Talk:Avatar

From 1d4chan

WHY?[edit]

what does wanking about a movie have to do with Tabletop Gaming? I would've expected "Avatar" to be talking about the DMPCs that the gods of Forgotten Realms made during D&D 2nd edition. --NotBrandX 12:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently there is a meme going around that Colonel Miles Quaritch is a Hero of the Imperium.

Although now lost in the depths of the internets when ED bit the dust, there was a pretty convincing case made that the entire film was nothing but a huge allegory for Online gaming addiction (specifically World Of Warcraft.)--KSB26 23:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I second this, and if it weren't for people shoehorning their terrible crossover fanfiction in here it would've long since died. Allow me to do the honors of dropping the hammer. --Newerfag (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Wait a minute. It's not even fanfiction. It's literally just using 40k factions to rant further about why they don't like the movie, which is just plain sad. All the more reason to delete it.--Newerfag (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
It is complete silliness for some of you to get so butthurt over the inclusion of articles like this. This website is supposed to be, among other things, a historical repository of shit that happened to /tg/ - an explanation of "what the fuck is this?" so that we don't have newbies clogging up the boards asking questions all the time. Furthermore, Avatar is entirely relevant to /tg/'s interests; I shouldn't need to remind you that /tg/ was spawned out of a desire to get away from furfags, polfags, basefags, and other assholes getting in the way of sweet gaming goodness. If we want newbies (and some forgetful oldies) to remember why this site is here, it's necessary to show them specific examples. Trying to claim that it should not be here because it's "not relevant" is a false claim.

Not sure if Trolling[edit]

The inclusion of this page on 1D4chan, coupled with the fact that it's praising the film gives me reason to believe this may be trolling. Although, I've been wrong before...

Sorry, the praise part was my fault. I wrote that bit, back when I thought CGI furries and 3-D equaled cool. Took it out a while ago, but I thought I should offer some explanation. Munch munch 23:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Quaritch[edit]

If Quaritch is the reason why this shit film has an article, why not just make a page about him? Or why not design a section in this article about him?

Article designed. Have fun. :) Miles Quaritch

I'm not gonna lie, the article's kinda pointless. He's the best character in a shit movie, but he's not the only reason the article was made. The article is here because the movie is a popular subject on /tg/ (hence the obscene amount of W40k crossover writefaggotry), and there are just enough references to the movie in other articles to justify its own page. Quaritch, however, is not near important (or even well-known) enough to justify his own article. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
We seem to have entirely different definitions of writefaggotry, because what's there doesn't even resemble an actual story. It's the same damn ranting that the rest of this page is full of, but with 40k characters acting as the author's mouthpiece.--Newerfag (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Creative writing is creative work, no matter how shit it is. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Then it can go to fanfiction.net where it belongs, this wiki isn't the place for it unless it's /tg/ approved first (and good luck with that). -- Triacom (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

blue men are poor excuses for furries at best.[edit]

No really, the rest of the furry fandom hates them, the movie sucked, and their small amounts of fanpics conjure up annoying amounts of ragedrama on our image boards. Whatever, I'm out. Aryeonos71.93.34.210

I agree, I thought furries were sick fuck fetishists, not CGI aliens. In my opinion, the term furry is misused in this page.

Precisely, it isn't furry unless it's all the way, not this half assed mess of pseudo-pocahontas bullshit.Aryeonos

Sanctum detail[edit]

@Tim- Fair enough. But when you look at the commercials, all they would advertise is that James Cameron was the producer and how visionary he is. Nothing else was really said about the movie. In the end, it could be surmised that the movie was a testbed for 3D so Avatar could later be re-released in that format. We also know Cameron was always using his 3D camera on set (can't remember which movie's set, Avatar or Sanctum) to test it out. Whatever, I won't get into an edit war over that detail.

As I recall, though, they'd been pimping the 3D cut of Avatar for ages before that; I doubt it would have made a difference unless people had actually died watching Sanctum or something. Avatar opened in 3D at cinemas, so it's not like it was a re-release per se. Tim 19:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Lol at the part of people dying during Sanctum and keeping Avatar from being re-released. Ok, ok, I relent. Still it doesn't take away the fact that all the commercials ever did was say how "visionary" James Cameron was. I guess that was my point. Why make such a pointless movie in the 3D format? It all sort of seemed like a testbed to see how people reacted to 3D since it was fairly young back then. Don't know. Oh and next time, you don't need to tell me to shut up. I don't mind anything I post being undone for the sake of professionalism, but please be more polite.
Um...I don't recall telling you to shut up. Unless you meant removing all those indented lists, in which case I wasn't really talking about you so much as the whole thing.
Re: 3D; I think your timing's a little off, actually. Sanctum was released in 2011 according to IMDB, two years after Avatar which opened in 3D. The only way you could call Sanctum a testbed is for home 3D, but even then Avatar was screened in 3D on TV at Christmas in 2010. So it would be for the 3D Blu-Ray, if it was anything. Tim 19:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
It was on the Titan page. I do realize I probably shouldn't have added those parenthesis, but it should be noted that Titans aren't all that powerful since their rules don't say anything against the melta rule. That's why I put that a lone guardsman with a melta was able to take a structure point off a Warlord. But this happened about 2 months ago, and like I said I probably should have written it better. But when you undid it, in the summary section you told me to shut up. Since my stuff was the only stuff undone, I assume it was to me. As to the Manta comment I added, it was silly so I don't mind it removed. Though someone should add it to the Titan section. Well anyway, you seem like a swell guy. I was just saying that so next time you know I won't have a problem if you undo my stuff, but that there's no need to tell me to shut up.
Oh, that. Yes, I'm an admin on another wiki. Watching recent changes is guaranteed to leave you with the opinion that death is too good for people who edit articles to argue with what they say rather than correct it (and to be fair, with most of them this is probably not an unfair evaluation). Sorry if I snapped at you. Tim 21:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
At the risk of adding anymore subsections, I just want to say no problem. Just wanted to clear that up. I know better now when it comes to writing on this wikia.

Project 880[edit]

Before the movie what we've got, there was such a thing, called the "Project 880 Original Script", which was (and is) far more awesome that the finished "Avatar". Here's the link to this awesomeness - james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Project_880 ("Original 880 script" section).

>mfw Alien fanboys still assmad over a mediocre visual spectacle film more than ten years after the fact

Get over this and get over yourselves. The fact that relevance to /tg/ had to be forced to this degree is a testament that the page should have been jettisoned long ago. --107.77.249.11 19:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Then it seems we need an exterminatus.

You aren't helping, random anonymous editor. --Newerfag (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I mean, if you all feel so passionately about this, lets just delete all the text on this page. Heck, just give me the go ahead and I'll do it right now.

Blanking the page isn't particularly helpful, so I'd say that's a no-go, Anon. However, you can throw the deletion template up with a reason, and then, if you feel there's a good enough argument, you can ask Root for a deletion. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I already put one up. --Newerfag (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

added to it. Alright, lets contact this "Root" fellow.

Gentleman, I have left a message on Root's page, just as the anon above suggested. He has not yet responded. Should I contact Assistant Wikifag now? --Lord Of The Lemmings (Talk) 04:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Legit question[edit]

Could someone pull up, and demonstrate to us, the most recent times any mention of this movie on /tg/ has actually led to some form of outrage? If we're going to humor an argument of relevance, we're gonna need people (especially those invested in keeping the article) to do some due diligence and show us some threads. --LGX-000 (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Given the age, I doubt that's possible, any such thread would've been deleted by now and I doubt any of them were permanently archived. -- Triacom (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
This page isn't up because it's "relevant now". It annoys me that I have to keep reminding people - this board is (among other things) supposed to be a historical repository where we can dump newbies with their questions so we aren't constantly cluttering up threads with questions. Avatar and its D&D spawn are an example of the sort of half-baked polfag shit that ruins otherwise good gaming; this page is worth keeping around as a prominent demonstration of "don't do that".
The problem isn't whether or not it's relevant now, it's whether or not it was ever relevant. We already have other examples we can look at or move the page to if that's the reason it's up, so did this movie ever spark any sort of outrage on /tg/ or not, and when? -- Triacom (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I would argue that it was relevant at one point - I don't know if you recall, but there was a short period after the movie came out where /tg/ had an attempted invasion of Avatards trying to push their mary-sue homebrew stats into the scene, much like the DH story on the Chakat page. With all the salty mockery stripped out, the link to the D&D wiki page is a pretty close match for what was "suggested". It was crushed pretty quickly and I don't think any of it was archived, but it did happen. Now, if you want to argue that the bile-to-data ratio is too high on this page, I could go along with that. But there's enough data here (at least in the plot-holes page) that it's worth keeping around.
Also, not terribly familiar with talk-page etiquette - am I supposed to be name/time-fagging my posts?
Four tildes (~~~~). --2600:1700:19C0:2760:3999:D205:BC27:97 10:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks anon, you hit the tilde key four times at the end of the post so that for future reference other people know who said it and when. Every wiki I know has this kind of system, even places like Encyclopedia Dramatica which do it automatically if the user doesn't. I'll admit I must have missed that if it went on, however there's still an argument on whether or not it deserves its own page. We used to have a Twilight page a long time ago, but that got moved off to a more relevant section, and the same could happen here. -- Triacom (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

i.e. we have nothing more than hearsay, and no one has stepped forward with any other proof in favor of it. I know we're not Wikipedia and all but still, there's not much to provide a solid foundation for this imo. --LGX-000 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

If we have writing crossovers with WH40k as was hinted at in previou discussions, I suppose that might be more substantial, but even than that just means the article requires severe trimming at bare minimum. --LGX-000 (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I doubt there was ever that much of a response to the film, even if we want to save any sort of stories on the page we could just have separate page for that kind of thing. -- Triacom (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I feel similarly, gotta start somewhere though. --LGX-000 (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering why we even have this article anymore since there are several far more TG relevant uses of the term Avatar - The main character from the Ultima CRPGs (which DID have a tabletop adaptation), the famed Avatar trilogy from the Forgotten Realms novels, and the simple concept of a deity's physical avatar which appears in several games. Mindwarp (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I think I can find a way to address that. --LGX-000 (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Anon here. I remember when those "fanfictions" appeared. They were more about somebody having anger issues, and using 40k and creative writing to rant about Avatar than they were about actual criticism of the film. Not sure of that helps, but that is my two-bits.

I personally suspected as much. Also sign yer posts, damnit. --LGX-000 (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Same Anon here. I wish I could, but I don't know how to set up a user on this site. Do I need to contact Wikifag?

You don't need an account to sign, just use the John Hancock button next to the horizontal bar on the editing tab. If you want to create an account, just click the Create Account button on the top right of the screen and follow the steps. No need to bother Wikifag. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Yep, just need four tildes like so: ~~~~ Simple as that, and there's the sig button for convenience as well. --LGX-000 (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Same anon as earlier. I did it! I am now a user on the wiki. --Lord Of The Lemmings 4:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I usually contact both, just in case one's busy or doesn't want to be bothered. -- Triacom (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)