Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Five/Archive 1

Archive 1

Marvel (2)

No one change the dates it’s supposed to be spring fall or summer Mr ezzat1234 (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mr ezzat1234: Which spring? What is your source that says a release window as late as the week before Christmas 2023? —C.Fred (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Early 2023 is correct per MOS:SEASON. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Marvel

Daredevil has 18 episodes Mr ezzat1234 (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

 Already done. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

What If

I made the same question in the Phase 4 article. Since it wasn't included on the presentation, is What If...? still part of the phase? 170.239.28.58 (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. — SirDot (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What If...? is not confirmed to be part of any Phase, but I think we can still keep it here given we have a release date. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Characters table

Per the list indicator, I suggest Larson, the Guardians cast, Vellani, Rudd, Douglas, Lilly, Parris, and Smulders to be removed from the recurring characters table as they are confirmed to be appearing in just one film or series so far, and also add Vincent D'Onofrio per his appearances in Echo and Daredevil: Born Again. AxGRvS (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Harrison Ford as Thunderbolt Ross

@Trailblazer101. The news of Ford's casting is just speculation. Per WP:CRYSTAL and other policies, we should avoid this speculation until we get something official from Marvel. This /Film article is not operating as a reliable source, as they are just "independently" confirming it without evidence, and the Hot Mic show that they reference is itself mere gossip and speculation. Maybe its true, but I'm really surprised that WP has jumped the gun on this one. TNstingray (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The Hot Mic podcast is co-hosted by Jeff Sneider, a journalist who has written scoops for Variety, Collider, among other sources which we've used on MCU articles before. Sneider has proven credibility in his reports. /Film is a reliable source function in its own right. Many trades cite their own inside sources and are hardly questioned, so I don't see how their ambiguous inside sources make it seemingly unreliable and based "without evidence". We also are not required to wait for Marvel to officially confirm something as they don't comment on projects in development and rarely confirm trade reports like this one. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

But even Sneider didn't confirm it. I'm literally watching the segment right now and he only says he "heard" that, "potentially", other uncertain language like that. Wikipedia shouldn't delve into that to uphold what could essentially amount to the equivalence of mirroring (WP:MIRROR). Sure, the guy has been credible in other instances, but we have to take these things as a case-by-case basis, and I'm not seeing what makes the /Film article reliable. TNstingray (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

And maybe we shouldn't be using the argument "we used this in other articles". Speculation, scoops, gossip, etc. shouldn't be used on this encyclopedia until confirmed at the source. At the very least, we shouldn't be presenting it as unequivocal fact. That is completely inappropriate for this encyclopedia on every level, and the proper context should be presented. TNstingray (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I just looked up the video, and Sneider on the the podcast states that Ford has closed a deal for the role in Cap 4, but that it's still TBD for Thunderbolts. /Film (a reliable source/site) separately confirms this through their own means. So, after actually looking into the sourcing a bit more, the Thunderbolts appearance might be less certain. But the Cap 4 one can and should remain. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Also re Speculation, scoops, gossip, etc. shouldn't be used on this encyclopedia until confirmed at the source that's literally how all the trade publications operate, at least for Marvel content, as we frankly get very little by way of official confirmation from them outside of SDCC or D23. And as Trailblazer noted, Sneider used work for the reputable trades, and even if they are self published now, they would be considered a "subject level expert" on the entertainment industry. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I would feel better about it if it was not presented as the absolute truth of the situation, and if instead we clearly stated that the information is presented from x source, rather than just "Ford has been cast in this role" no questions asked. And clarify between the greater likelihood for Cap 4 vs. Thunderbolts, etc.

To whom it may concern, I had also removed this information from Harrison Ford, Thunderbolt Ross, Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe: M–Z, and Harrison Ford filmography. The others pages I edited have already been reverted. I'll allow editing consensus to undo my revisions and move on, as well as clarify if that is deemed appropriate. TNstingray (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Literally every other source uses the language "reportedly" in reference to Ford's casting. Upon further consideration, it seems undue to lift up one source as absolute truth over all other sources which rightfully use the language "reportedly". This issue has happened before on other Marvel pages, and I would really like fo this subject matter to be held to the same standards as the rest of the encyclopedia. Currently, that is not the case.

At the end of the day, I could be wrong and Ford could have been cast. But these rumors started from within the fandom, not from actual "insiders", and Sneider's supposed track record does not make him an infallible deity that we can use as a reliable source without question. TNstingray (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not our place to question how /Film got their info. Long story short, a reliable source reported that Harrison Ford has been cast as Thaddeus Ross, so per WP:VNT it is perfectly fine for us to say that with confidence. Jeff Sneider and his podcast are irrelevant because /Film's report is not merely reporting on what the podcast said (WP:FRUIT), but rather confirming it independently. Other sources use "reportedly" in reference to /Film's report, because that's actually what it was, a report by a news organization and not an official announcement from Marvel. But here on Wikipedia, using "reportedly" would possibly violate MOS:DOUBT, plus it's just extra wordiness that isn't necessary. In the unlikely event where /Film is proven wrong (see RDJ in Black Widow, Tom Hiddleston in MoM, etc.), then we can say he was "reported". InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The website Above the Line, which Sneider is the editor in chief of, has posted an article by him on the report, which includes a bit on Red Hulk being in the NWO script. His casting in Thunderbolts, upon further investigation on my part, does not seem as definitive as the /Film headline made it appear. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

And even Above the Line says at the end that they do not have official confirmation. All their insider said is that Red Hulk, not Thunderbolt Ross, appears in some version of the script. So there may be some OR going on. Per the provided WP:VNT, it might be fine for us to say that a source reported his casting, but that is not what is presented in the articles I edited. All of them present it as the objective truth. The extra wording is necessary to clarify this. Also, isn't /Film a blog? Could someone direct me to the precedent establishing it as reliable? It is not listed at WP:RSP, at least to my knowledge. TNstingray (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of how reliable this source is, /Film confirmed the recast but they did not confirm his role in both New World Order and The Thunderbolts. They made it clear that they're going by Sneider's word with regards to debuting in NWO. For Thunderbolts, they made it clear it's an assumption. And a debut in CA:NWO could end up being a cameo like Patrick Stewart in MoM. We do not have any evidence that he will receive a billing block credit. So, while we can mention him in the articles, he shouldn't be in the infoboxes or bulletted cast list. We usually include such characters in the "Additionally" paragraph until we know more. — Starforce¹³ 23:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

A quick comment on this issue. I recognize that speculative language in sources should not be portrayed as definitive confirmation on Wikipedia. But unless my understanding is incorrect, on previous MCU articles, Collider has been used as a reliable source in cases where it uses more definitive language. Just yesterday, a new report from Collider, while using speculative language in a few parts of the article (repeated use of the word "reportedly"), it also uses more definitive language more frequently. I know our job is to report on what reliable sources say rather than interpreting them, but a quick skim of the Collider report appears to indicate Ford's casting is more definitive than speculative. And since most references to Ford in that article are definitive about his role in both Thunderbolts and CA:NWO, I think the Collider article's definitive references should be a consideration in terms of verifying that Ford will take over that role in both projects. If the consensus determines that we need to wait for several sources to use definitive language before we can list Ford as being attached to both projects, I will stand by that assessment, since I am still a relative newbie to MCU articles here on Wikipedia. But I did want to mention that Collider uses specculative language in a few cases in the reference while sounding more definitive in most other references to Ford. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The original sources and sources that independently confirmed the reports are usually a better fit as opposed to other sites that pick up on the story and report it as a fact. So, here, /Film would be the better source. Collider makes it clear that they're just reporting on what /Film and Hot Mic reported. If a story wasn't reliable in the original source, it doesn't suddenly become reliable because another source has re-reported it without independently confirming it.— Starforce¹³ 00:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

And that was my initial concern with the /Film article, that they were primarily reporting on what Hot Mic reported, with no way for us to verify their own independent contribution. My individual experiences mean nothing when it comes to what WP presents, but for full context, I have been keeping up with the Ford rumors for a while now, and in the beginning everything was coming from speculation within the fandom. That plus Ford's disdain for franchises, led me to the context of interpreting the /Film product as suspicious (plus the general quality of the site). That's just my thought process, since I have yet to find written precedent for evaluating it as a reliable secondary source. TNstingray (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

See my most recent edit on Harrison Ford to see what it should look like, at most, to avoid being misleading and possibly falling into WP:CRYSTAL. I think that is fair, but I won't edit any other pages until this conversation is concluded. Otherwise, there is no end to the rabbit hole of speculation: we should list Corey Stoll as MODOK and John Krasinski appearing in Deadpool 3, because anyone can claim anything. For the record both of those are bull, and we should be holding the MCU articles to the same standards as the rest of the encyclopedia. TNstingray (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

For the articles' sake and to fulfill what the sources specifically state, I will support retaining the recasting information as the most definitive, as well as including Ford being cast as Ross in NWO. The exact notion of this, while not discussed to be a starring role or a small appearance, can be alleviated if others want to put it with the "Additionally" unbulleted sentence. I will also support mentioning Ford's role in Thunderbolts as "expected", as /Film used that wording, given what further reading into the articles stated. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

RE the Thunderbolts mention: I think anything Ford related should remain at the draft for the time being, given the uncertainty surrounding that in particular. But saying Ford has been cast for NWO seems fine for me at this time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I suppose I should have clarified that the expected Thunderbolts I was referring to was just for the draft. I had hidden the Thunderbolts mention for Ford in this article, though it's safer to keep it out until we have further clarification on the matter. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Deadline has confirmed it for NWO. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

THR also confirmed him in Thunderbolts and NWO. I have added both. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Harrison Ford described as reprising his roll incorret

It’s said in this article that Harrison Ford reprises his role as Thunderbolt Ross, however the late William Hurt played that roll prior, so would it not be more accurate to say in place of? Since it’s a recast. 2A00:23C7:C09F:6801:DCBE:2F6:2819:5C77 (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Ford appears as "Thunderbolt Ross" in the MCU movie "Thunderbolts", where he is replacing Hurt in that role. The comment about Ford reprising his role as Ross is made in the "Captain America: New World Order" section. Both movies come out the same year. So in his second apperance in the MCU as Ross, Ford is indeed correctly attributed as "reprising his role." He takes over the role in "Thunderbolts", then reprises it in "Captain America: New World Order". Why and how is that incorrect? --Jgstokes (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

A bit late on this, though to add some clarity, Ford debuts in the role in NWO and reprises it in Thunderbolts. That is what is reflected in the article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Add Main Characters

I thing we should add the main character/characters of films and disney+ tv series in the cast and characters table. I mean they are the main/major characters. Don't you think that?223.176.32.208 (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

There's no value in that, every main character is already mentioned at the respective section of each film and TV show. That table is exclusively for Recurring cast and characters, as the section heading says, which has the added value of showing the interconnectivity between the different projects. —El Millo (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

No Longer 2023

Disney+ Japan released an updated release schedule for 2023 and it does not include What If season 2, Echo and Agatha:Coven of Chaos. Which means they are not releasing in 2023 any longer. many sites are reporting it too.223.233.36.0 (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

We do not go by Disney's international sites as they have been wrong in the past. Rumors of delays have been swirling but nothing has been officially confirmed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Fixing the table

Something about the "Television series" table screws up the rest of the article. If you find out what screwed it up, please try to fix it. Red4Smash (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey, if you're referring to the header of that table https://ibb.co/Vv3HQT7, then issue reported at the template talk page Template talk:Series overview#Mobile view. Everything else looks fine my end but if other issue then probably related to the recent edits on that template. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Timeline

I recently added The Marvels and Captain America 4 to the timeline section, but it was reverted for no reason. I would like to know why. 170.239.28.58 (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You need to add reliable sources even if the info seems obvious. -- Zoo (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

But... I added sources. In fact, I just added what is written about both films' timeline in their respective sections: "The Marvels is set after the events of the Disney+ series Ms. Marvel" and "New World Order is set after the events of The Falcon and the Winter Soldier" (using the same sources). 170.239.28.58 (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

But... I added sources.

All you did was change/add ref names, which isn't actually adding sources because nothing was attached to those refs. -- Zoo (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? I didn't change anything, I added what is currently written in The Marvels and Captain America 4 sections about their timelines, with their respective refs and sources. That's all. 170.239.28.58 (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

And "nothing was attached to those refs." Are you sure about that? Because those ref names are the same used in the films' sections when talking about their timelines and they have sources. 170.239.28.58 (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Being set after something else isn't enough. That could be immediately after if or five years after it. These films won't come out for over one and two years, respectively, and they shouldn't be added to the timeline until it's close to their release, which is when we'll probably know exactly when they take place. —El Millo (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the The Marvels and Cap 4 info in their sections. These sources (which were already being used in the article to source certain production details) don't specify exact timeline info for occurrences, and discuss the projects more as in follow-ups. There's WP:NORUSH for timeline details, which will be available closer to their releases. They were added to the timeline section in addition to timeline info being added in their own sections, but both are too early to include, and did not go with what the given sources actually said. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

To clarify what the others are saying, those 2 movies can be added if they have a fixed point. For eg, The Marvels is set after Ms. Marvel. We do not know if it is 1 year few months or immediately, therefore we chose not to place it there. If it has been mentioned, alongside the position between other films on the timeline chart, it can be added. JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Captain America 4 is so far from coming out that it's nigh impossible to place it in the timeline. —El Millo (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Secret Invasion

I noticed in the TV table that Secret Invasion is set to release in 2023 but in the section below, it says Early 2023. Was it because we are nearing mid-2023? JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 08:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It was removed without discussion, so I have restored the "early 2023" date, although further delays seem likely given the D+ webpages for all of the series from SI to DD: Born Again have replaced their release slots with "coming soon", per here and here. (Though those don't mention BA, you can see the change is present here.) No statement from the trades has been made on SI or Loki S2 not meeting their previously announced slots, though I'd expect a reveal of sorts to come eventually. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Question: I am interested to know the main definition of early mid or late of the particular year, like which month would fall into these slot JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

In terms of the American seasons (which we don't use per WP:SEASON), "early" would be the end of winter and spring, so the months January-April. "Mid" would be the typical summer months, so May-August, and "late" would be typical fall/autumn and start of winter, September-December. Sometimes it could depend on how far into a month something is, as well. Agatha was labelled for "Winter 2023", so it could be in late 2023 or early 2024, given reports on that, while Born Again was labelled "Fall 2024", which would be late 2024, but probably not in December. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, buddy. JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you should remove EARLY from Secret Invasion. Early 2023 ends in one month and Marvel doesn't start promoting TV series a month before release. Marvel during comic con said it will premiere in SPRING 2023, not early 2023. Spring includes MAY. https://twitter.com/Marvel/status/1550998659105447936?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1550998659105447936%7Ctwgr%5Edd7d4003039e83fe3a07573892edc182f1df699b%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdeadline.com%2F2022%2F07%2Fsecret-invasion-comic-con-footage-1235075845%2F

I think Early 2023 is just wrong and you should change it. But according to news, it still won't premiere this spring but this Summer. But for now it's officialy set for Spring not Early 2023. Josephzbazin (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Part of May is in spring and the later part is considered the start of summer in the American market. As of now, officially, SI still qualifies for the early 2023 timeframe per the announced Spring 2023 slot. Rumors of it being delayed have not been confirmed, despite the likelihood. We cannot change the release without an updated source, and a YouTube video excluding the series without an explanation is not enough to make said change. We'll likely get an update from a source eventually, so best to be patient and wait and see. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

And what about Wonder Man releasing between 2023/2024? Bob Iger confirmed which shows are coming this year and it is not Wonder Man plus your source is before Feige announced delays. Wonder Man isn't even filming yet. And it is a show. The same thing is with Agatha. Ironheart is deeper in post-production and Agatha wraps in a month or two. Secret Invasion will premiere around mid-2023 and you think they will premiere Loki S2, Agatha and Wonder Man in the second half of 2023? This is just not possible. They said they are not gonna rush things. You should update these dates with source what Feige said. Josephzbazin (talk) 08:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

We cannot go off of pure speculation for when these could release. At this point, any release is subject to change, though we don't know to when. I'd be cautious of what dates to consider likely, as anything that is filming or about to will likely be next year or later. We cannot change the current release timeframes solely based on Feige and Iger's comments as they don't mention shows like Wonder Man. We'll have to be patient and wait for updated sources to report on when these series can be expected to release. We don't just remove stuff because it could no longer be true. WM states 2023-2024, so obviously now, 2024 is more likely for it, but that's referring to the television season (which is late 2023 into mid-2024, if even that will pan out). Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Trailblazer, off topic, i noticed that in MCU Phase 7 draft, Wonder man is shown to be releasing 2023-2024. Does that mean it is releasing either 2023 or 2024 or lasting from 2023 to 2024? JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Per the source, Wonder Man is presently set to be released during the 2023-2024 television season, which is the shows releasing from late 2023 through late 2024. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Timeline Table

MCU Phase 5 does not include the timeline table as seen in the previous phases. Don't we have official time placement like Sec. Invasion being in 2025? Quantumania, GOTG 3, SI are present so do they not warrant the table? JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

We only have enough info to place Quantumania and Secret Invasion, since we can't actually know for certain which year Guardians Vol. 3 takes place. As it stands, there's not enough info or justification to include a timeline table, as we can only place two projects which are practically unrelated to each other and both take place in 2025. —El Millo (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Headwriter / Showrunner

The use of Showrunner in the TV section has been used only for D:BA whereas the unreleased portions remains using Headwriter?

Also, shouldn't there be a note in alongside Dario Scardapane indicating he is a showrunner? JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The use of Showrunner in the TV section has been used only for D:BA whereas the unreleased portions remains using Headwriter?

As far as we know so far. -- ZooBlazer^talk 04:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Black girl magic

Hi. As far as I can understand, yesterday we get a new and imporfant scene with Monica Rambeau teaching Nick Fury to fly. Is there a way to add it to the articles? The timeline, and Rambo description, because there is nothing about this power over there. But I can't find any secondary source about it. Am I wrong and it's an old scene, and my memory is just bad? IKhitron (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

If there aren't any sources about it then it can't be added. At the same time we should wait until The Marvels releases before adding anything about scenes. ZooBlazer 01:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, @ZooBlazer, it isn't The Marvels scene, it's Marvel Studios: Legends 2x19 scene, it's already out. IKhitron (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Such a scene is not of noteworthy inclusion at this article, and may just be mere trivia or a small detail. Should such detail be relevant to any plot or characteristics, wait to see if any sources bring it up. There is no need for it to be included in this broad phase article, and could be better suited elsewhere if relevant. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)