the violence, and breaks them out. During their escape, Augustine is wounded by Quaritch's gunfire aimed at their fleeing ship." Jotun26 (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26

I agree with a rework of the part where the characters are imprisoned, and more detail regarding Trudy's motives. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

For some reason I thought I was locked out of editing the main article. This revision doesn't seem particularly controversial to me, so I went ahead and changed it. I'm still new to this Wiki-editing stuff =) Jotun26 (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26

Edit: For some reason I thought "Norm." was an abbreviation for a military rank that Trudy has, instead of thinking of the character Norm...hence I thought there was no disconnect between the two sentences, which is why I added the "and." I now realize this was a mistake...Jotun26 (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26

Trudy's multiple treasons

On that note ("Sentence editing," above), perhaps there should be some mention either here or earlier in the synopsis that Trudy already disobeyed orders earlier in the film when she refused to assist in the bombing of the Hometree. Admittedly, I don't understand how she managed to stay in with her superiors long enough to break the others out following this incident...perhaps she somehow concealed her abandonment of the mission. (Any insight, anyone? Is this a plot hole?) Jotun26 (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26

You seem to have identified a plot hole; though perhaps, since the mission was successful, her lack of participation went unnoticed? Doubtful, in any case. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. She said she didnt sign on to bomb a town, she signed on to guard and transport RDA personel, which is probably true. That leaves RDA with the choice of looking the other way when an employee made a questionable judgement in extreme circumstances, or sacking a badly needed helicoptor pilot. Its not like she shot anyone down to protect home tree.

Had she not ran before the attempted bombing campaign, she'd probably have been left at the base as part of the skeleton guard. --80.254.146.20 (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)