Talk:The Last Airbender (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sources dump from the AfD

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

• Steve (talk · contribs) originally compiled all of this[1]. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Fresh Start

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)

Not really; just indiscrimance, outdated filming info and a cut-and-pasted character description. Alientraveller (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Lest we forget, but World Cinema Writer probably will, IMDB is not a reliable source. Alientraveller (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's focus on the content and not the contributor. I support the current revision, and I agree with AT that we should not cite IMDb in Wikipedia articles. Dylan, what edits do you think we can incorporate into this revision? —Erik (talk • contrib) 11:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted WCW's restoration of his draft. I agree with a lot of the edits, and I think we should all discuss what items are worth including. Here are some to discuss:

1. Unnecessary to have a hatnote to Avatar (film) at this point; there will not be any confusion from this point on
2. Infobox edits use too many captions and uses flag icons unnecessarily
3. Lead section is too long and not a true summary of the article body, but we can work on summarizing details
4. "Premise" section is uncited
5. "Company credits" has no precedent, and IMDb should not be cited anyway
6. ComingSoon.net and Avatar Wikia are not valid ELs per WP:ELNO

Feel free to share your thoughts. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Now some IP reverted back to WCW's version. There is no reason to completely revert back to a lousy version of the article because it gives the whole controversy a section when it is already there. Alientraveller (talk) 19:13, 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)

I am confused by NuclearWarfare's edits. He restored a lengthy lead section and marked it as too long. He replaced a cited "Premise" section with an uncited one, then marked that section uncited. He also restored an inappropriate non-free image that illustrates nothing in particular. Can someone please explain? —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I noted your revert, and somehow missed the discussion here. I have partially undone your revert to include some of the useful information that I could find. When I hit "Show preview" for this edit, I saw that Erik had asked about several issues, so here we go:

• "You restored a lengthy lead section and marked it as too long" - The removal of the information in the lead deleted a lot of useful information and made it too short. Better to have a long one and cut it from there rather than "stubbifying" it and building up from there.
• "You removed spacing from {{Infobox Film}} so the fields don't line up as easily" - This has actually been common practice for a while now, though I can't think of the exact policy location right now.
• "You replaced a cited "Premise" section with an uncited one." - I readded the reference. This way also explains a bit about the TV Series, which we know this is based on (and which is now cited).
• "You restored an inappropriate non-free image" - The image could conceivably be used, but you are probably right on this one. Removed.
• "let's discuss each item at Talk:The Last Airbender#Fresh Start." - Sure! I was a bit hasty and made quite a few errors, but I'm always willing to discuss. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I trimmed the lead back, but mentioned the director. As far as I'm concerned the article is too short to warrant a proper lead summary. All your revert did was go back to WCW's lousy edition and then you tried manually cleaning it. Alientraveller (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Having a short article is no reason to merit not include a proper lead; source-able information is much better than aesthetics. I have cut the lead about in half from WCW's version; that should be good. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I did more further trimming, some unnecessary links and so on. Would it be a good idea to merge Premise with the lead? Alientraveller (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edits were great, thanks. As for your question: interestingly, no. Even though it seems like a waste of time to just duplicate the material like that, the lead should attempt to summarize the entire article, and anything mentioned there should probably also be mentioned later on (per WP:LEAD). NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet this article is a small one about an upcoming film we know a little about. Surely WP:LEAD applies to a large comprehensive article requiring an epitome? Alientraveller (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The main part about the extended lead is to "summarize...an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." That would apply to all articles, really. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 21:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a solid revision now! I guess we had two different ways of cleaning up... one side expanding from a skeletal version and the other trimming down from a bloated version. Have we found the middle of the road here? Anything else that needs to be covered? I'm not attached to this film, but I'm happy to collaborate with style and content. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no real problems with the article now; I hope Alientraveller is the same :) NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 21:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing's perfect, everything can be improved. ;) Alientraveller (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you implying that my work is not perfect!? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we're good then. Also, does this article qualify as a 'Future' or 'Start' class article? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:07, 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)

I agree that there should not be praise for the cartoon, and the "Cast" section serves as a good place for all information related to casting. The quote from the cast member is not at all helpful, either. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have made a comprimise: I deleted my "praise" for the series and moved casting to the cast section. I also deleted the quote box. Also, if you choose to edit the article, please just keep the cast section with the details about the cast and the alternate names. I will try on making the lead sound more professional and use less opinions.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Distributed By?

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)

Paramount distributes its own films. Alientraveller (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

All three companies will have a say in marketing, distributing, and prodicing The Last Airbender. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Lead Section

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

Nevermind, I reverted it back to the other way.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Linking Jessica Andres

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)

WP:REDLINK. Alientraveller (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

QUOTE: Avoiding creation of certain types of red links

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

Trailer

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)

Cast

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)

Everything is fine. The introduction is how it is supposed to be. Thank you for your comment though.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

That's rude. Why don't you tell them why it's fine as is? -Dylan0513 (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What about Dev Patel playing 3 or 4 charecters of which I think two are girls (in the intro)? Beazermyst (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The sentence lists the actors, then the characters they are playing, and then says respectively at the end. The sentence does make sense, but if more people find it too confusing it should be changed. -Dylan0513 (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see it now. Yes, I found it confusing thinking he played the four. It makes sense but is there a better way to word it? Beazermyst (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, excuse me and my noobyness. I have looked around and seen that 'respectivly' is the standard on wikipedia. But does respectivly still work with a list of so many names? (not that 4 is a lot) But lots of names and trying to count through the list with a lot of names can get confusing. Beazermyst (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Suggest an alternate way of saying it and if people agree it'll get changed. -Dylan0513 (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I get why some people might find it confusing as its all cluttered up but I think its fine I understood it the first time The Movie Master 1 (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Poorly written summery

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)

$100-130 million budget

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)

Quotes

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)

Test Screening Reviews

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)

They are not notable and will not be included in the article. -Dylan0513 (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

How about you check the talk page before editing again?!?! Jeez. -Dylan0513 (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it because the reviews were not so flattering. Perhaps people might go see the film because of the fight scenes with Jade Quon?

On February 3rd 2010, the producers had a test screening of the film, in Phoenix, Arizona. 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)

Reviews of a movie's early cut are not notable at all. Especially when the reviews come from random people. This will NOT be in the article and it has NOTHING to do with whether the reviews are positive or negative, it's because they are not notable. You need to stop spamming this article and realize that people are reverting you because you aren't abiding by wikipedia's basic policies. -Dylan0513 (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, I don't think it's spam at all. People come to wikipedia to learn about things, like this movie. And, the screening reviews are encylcopedic, at least until the film is released and the real reviews come out.BrittanyLovesNuts (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dylan. Reviews for a rough cut don't belong here. When the movie is released reviews from actual film critics and audience reaction as a whole will be worth nothing. A review of a rough cut by some guy who calls himself "Sharkfarts" doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Skyrocket (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Trustworthiness:Vendor reliability:Privacy:Child safety:

Test screening reviews can only come from "random" people. A noted reporter is not going to place his name with any pre-screening review. They would never get invited again. Admittedly wikipedia has a problem with blogs and so-called fansites, but a big enough blog possess a mighty impact. Rotten Tomatoes come to mind.

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)

According to what policy?!?! You're making up your own rules! -Dylan0513 (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's called citation needed. It's quite common in most pages in Wikipedia or we can place this in the section.

--Nemogbr (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Reviews for a roughcut do NOT belong here because the movie has not completed production yet. --Jason Garrick (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nemogbr, You seem to have misunderstood the "Citation Needed" warning. Citation Needed does not mean you can put in an unreliable source until a reliable one becomes available. Citation Needed is a notice to editors and readers that there are no sources for the following information, literaly there is no citation. This warns potential readers that the information they are reading may not be accurate and suggests to any interested editors that they could find a reliable source for the information. Citation Needed is certainly not meant for what you suggest, keeping up the amateur reviews (read: unreliable sources) only to replace them later. I Feel Tired (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that the reputation of wikipedia? One of the strengths, in comparison to other websites, is that it has the "citation needed" tags.

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)

Casting rewrite?

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).

We will all appreciate your contributions, but do realize that editing the content is open to anyone and not exclusive to one editor. -Dylan0513 (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, unbiased are we? One look at your livejournal page says otherwise. One more post like the one above threatening editors and providing false information on top of it will get you reported. -Dylan0513 (talk) 23:57, 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

I just ignored everything you said based on your incredibly rude first sentence. I will report you next time, you aren't following the policies. -Dylan0513 (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

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).

I'm fine with that approach, but realize this is a team effort. I'd prefer you discuss any changes here first, but doesn't look like you'll be able to make any edits now anyway, XD. -Dylan0513 (talk) 03:34, 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)

It is definitive. The characters were all based on various Asian and Inuit races and cultures and the creators have even called their series an Asian fantasy in an interview. The following link provides a detailed list of evidence that should solve this supposed debate once and for all: [2]

Personally, I think the controversy deserves its own section, but I know Wikipedia is not my personal soapbox and I'm glad the issue got mentioned at all even if it feels like it was downplayed.

The Dancing Dragons (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Characters being based on Asian races doesn't make them Asian. I'm in favor of a change. -Dylan0513 (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The Swamp Benders were based on the people of the Mississippi Delta and the Sun Warriors on Central Americans. "Asian" is too narrow a term.:Skyrocket (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Then explain this?

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.

Taken from this interview:

[3]

In case you missed it, he said: "And we wanted to base it in Asian rather than European background"

Swamp Benders only showed up for a couple episodes, Sun Warriors only appeared in one. The vast majority of characters in ATLA are based on Asian and Inuit cultures even if there is the occasional reference to other ones. I don't get why this is so hard to understand.

The Dancing Dragons (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

All you did was repeat yourself. I agree, the Avatar universe is based in Asian culture. But it's impossible for the characters to be Asian as the Avatar world is not Asia. I see no support to leave it like it is currently on the page. -Dylan0513 (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I can follow your logic Dylan. Here, let me try. As the ______ world is not Europe, its impossible for the characters to be of European ancestry... Yeah I don't think that style of thinking works for any fictional work.

Avatar is fictional, but the different nations are very influenced by real life Asian cultures. Watch the show, and you will see no English writing in the avatar world. Interviews with the creators make it clear that it is based off Asian culture. The fact that they did not use Asian actors is a problem because there is visible and documented exclusion of Asians in Hollywood. It needs to be included in this article, if not expanded. Temporal88 (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be expanded. This article is about a movie. It's not someone's sociology paper. When the casting first happened there was some anger on the part of some fans. As usual with the internet, it all turned in general grumbling after a quick firestorm. That's really all there is to that.Skyrocket (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't need to be expanded, the article itself is very short, criticism should be a small part of the article if included (the movie isn't out yet) and this is one criticism. And I completely disagree. The Avatar world is based on Asian culture, but the characters are not Asian. It's just impossible. Being Asian means your ancestors are from Asia, Aang's ancestors, for example, are from the Air Nomads, so his race is Air Nomad. -Dylan0513 (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

While I understand that the editors involved in the creation and upkeep of this article all have their own opinions on the casting of the animated series' characters in The Last Airbender, I'd like to respectfully point out that people's personal opinions on the controversy are equally relevant but should not dictate what is included within the article or the appropriate weight of that information. Wikipedia's policy on presenting information with a neutral point of view means showing an "unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article." Whether or not an editor agrees with the idea that Caucasian actors being cast to portray characters conceived in a world undeniably inspired by Asian culture is racist (though whether they would be considered Asian appears to be of dispute as the world they live in is fictional, and fictional information shouldn't be presented in an in-universe style on Wikipedia), does not mean that (a) the controversy is not significant enough to include in the article (because that clearly isn't the case: [4][5][6][7]) and (b) that both sides of the argument cannot be neutrally summarized in a way that use reliable sources to present the controversy without relying on words that peacock either opinion.

I think that both creating a section on criticism and dictating that criticism need be a small portion of the article (Memoirs of a Geisha, 21, Valkyrie, A Mighty Heart) are somewhat presumptuous at this point as the film isn't in theaters yet. -Hooliganb (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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. -Sidepocket (talk) 15:06, November 15th 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 08:07, 15 November 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)

Not too sure why you just went into that speech, I'm addressing the policy that I think exists saying not to quote information, but to integrate it. I realized that the Rathborne quote was there for a while so I took it out. If you want to add that information, integrate it, don't quote it, and make sure it adds to the article. To the 2nd thing, changing mostly to all makes it wrong. It just does. I said if you want to make it say "The original casting of all white actors in the 4 main roles" then go ahead. I could contest and say find me a source that they were protesting the casting of the 4 main roles specifically, and that's probably why it's the general statement it currently is. -Dylan0513 (talk) 02:54, 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)

For the record I'm as big of a fan as Avatar as you can be. I also am trying to protect the neutrality of the article by fighting against any expansion of the controversy references. -Dylan0513 (talk) 04:39, 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

1. (cur) (prev) 14:19, 6 January 2010 Nemogbr (talk | contribs) (15,152 bytes) (→Casting: Reverted back to previous version, primary reason of casting conflict along with link to a screen capture of casting call. Caucasian or any other ethnicity.) (undo) (cur) (prev) 22:01, 5 January 2010 Dylan0513 (talk | contribs) (14,663 bytes) (1) Source for that. 2) Source that that call specially led to the casting of the white actors.) (undo)
2. (cur) (prev) 08:34, 5 January 2010 128.54.163.247 (talk) (14,770 bytes) (Adding primary reason of casting conflict.) (undo)
3. (cur) (prev) 02:40, 5 January 2010 Dylan0513 (talk | contribs) (14,663 bytes) (It was decided that minor characters not be in the "cast"" section. Also, that source does not prove that statement.) (undo)

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)

You're talking to yourself here. We're reverting stuff you do to maintain NPOV, and other issues with the article. -Dylan0513 (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think Dylan can be considered "biased towards the filmmakers view." Because that makes it sound like the filmmakers publicly announced, "YEAH WHITE PEOPLE RULE!" which... would then be controversial! lol. --Jason Garrick (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sequel

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)

Controversy: Roger Ebert and Frank Marshall

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.

Roger Ebert -

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)

Let's talk like civilized people and go by Wikipedia's policies. Here are the problems I have with your additions: 1) As I've stated several times and below in a different section, I don't think quotes are the best way to integrate information into an article. Summarize the quote into a sentence and source it. 2) And the main problem people have is adding more information about controversy when it doesn't warrant it. I think the Ebert quote is fine if it's summarized and doesn't overdo the controversy part, but the Ebert and the Marshall is too much. We have to remember this article is about the entire movie, which is a huge topic. The controversy is a very small part of the movie and should warrant 1 small paragraph tops, especially when the movie hasn't even come out yet. -Dylan0513 (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Each one had, at most, two sentences from each person.

The controversy is not a "very small part". The fact that the film has not been released, yet a significant portion of the fans are planning a boycott, through various blogs and a website, should be indication enough. Also a significant number of people discovered the controversy after the show had finished.

By Wikipedia neutral policies, both statements from Frank Marshall and Robert Ebert should be shown.

Frank Marshall defending the casting from April and later Robert Ebert supporting the accusation.

Not allowing data concerning the controversy is deception.

Nemogbr (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of NPOV as much as it is to not weigh any article too heavily on one aspect. You can exclude information if adding it would mean the article being tilted towards a certain section, but yes the info in there has to abide by NPOV. Even saying that I don't think either of those 2 sources add anything new to the article. -Dylan0513 (talk) 01:02, 19 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)

That is a major change to the article, what part of discuss first don't you get?! 1 opinion is not a consensus, you will need a consensus to add a controversy section, or even to expand the controversy part of the casting section. -Dylan0513 (talk) 18:14, 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)

Oy, don't you get that I'm talking in terms of Wikipedia policies? I already said that I'd be fine with adding the ebert source except not as a quote. I'd prefer to wait for more opinions on it though. -Dylan0513 (talk) 02:06, 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)

We're discussing it here. This is standard protocol on wikipedia. -Dylan0513 (talk)

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 was no consensus, we're the only two talking! And prior to this discussion, the consensus was not to include a controversy section or else it would be in there. I haven't heard one good wikipedia-policy argument for expanding the controversy mention from you, all you're referring to is the fandom: that's not a factor here. -Dylan0513 (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Put me down as thinking there's no need for a controversy section. This is supposed to be about a movie. Not a place for people to grind their sociological axes. A loud minority does not make something inclusion worthy. -Skyrocket (talk) 18:03, 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)

As I stated, even if the person is the Provost's Professor of Communications, Journalism, and Cinematic Art at the University of Southern California. Even if he has also written a few books:

1. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (Hardcover)
2. Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Media Consumers in a Digital Age
3. Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century (John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Reports on Digital Media and Learning)
4. Hop on Pop: The Politics and Pleasures of Popular Culture

An interview with an actor for MTV, seems to hold more credibility. --Nemogbr (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Interviews have more credibility than blog posts, yes. Even if it was credible, one person's opinion isn't enough to expand anything. -Dylan0513 (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That blog holds a couple of interviews in video --Oconel (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but...

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)

No - the external links section should be only used for links that have a direct connection to the film. A fan protest site does not meet those qualifications. You should take a look at the external link guidelines. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There should be a section on the page on how some fans are mad about many characters being portrayed by white actors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.108.194 (talk) 05:39, 22 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

Change in element symbols

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)

Race Controversy

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).

But, the information is in the article. There's an entire paragraph devoted to it. What would be the point of putting it in its own section? To me, adding controversy sections only serve to promote negativity, and that's not Wikipedia is about. Articles should remain as neutral as possible. If other articles do it, they should be changed to include the information without drawing attention to negativity. Akerans (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Draw attention to the positive while relegating the negative to the sidelines. A page out of the ol' high school history textbook strategy: Put Washington and Jefferson on a pedestal, and minimize the teeny little fact they both owned slaves.

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)

Uh, in real life there's no such thing as brown-skinned blue-eyed people, right? So they're a made-up race that can't be depicted outside of animation anyway.. The messed-up part is that characters who were white in the animation aren't in the film, as if they swapped everyone on purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Counter-balance? Spread awareness? Wikipedia is not about promoting an WP:AGENDA. As you said, Wikipedia is about information, both positive and negative; and the information was presented factually with both positive and negative viewpoints. Also, I did not say to "remove their "Controversy" sections." I said they should be changed. The information should be presented in a manner that doesn't appear as though Wikipedia is promoting an WP:AGENDA. Akerans (talk) 02:03, 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).

"[T]he entire page itself is an agenda to sell the movie." If you see a problem in the article, then there are tools to help fix the problem (e.g. Template:Advert). Mark the problem areas, and willing editors will fix them. A "Controversy" section is the wrong fix for the problem when other solutions are available. Also, if this is such a major issue, then it warrants its own article (e.g. ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy). I would suggest creating a new article first, then we can create a lead section on this article. Akerans (talk) 19:45, 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).

Again, pointing out other articles that have controversy sections is not an excuse to create one here. Those articles can be improved by weaving the material into the article. Please don't mention them again, I WP:HEARD you. Since you've created WP:UNDUE with edits like this, admitted you wanted the section to counter and spread awareness against the subject, created WP:DE like this, and admitted you were angry about the subject, I would ask you leave the article alone as you're clearly not approaching with a WP:NPOV and promoting an WP:AGENDA. Akerans (talk) 23:16, 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)

The criticism is already in the article. There's no need to make it stand out. In addition, reverts can be considered part of consensus, and the section has been reverted here and here. Three different people disagree with your proposed changes. Akerans (talk) 01:45, 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)

WP:CCC. Also, no one is suppressing the information. The information is in the article. Akerans (talk) 02:54, 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 casting call itself might be considered WP:OR. If there's something you want in the article, something that hasn't already been said, find a reliable source that's published the information and we can consider its addition. Akerans (talk) 16:08, 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)

As has been pointed out several times, a controversy section will be written. It will happen no matter what action people who prefer to sweep things under the carpet would undertake. This film has already gained some mention in the mainstream media due to the furore over the Prince of Persia casting.

Nemogbr (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Again and again, people make this about their opinions rather than the policies. You do realize that you aren't going to get anything you want without following the policies? Instead of saying that it will happen eventually and insulting me, try to counter what I am saying. -Dylan0513 (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A controversy section is fine. But I don't think anyone should expect it to be huge. The Last Temptation of Christ is a far more controversial film and its section on controversy is just a couple of paragraphs. And, honestly, apart from a few people in the media, most of the unhappyness with the cast has been from the net. Tempests and tea pots and all that jazz.

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)

Wow, let's attack me again instead of responding to what I'm saying. You're making zero progress to getting a controversy section while also being off-topic on this discussion and personally attacking me. Are you trying to get banned? -Dylan0513 (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Dylan0513 is correct, no one is denying the controversy. No one is trying to "sweep things under the carpet." My primary concern is the WP:STRUCTURE of the article. Nemogbr, please note, the controversy is in the article--Casting, paragraph 2. Is there new information that you're not seeing there? If so, we can add it. Akerans (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dylan0513 and Akerans. Nemogbr, we do have rules on how these things are done and if you want to be part of this you're going to have to follow those rules. Especially the one about not making personal attacks on others. It doesn't help and only hurts your credibility which isn't too hot at the moment from where I'm standing. Skyrocket (talk) 00:11, 1 June 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)

• Sigh* 1) Nothing has changed. 2) The controversy has been in the article for months. -Dylan0513 (talk) 22:24, 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)

Was going to add a {{Further}} tag to the article, but am waiting for improvement. Last time I checked the article was WP:UNDUE. Regarding deletion, the article appears to meet WP:GNG. However, I have not checked all the sources to verify notability. Also, if there are significant issues with the article, then I'm sure the new page patrollers will deal with them; which is to say if they feel the article warrants deletion they'll flag it as such. Akerans (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the opinions of some folks who haven't been in the middle of all this for a while are needed. So I've asked that the article be checked for neutrality. I think that's a fair solution to this situation. Skyrocket (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but doesn't notability have to be checked to? Can controversy which is already being covered in the movie article have its own article? -Dylan0513 (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about the new article created btw (The Last Airbender casting controversy). I the movie article is very neutral. -Dylan0513 (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A controversy can have its own article, but I believe there needs to be enough different information to warrant its own article. A separate article can go into greater detail about accusations and responses, the letter-writing campaign and protests in greater detail. In addition, sections can discuss the reception after the film is released and effects on box office results; or any lawsuits brought up against the film. Personally, I think its too soon to be writing a separate article; as the film hasn't even been released and there are no lawsuits (that I know of). WP:NOTNEWS might be a good reason to nominate the article for deletion. Akerans (talk) 19:40, 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)

Why does it have to be either? There was never a consensus in favor of a section and having its own article is ridiculous. -Dylan0513 (talk) 18:33, 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)

Here's the thing: any new sources must present new information. Not just "and these people were mad too!" If you want to start drafting up some new paragraphs to add to the casting section (since it looks like the new page made will be redirecting to it), then you can do it via Wikipedia:Userfication. Everyone could see it then and then we could have a much better discussion on the warrants of a controversy subsection. -Dylan0513 (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

EricSpokane, I suggested a new article because you said it was a major issue. Was expecting the article to be as large and as detailed as the ACORN controversy article I pointed out as an example. At present, the article is no where near that state. In fact, a majority of the material is based solely on the casting call itself, which is probably WP:OR. If anyone were to remove the original research portions, the article would be reduced to a duplication of what's already written here. I still believe it can be its own article, but it needs a lot more work. At this point, I have to agree with Dylan0513. Work on the article in your user space, and then we can go from there. Most important, you can't use the casting call; that's original research. You can use, however, what people have said about the casting call. Also, controversy are usually held to higher standards. So, blogs, unless from media outlets (e.g. CNN, NY Post, LA Times, etc.), should not be used at all. Akerans (talk) 16:14, 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)

Link to Main Casting Controversy Article

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)

You linked to the article as the main article for the casting section. It is not. -Dylan0513 (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not put the tag back on, as it will just result in an WP:EDIT WAR. Please wait until the article in question has concluded its WP:AfD, and then we can place an appropriate tag in the section (or not, depending on outcome). Akerans (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The status of the article isn't even why it shouldn't be up. It's that the main tag should only be used if the article is about the casting as a whole, not a subsection of the casting. -Dylan0513 (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I know, that's why I said "an appropriate tag." If anything, further information or see also would be better suited. Akerans (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverts

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)

First, I reverted back to the way the article was BEFORE this was started. When we find a solution, no matter if I agree with it, or you agree with it, we will change it. Do not majorly edit something once a dispute like this is taking place. Second, WP:QUOTE does not state anything against quotes. In fact, it states that quotes can be used when properly sourced. The quotes added on this article are properly sourced, and feel free to re-check the sources if you want to improve them exc. The way the article is written now does not take sides against the so called "racebending" or anything. I personally think its neutral, and please feel free to point out anything that is contriversial so we can work together to make it neutral. Quotes, taken from interviews, exc. are a great way to improve any work of writing as it takes exactly from the person who sad it and relates it to the information you are trying to get accross.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

That's all I friggin wanted. Thank you. -Dylan0513 (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with the way it is written. For and against the casting with enough information for people to search if needed. --Nemogbr (talk) 15:50, 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

Wikipedia is not a news source. -Dylan0513 (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we get an anonymous lock to reduce the reverts? 76.21.122.234 (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Added FAQ

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)

 Done Akerans (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits to the casting section

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)

First, you have to discuss before adding, not the other way around. Second, the amount of information added about the controversy is excessive. This article is about the movie, and one paragraph for the controversy, which is a small part of the movie, is enough. -Dylan0513 (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important to show that white actors were intentionally cast. The current paragraph only acknowledges that there is a controversy at the hiring of white actors, it does not, for example, explain that the white actors were intentionally cast, as oppose to actors of color. There have been people arguing that the white actors cast were simply "the best people for the part," I think the casting call shows that race was a factor in hiring. The current paragraph makes it seem as if those who are oppose to the all-white cast are overreacting, by not providing the proof backing up their point. By removing important information, you're greatly diminishing the point of one side of the argument. I think, at the very least, the casting call should be back up. And, to your argument that one paragraph of controversy should be enough, I don't know of any Wikipedia rule that limits the amount of controversy shown. Quite frankly, I think that not including the controversy is very biased against the argument made.--173.63.104.211 (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Important to show? Seriously? Wikipedia discusses the controversy, not explains it. The intent is not to present an argument, it is to present information on the controversy, such as when there were protests. And yes, there are rules limiting the amount of information if it is a small part of a subject. -Dylan0513 (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"[Wikipedia's intent] is to present information on the controversy." Then why not present information such as the casting call? Or at least provide links to it? It seems to me like you don't think there was a problem with the casting, and want to erase as much information on it as possible.--173.63.104.211 (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You can link to a credible source that says the casting call was bad, but you can't just link to the casting call itself and say how it was bad. Then the article is expressing an opinion and breaking NPOV. -Dylan0513 (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You might want to reread my edit. No where did it say that the casting call was bad, only that "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." That is a non-biased statement. It is a fact. It is not an opinion. That is what the original casting call said, and it has been used by critics as evidence of racial bias, whether or not there was racial bias, factually, it has been used as evidence. If I accidentally included something that is not sourced, or phrased facts about opinions as opinions (as defined in the Wikipedia NPOV article), please tell me. However, I contest your assertion that stating facts about opinions (not opinions themselves, but referencing and citing actual opinions) that some disagree with violates NPOV. I also contest your assertion that the casting section was too long. Whether you like it or not, the casting controversy was a major issue, and that needs to be reflected in the article. If I need to, I'll appeal to a moderator. I don't know what establishes you as the authority over all things "the Last Airbender." Unless you can tell me precisely what I said that violated NPOV or any other Wikipedia rules, I refuse to accept your assessment as anything other than the biased judgement of an individual who disagrees with the assertion that there was racial bias in the casting process.--173.63.104.211 (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

See, this is where all of you people go wrong. You're accusing me of bias when I haven't expressed the slightest. I'm going purely based on wikipedia policies and your personal attacks are completely discrediting you. What I was referring to with the NPOV is the quoting of the casting call. Can't quote the thing, you need to quote a person saying something bad about it. And you're wrong about the controversy being major. The controversy is only a small part of casting of the movie which is only a small part of the overall movie. I fail to see how it deserves more than a paragraph or two when development and filming which are much bigger topics to the movie have maybe one more paragraph than it. Actually it's current length may be too long when comparing it to some other sections of the article. -Dylan0513 (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I did not accuse you of bias (despite the fact that I have proof that you do not think that there was anything wrong with the casting) I said I would assume you were biased unless you could tell me precisely what I said that violated NPOV (otherwise, I would assume that, despite your personal inclinations, you were being objective in your debate with me); I don't believe in personally attacking online. I believe webpages like this exemplify my unbiased statement that "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." The controversy is a large part of casting, in the opinions of many people. It has been a topic that has run rampant of the internet since 2008, and has probably gotten more press than the movie itself outside of commercial advertisements. The Wikipedia:Criticism article says (of criticism sections) "These sections must not be used to hide or marginalize negative views by separating them from the relevant sections of the article. They also must not imply that the criticism section is in any way less important or less truthful than the rest of the article," although this is not a separate section of the article, and these paragraphs are integrated into the flow of the article as a whole, your reversion of my edit violates the spirit of this rule by marginalizing negative views.--173.63.104.211 (talk) 03:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. The controversy is given almost as much space as filming, it is in no way marginalized. If it exceeds more important sections, then it must be cut back. The way it is now is perfect in my opinion, if not a little excessive space wise. -Dylan0513 (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I completely disagree. I think that this topic is significantly more important than you are making it out to be. If you think the section is too long, take out the Jackson Rathbone quote, it adds absolutely nothing of important to the article. I still insist that the controversy is significantly much more important than you insist, and that without the casting call the individuals who feel that race was a factor in casting appear less trustworthy, like a group that just has a personal, unjustified vendetta. I think that this is something best decided by a Third party moderator.--173.63.104.211 (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

We have had such. This is not a new argument; just look above and you'll see the countless discussions we've had on this, 0 of which have ended in a consensus for expanding the controversy information. It has a significant place in the article as is, I really see no point in you trying this again. -Dylan0513 (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There has been no consensus on either side. That's why a third opinion is relevant.--173.63.104.211 (talk) 04:52, 16 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)

I'll agree to that--173.63.104.211 (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The only problem I have with that is the citation of racebending.com, which is not a good reference. -Dylan0513 (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A few comments. First, Racebending.com is a fan site. Fan sites do not have editorial oversight. Which means they are not a reliable source and can't be used. Second, quoting the casting call itself is one thing, but editors making claims about casting call is original research. Since no original research, the comments can't be included. Third, the casting call that has been used in this article is not the original casting call. The casting call added to this article has been edited by a fan site (i.e. Racebending.com) to illustrate a point. Since it has been edited, and edited by a non reliable source, it can't be added to this article. Akerans (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. Racebending.com was used as a source because, despite their status as a fan site, they fit the definition of "critics" referred to in the sentence they were referenced for. However, I've taken the time to replace the reference with one from UGO.com, a source that provides information on media - something I think we can all agree is reliable. And, although I think the images of the casting calls themselves only served to make the point, and the highlighting on the one image did not detract from it's value (I don't consider that a form of unfair editing), I've removed those; the UGO.com article addresses the issue anyway. The UGO article also handles the issue from both sides, providing the information (even calling into question the legitimacy of the casting calls, citing two versions, one with and one without the controversial statement "Caucasian or any other ethnicity"), henceforth, I don't think that UGO could be considered biased in this case.--173.63.104.211 (talk) 17:44, 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)

Budget?

Resolved

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)

This (from Sermitsiaq) says "an estimated $250 million"? That sounds pretty outrageous. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, The Hollywood Reporter reported the same figure. Guess we can include it...? I'm still kind of shocked at the size of the investment. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, uh wow. To quote Michael Bay, "I don't even know how you spend that much money!" But anyway, implemented. Alientraveller (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Should not edit and comment simultaneously. The link doesn't work mate. Alientraveller (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Strange, it works for me. I incorporated it. See screenshot. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! $250 million for the whole trilogy... now that makes sense. Um, so how do we reconcile this? —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could just say "estimated for film trilogy" for now. Skyrocket (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I covered it in this edit. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:04, 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)

Thanks, I've updated the budget with these figures. - Kollision (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)