Talk:The Marvels/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Parris filming uncertainty

@Trailblazer101: I didn't want to revert your most recent addition without discussing first, but I feel that this is a bit of a non-update. She says that she doesn't know when filming will start, and it will start when it is safe, both of which are things that generally don't need to be stated. Especially for a film where we have had such recent updates and don't really need an update to show that it is still in development. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that's true. I just thought some filming bit would be notable, but looking at it again, it's really not much of an update as you said. I'll revert it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

For what its worth, I didn't think it was necessary to remove, as it is still a sign it is still in development. Starzoner (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

But we just got an official announcement of the logo, title, and cast last month. We already know it's in development. I only included it because I felt the bit was partially notable, but have realized it really isn't as that's standard. A start date or expected time will be given sometime this year, so it really doesn't provide anything new. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Move to the mainspace

Filming is supposed to start the week of April 12, and is prominently stated in the infobox on the top of the page. If we don't get a secondary source on this by tomorrow, are we still scheduled to move the page to the mainspace? - Richiekim (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

No, unfortunately, but I would still suggest waiting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 13:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

We need a source to state it has begun filming in order to move it to the mainspace, or if a new filming start is given. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

It is also only second unit filming, so a new source might be harder to come by, but it won't be impossible. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, there was a production notice for Goat Rodeo and Warbird II Productions, the respective working title and production for this film, in Jersey City from April 9 for filming in green screen plates for one day. I haven't found an article on this yet. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

So seeing that, even though we can't use it, it does confirm the sourcing we have in article. Should we proceed with moving, or wait until we possibly get something to confirm this notice? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm still inclined to find an article we can use to confirm the notice. I feel if we were to go ahead and use this Reddit post as weak verification, a site might catch onto it, but I know the obstacles in using sites like Reddit as sources. We probably could just move it as we know what we already have in the article can be verified by this, and if an article is made on it after the fact, we can always add that into here. So, I support a move to the mainspace with this in mind. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I think we should go ahead with the move, as it doesn't seem any new articles are popping up on this. We know the source we have is true per the Reddit post, so I say that's safe enough for a move. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

As long as no one else objects, then sure, we could move it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I contacted Comicbook.com about this info last week, and they published an article on it today. So, I've added that info to the relevant articles. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Premise/Synopsis

Adding this here, just in case someone else tries to add it back because some site called it a "synopsis" and others ran with it. Please note that a synopsis or premise is usually a summary of what happens in the film. It's a high level summary of the plot. An article like this promoting the film and mentioning who is featured in it does not translate to a synopsis/premise. Marvel.com did a description like that for all the films featured in the "Marvel Celebrates the Movies" video. They're not premises/synopsis. They're just promotional material. No rush, wait for the real official synopsis. — Starforce¹³ 17:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Based on

@Favre1fan93, Adamstom.97, Facu-el Millo, TriiipleThreat, Richiekim, and Starforce13: Given this film is now titled "The Marvels", and the current state of the article varies on who the leads are and what the "based on" credit is (without any current credits available), I think it is best to discuss what approach should be undertaken for these to remain consistent. Naturally, as this started off as "Captain Marvel 2", the crediting of "Captain Marvel" and "Carol Danvers" worked, carrying over from the first film, but with this new title and reports indicating it is meant to represent all three confirmed characters thus far, Carol, Monica Rambeau, and Kamala Khan / Ms. Marvel, I think it would be best to find a way to credit each one. I'm not too sure if we should just have "Carol Danvers", "Monica Rambeau", and "Kamala Khan" or also include "Captain Marvel" and "Ms. Marvel", as we do for the Ant-Man films and The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, as that would be a bit much. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: the criteria for 'based on' is currently being reevaluated at Talk:The Avengers (2012 film). I think it's best to leave this how it is for now, considering this has been billed and marketed as a direct sequel to Captain Marvel. If Marvel confirms this is a team-oriented film we can change this. IronManCap (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with IronManCap, leave it as it is until we have reliable sources that say different. Many superhero films feature other heroes and not every creator is credited.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I see this as similar to how Ant Man sequel became a team up, Ant Man and the Wasp. So, it seems that's what they're going for here, but we can wait for official confirmation. However, even after we get the confirmation, I think it's going to be too crowded to list all the 6 of them... which leads back to the discussion IronManCap referenced, where my preference would be to just say based on Marvel comics and that's it. Alternatively, we could also change this to just based on Captain Marvel and remove Carol Danvers... since all the other 2 characters and their alter egos also revolve around "Captain Marvel" in the comics. But yeah, for now let's wait. — Starforce¹³ 18:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we simply state it's based on Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers) and that's it. — ChannelSpider (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The credits in the Captain Marvel press kit simply say "Based on the Marvel Comics" but then later says "Based on the beloved Marvel comic-book series, first published in 1967" which could either mean Marvel Super-Heroes by Stan Lee and Gene Colan or the Captain Marvel series by Roy Thomas and Gene Colan, both which debuted in 1967. So for now in both articles, we could simply put based on Marvel Comics by Stan Lee, Gene Colan, and Roy Thomas.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: so, no character name? —El Millo (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

No character name.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll just add that both Gene Golan and Roy Thomas received a Special Thanks credit, as can be seen on page XI (page 13 in the .PDF file), to serve as back-up for including those names in particular. —El Millo (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

My main concern was about how the article previously listed Captain Marvel, Monica, and Ms. Marvel in the lede's based on credit but not in the infobox, which I have rectified. I'm honestly not too sure about what to do here. I have looked through the larger discussion, but feel for the time being, just leaving Carol/Captain Marvel should suffice until/if anything changes, as this is currently being billed as a Captain Marvel sequel. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Per my comments at the Talk:The Avengers (2012 film) discussion, I think it is WP:OR for us to try work out what comic/character the films are based on when they are not officially based on any specific comic or creator's work. Using the 1967 line as a guide is even more dubious since there are two options from that year, and using the special thanks credit to make our own based on credit is definitely WP:SYNTH. Not to mention the first film has multiple Captain Marvel's in it and they have different comic creators. My suggestion for Captain Marvel at the other discussion is to take all the guessing out and just say "Based on the Marvel Comics" since that is what it says onscreen. If consensus agrees then I think we should do the same here until we get the official credits for this film. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's already agreed upon that whatever we decide to do at Captain Marvel will be done here as well, at least for the time being. I see now that what we're trying to do here is basically the definition of SYNTH and OR. We should base ourselves off the credits and the credits don't credit any character, comic, or creator in particular. We should also include a hidden note that clarifies why we're not putting anything more specific in the field, of course. —El Millo (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, 100%. It really is OR. So, yeah I'm in favor of simply using "based on Marvel Comics". — Starforce¹³ 05:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

If the credited creators exactly match up with the creators of a particular character or comic book, we can add that. If not, just "based on Marvel Comics by..." would do, with a hidden note to clarify why a particular character isn't included in that parameter. This would mean adjusting the leads of the articles as well. IronManCap (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

No, that's literally what WP:SYNTHESIS is. You shouldn't combine things from different sources or prior knowledge to make a conclusion that isn't in the source. — Starforce¹³ 15:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not WP:SYNTHESIS as sources aren't being combined to reach the conclusion. If the exact character creators are stated in the credits, then per convention for various different comic-based film articles and consensus at Talk:The Avengers (2012 film) we should include that. If the creators in the credits are different from the character's creators, then it's WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR to include a particular character, which is where hidden notes come in handy. IronManCap (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

An example of what I mean is adamstom.97's additions to El Millo's sandbox, where the credits' wording has been written out as well as what we should include for each film. IronManCap (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

That's just like putting two and two together, especially if it lines up exactly with the creator of the comic book character that's at the center of the film. If you look at the credits of, e.g. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, it says Based on the novel by J.K. Rowling. To say that novel is Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone clearly isn't SYNTH, "the novel" is clearly referring to that novel, just like "the Marvel Comic" is clearly referring to that comic book character. Now that's entirely different to taking a credit that just says "Based on the Marvel Comics", then going to the Press Kit, seeing it specifies a year, then seeing that the two creators of the comic book character were given a Special Thanks credit and then take that to justify crediting them in the |Based on= parameter. —El Millo (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Yup exactly Facu-el Millo, you explained it much better than I did. IronManCap (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

To avoid duplicate discussions, I think we should close this one but change the credits here to use the "based on Marvel Comics" credits used on the first Captain Marvel. That way we don't have to choose which one of the 3 characters and 3 alter egos we have to credit... and just stick to what Marvel used in the first film. So, if no opposition, we should change this to "based on Marvel Comics" while we try to reach a consensus for the rest of the MCU. — Starforce¹³ 20:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree —El Millo (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done. IronManCap (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

"Featuring" vs "Based on" in the opening sentence

There's a discussion involving this and many other MCU film articles at Talk:Loki (TV series)#"Featuring" vs "Based on" in the opening sentence that may be of interest of watchers of this page. —El Millo (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 30 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

---

The Marvels (film) → The Marvels – This might seem to be too premature, but this film seems to be the primary topic for this article name, especially in comparison with the other articles. It is worth noting the only other article with this name, The Marvels (band) (which is a stub and rarely received any pageviews before), was just called The Marvels until the film name came along. The other in the disambiguation is a redirect to the author's article. Also, this page receives 99 percent of the pageviews [[1]] against the band and the disambiguation, even accounting for the time before the film name was even announced. Just my thoughts. Hummerrocket (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: This does seem to be the primary topic, but there are also a lot of things with the same or similar name at the disambig page in addition to the one article and redirect that you noted. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Like El Millo said below, almost all of the other points on the disambig page are either stubs, redirects, or completely differently named articles. Regarding Marvels, I think that having "The" in front of The Marvels is a big enough distinction, similar to Series Finale and The Series Finale, Hobbit and The Hobbit, etc. Hummerrocket (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support: The only articles that share the name are The Marvels (band), which is a very short stub with only two references, and The Marvels (book), which is a redirect to Brian Selznick. At the disambiguation page Marvels (disambiguation), we have:

—MARVELS, which is a redirect to a section of Sloan Digital Sky Survey titled Sloan Digital Sky Survey#Multi-object APO Radial Velocity Exoplanet Large-area Survey (MARVELS);

—Marvels (Theopompus), which is an even shorter stub that's one line long and has two references;

—Aja'ib al-Makhluqat, which translates to "The Wonders of Creatures and the Marvels of Creation", so there's barely any reason for it to be in the disambiguation page in the first place;

—The Marvels, an issue of Generations (Marvel Comics), which isn't even a redirect.

None of these are even close to being as notable as this film for this title. —El Millo (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support Per nom. Seems like the primary topic here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom and El Millo. IronManCap (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Facu-el Millo. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom and El Millo. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom and El Millo. Chompy Ace 22:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Facu-el Millo. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom El Millo. No page directly relating to the word "The Marvels". WellThisIsTheReaper (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support - this is clearly the primary subject of the topic and the other articles lack enough significance & notability as explained in the nom and per Facu-el Millo's analysis. — Starforce¹³ 23:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Isn't Nick Fury supposed to be in the movie?

Hi there, Ive noticed that Samuel L Jackson as Nick Fury is removed from the cast list. Isn't he supposed to be in the Marvels or was he talking about filming the Secret Invasion TV Show?2A02:C7E:1814:6B00:3DA4:B566:9D67:403 (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

See #Regarding SLJ and Draft talk:Secret Invasion (TV series) about this. We have agreed to wait for more explicit confirmation. IronManCap (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Other Cast Members (Maria Rambeau, Yon-Rogg, Maria Hill, Jimmy Woo)

There are a few cast members who have been subtly revealed through IMDB recently: namely Lashana Lynch (Maria Rambeau), Jude Law (Yon-Rogg), Cobie Smulders (Maria Hill), Randall Park (Jimmy Woo), and Mohan Kapoor (Yusuf Khan from the upcoming Ms. Marvel series) - on IMDB Thom Jones is listed as Lashana Lynch's stunt double, John Humber as Jude Law's assistant, Marie Fink as Cobie Smulder's stunt double, Simon Rhee as Randall Park's stunt double, and Sonny Louis as Mohan Kapoor's stunt double. This confirms all of these actors involvements and thinking about the placement of all of these actors and the context of the movie I would say they make a lot of sense in the movie. I would think this confirms their involvement (in the end we all know they'll be in the movie whether or not this is good enough "confirmation") but I was just wondering if putting them on page was a good idea.

I need help sourcing (IMDB cast list) and I'm not sure if the order is right but I just thought I would let you know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:98a:4300:9230:4549:e20f:67af:9df9 (talk) 01:52, 29 August, 2021 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source, and those castings are not confirmed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Why recent additions were reverted

Just noting here some likely reasons for TriiipleThreat's revert of the additions of Fury and the Khan family: Film London provides SLJ's casting as a brief mention in a box that is not part of the article, which provides no additional context or reasoning for the casting, so it is likely based on his Insta post, which we are holding off on per #Regarding SLJ above.

As for the Khan family, the post is from a low-profile, unverified account, so cannot be counted as a reliable source, whilst the picture is simply of the London Eye and provides no indication that the user undertook filming for this project. IronManCap (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding SLJ

Just adding a note here as well as the one happening at Draft talk:Secret Invasion (TV series), reliable sources are split on what project SLJ means by his Instagram post. Outside of the shirt he is wearing, nothing is indicating it is for The Marvels, but it also isn't explicitly indicating Secret Invasion. See the draft talk discussion for more and to join in the conversation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

New find: Jackson tags "#TheMarvels" in his latest tweet here. This seems like confirmation to me. IronManCap (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Cinemablend took note of it here. —El Millo (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the most solid sourcing for including SLJ in the cast list would actually be that CB article. Favre1fan93 and Trailblazer101, thoughts? IronManCap (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

He made one post suggesting that he was about to start filming, and one post tagged "#TheMarvels". I think it is a stretch to say that this is confirmation, even if a decent source is doing the stretching for us. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Well we have several RS that interpret this as him appearing in the film, and I don't see why he would tag "#TheMarvels" if the filming was for Secret Invasion. IronManCap (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

"interpret" being the key word there. No one is suggesting that he might be filming SI but put "#TheMarvels" instead, what I am saying is that the the "#TheMarvels" post doesn't say anything about filming, and the other post only implies that he is starting filming and does not mention what project. Putting the two separate posts together to "interpret" his meaning and state that he is definitely filming The Marvels is WP:SYNTH. We need a source stating that information, and if the only sources that we have are basing their information on the same two posts then it is still WP:SYNTH. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, we cannot put two sources together to reach a conclusion per WP:SYNTH. I was suggesting using a single source (CinemaBlend) for this info, but I agree with the rationale of waiting for more explicit confirmation nonetheless. IronManCap (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Revisit

Given, SLJ has now made Secret Invasion specific social media posts, should we reconsider the ones back in August to actually being for The Marvels? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I think so, but is there a good source for us to use? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe the CinemaBlend source above could work. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in The Marvels

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Marvels's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "PhaseFour":

• From Ms. Marvel (TV series): Brown, Tracy (August 23, 2019). "Here are all the Marvel shows coming to Disney+, from 'Ms. Marvel' to 'Moon Knight'". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on August 24, 2019. Retrieved August 24, 2019.
• From Thor: Love and Thunder: Couch, Aaron; Kit, Borys (July 20, 2019). "Marvel Unveils Post-'Endgame' Slate with 'Eternals', 'Shang-Chi' and Multiple Sequels". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on July 20, 2019. Retrieved July 20, 2019. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; July 21, 2019 suggested (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done —El Millo (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

"A teenage mutant" (Khan)

The Ms. Marvel series, noticeably, avoided the word mutant. They referred to any character the comics would call mutant as the established MCU "enhanced" Why is she called a mutant in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.40.86 (talk)

Ms Marvel used "mutation" which is just a different way of saying she's a mutant. In addition to the X-Men 97 theme song, the cast and crew interviews have pretty much confirmed she's a mutant. So, we don't need to beat around the bush about it. — Starforce¹³ 00:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Zawe Ashton's character

Disney confirmed on their press site that Zawe Ashton is playing Dar-Benn. Aldwiki1 (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

 Added Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Collider castings

Has any other publication made mention of these actors, particularly Smulders and Park? Just feels a bit odd since there as no previous indication they'd be involved. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I have not seen any other trades report on or verify this, and I was partially skeptical in including them. Then again, we have seen castings only included in weird press releases before. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Maria Hill

Should Hill still be listed as appearing in the movie after the first episode of Secret Invasion? -TrixieCat123 (User talk:TrixieCat123) -TrixieCat123 (User talk:TrixieCat123) 22:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

We have no clue how Secret Invasion will go, given it was only the first of six episodes and honestly, anything can happen with these fictional stories. I don't think there is anything justifiable to hide or dispute Collider's casting reports, especially after last month's very brief talk. We know The Marvels is set after SI, and that Skrulls can impersonate anyone. This is a let's wait and see situation, and there doesn't seem to be anything definitive to counter the casting report at this time. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, Hill's appearance in this film could be through in-universe video footage, a flashback, etc. It's too early to make a presumption on this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Smulders denies she will be in this film with Vanity Fair and TVLine. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we should note that she was announced to be reprising her role here and that she denies it. We shouldn't remove it because her simply lying or being coy in order to hide any spoilers for Secret Invasion is just as likely, if not more, than reports of her appearance in The Marvels being wrong. —El Millo (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Usually I would agree, but given there was some uncertainty around the initial announcement (in the #Collider castings section above) I thought we may want to consider removing that for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Now that there is some denial on Smulders' part, I would be fine with hiding it from cast prose here and at Phase Five, and we could note the report and her denial in Post. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that. I agree then with hiding it for now. —El Millo (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to note that THR states Her seventh movie appearance is reportedly coming in November’s The Marvels, which could be them going off of the Collider report. Given the conflicting reports, I still think it is fine to remain hidden until we are certain. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Zeb Wells not credited with recent poster

Only McDonnell and DaCosta and Karasik are credited on the poster released recently. Something must have happened with Wells's contributions to the script. -TrixieCat123 (User talk:TrixieCat123) 05:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible delay?

Bloomberg (limited access) is reporting insiders are saying Disney may delay some of their remaining 2023 releases because of the strikes and not having cast to promote them, but others are saying The Marvels is too far along in its marketing and won't be pushed. Should we include this at all? Here's CBR's article reporting on Bloomberg's report. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The most recent trailer and poster released a few days ago still has the November date. It’s releasing on that date so I do not think we should add it. Personally I believe the strikes will end by September/October once the studios cave and realize the damage it’s causing, which leaves plenty of time for marketing normally with press and the cast, which is likely what Marvel Studios is betting on. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

And the Bloomberg article itself admits some are too far into their marketing to be changed, such as Haunted Mansion and this film:

Some films may be too far along in their marketing to change. Haunted Mansion is scheduled to hit theaters July 28. Last week, Disney released a trailer for The Marvels, a superhero film that’s likely to be the biggest picture still on the calendar, saying it’s scheduled for Nov. 10.

MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't rule out a potential delay, and some industry sources have mentioned a theoretical Sep/Oct end to the strikes, although that should not sway what we include here. Bloomberg reports "Walt Disney Co. is reviewing its schedule of film releases through the rest of the year and may delay some titles because striking actors won’t help promote the pictures, according to people familiar with the matter. The discussions are at an early stage, but could impact films including Poor Things, Next Goal Wins, Wish and Magazine Dreams, which are all slated for release this year. Any changes will depend on the outcome of the review, said the people, who asked not to be identified discussing internal matters." before its mention of The Marvels. I think it is entirely possible for a slight delay. It is also noted of WBD's consideration of moving Dune Part Two (also a November release). I think we can include this report and what all the sides are saying on it, and if nothing comes from the internal review, we can easily remove it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I know it is a belief, but wouldn't the strike last almost a year like 2007-2008 one? JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

That strike lasted 3 months from November '07 to February '08. It is not worth speculating the timeline of the strike at this talk, though studio/streamer representatives have expressed a desire to return to talks over it. None of that chatter holds a bearing currently on this article, however. If the film is delayed, than that Bloomberg report could be worth including, though if it retains its release, it would not be relevant. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

use of "Spectrum" in cast list

I know "Spectrum" is yet to be used as Monica's hero name in the MCU, but that's what she's called in the comics. I think therefore that should be reflected. Visokor (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Just because a name was used in the comics does not mean it will be the same in the MCU, as this is an adaptation of decades of comics. The Spectrum alias has not been confirmed to be used for this iteration of the character in this adaptation, and toys cannot be used to support this as they can, and have a tendency to, be incorrect and not reflective of what is in a finished film. Regardless, a source is still required to verify any such additions, and not just what you think should be included. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:VNT would apply here. Is it probably extremely likely that she goes by Spectrum? Yes. Has there been reliable sources outside of merchandising/toys confirming this? No. All the recent marketing material and interviews have not confirmed this for us, and we only know it's a possibility because of the merchandise. WP:NORUSH. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Citation needed for outdated budget

I feel it is important to note that while the original budget when the film was scheduled for a July 2022 release was $274.8 gross, with $219.8m after UK tax write-offs, the entire film has been reshot twice and that's not factoring in the additional costs of insuring the film throughout the delays.

As such it's completely infeasible for the $219.8m net budget to be its actual budget as of 2023. 2A00:23C7:80B:7901:CEB:2C27:4638:AE2B (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Yet again, Forbes' report on the budget is more accurate than Variety's, which is an estimate. We do not know the extent of the reshoots, so we cannot assume their impact on the production. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: the $220 million budget was confirmed also by Variety: https://variety.com/2023/film/news/the-marvels-box-office-opening-weekend-projections-worst-mcu-debut-1235783293/ with another $100 million for the promotion--79.50.113.179 (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The $220 million appears to be an estimate of the $219.8 million net budget Forbes reported rather than a new figure being reported, with Forbes' report being more accurate and reputable, especially when Variety itself also said it was $250 million. Marketing costs are not always factored into the overall budget of films, so we would not add 100 to any of the budgets. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

plot summary until detailed

it's missing stuff. 2600:1004:B30B:D052:B4EA:597:5122:36C0 (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Because very few people other than critics have seen it yet. ZooBlazer 02:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I expanded the section. I'm mulling over whether I should put in the memory flashback of Maria, since it would provide context for the mid-credits scene. jhsounds (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

As long as the section falls between 400-700 words per WP:FILMPLOT and follows the other parameters there, such an addition could work if deemed beneficial to a readers' basic understanding of the plot, though it may just be a character beat. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

130 million Budget

Many sources are reporting the $130 million budget, but in April Forbes said that was the budget only for the first two months of filming, not the entire movie: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2023/04/11/disneys-bill-for-the-marvels-came-to-130-million-two-years-ago/ so who is right? 79.50.113.179 (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The $130 million is not the full budget, and it was removed from the Vanity Fair piece shortly after publication, instead opting to only state it was budgeted more than A Wrinkle in Time. The exact budget won't be known likely until closer to release, and it has been removed from this article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks--79.50.113.179 (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

And now, just to state here, Disney revealed the actual budget clocks in at $274.8 million, which is far more realistic than the figure sites misinterpreted and were throwing around. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Except that’s not accounting for UK subsidiary, so the real budget is $219.8 million, which a lot of media are beginning to correct themselves to report this figure when taking that into account. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Mhm. That's correct. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I added both (gross and net) in the infobox, like in the others MCU movies, for example Guardians of the Galaxy (film)--79.50.113.179 (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Yup, both should remain in the article. Disney spent the full $274.8 million, though was essentially reimbursed $55 million. The $274.8 was never incorrect. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Now Variety says 250 million dollars for the budget--79.50.113.179 (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Variety and other mainstream trades tend to report those figures that are usually rounded to a degree and do not always reflect what the final costs actually are. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Why are we reporting the “net” at all? I would have thought readers are most interested in the production budget, since it helps contextualise the scale of the production effort. The existence of a tax rebate changes nothing about how much money was spent on production, and the terms “gross” and “net” are more than a little ambiguous here. There are many cost and revenue line items that the film’s finances could be gross of or net of. For example, a budget figure might be gross of marketing costs. Why single out this tax rebate? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The net was removed from the infobox, but I don't see any consensus here or in the other pages where the net was removed--79.50.113.179 (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I removed it for the reasons in my comment above. The infobox is for simple headline facts, not an elaboration of the film’s finances (of which we only see a glimpse in reliable sources). The “gross” production budget is much more useful to the reader because it indicates the scale of the production. Imagine a $100m film was produced in a country with a 99% tax rebate on film spending. It’s still a $100m film, not a $1m film. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

You wouldn't get a 99% tax rebate, because a film would not spend that much in tax. You can only recoup money you have been taxed through a tax rebate or tax credit. For example, the UK's Film Tax Relief scheme allows you claim back VAT provided your expenditure meets certain criteria. If you pay £5 million to a special F/X company, including £1 million in VAT, and the Government rebate that money to your production, you have in fact only been charged £4 million: you have only paid £4 million, and the special F/X company has only received £4 million. All of this is incidental though: if different sources are reporting different figures we should include both of them, and clear about what they represent. Betty Logan (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

UK Film Tax Relief is on corporation tax, not VAT, and qualifying expenditure includes items like actors salaries which would not attract VAT. The expenditure on which tax relief is claimed is real money coming out of the wallet of the film production company and going into the wallets of the various suppliers. The tax relief is applied as a deduction against profit when calculating corporation tax, thus the film production company gets to keep more of the profit and thus are incentivised to produce films in the UK (which is presumably the purpose of the scheme). In Disney's case, they spent $274.8m to make this film. That's the actual budget of the film. The tax relief didn't reduce the budget, it just made the production company more profitable.

So this isn't a case of different sources reporting two different figures for the budget. One figure ($274.8m) is the actual budget, the other figure ($219.8) is a bit of armchair-accountancy to inform some rough reckoning of whether the film will be commercial success. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of how it is applied, it is applied and sources regularly deduct tax credits/rebates when presenting the cost of production. It is a matter of perspective as to whether a credit or a rebate should be counted as income against the film or deducted from the overall cost, and perspective is for reliable sources to determine, not us as editors. It would become very difficult (and inconsistent) for Wikipedia to report film finance if we limited ourselves to one or the other. Betty Logan (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

In this case, the reliable source we are using is completely clear that $274.8m is the actual budget. Where are the reliable sources claiming anything else as the actual budget? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Variety says that the budget is 220 million--79.50.113.179 (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

That article doesn't mention tax relief or gross or net or anything like that. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

At no point does the article use the term "actual budget". It states "This brought its net spending down to $219.8 million" which is line with Variety's figure. There is no valid reason to choose one figure over the other. The source provides both figures, and the net figure is reported in other sources. Net budgets are widely reported metrics in the trade press. If it's good enough for Variety I don't see any reason to preclude it here. Betty Logan (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't call either $274.8m or $219.8 "the budget" or "the gross budget" or "the net budget". It describes those two different figures as spending - it spent $274.8 million & This brought its net spending down to $219.8 million - so we can't report these figures strictly verbatim as "the budget". We have to do a bit of thinking about what they mean and what information we are trying to discern. In our infobox template, we're after a specific thing: the production budget. That means how much money they paid to make the film. The source gives us two figures: spending, and net spending. Which one of those is the production budget? It's the first, because that's how much they paid to make the film. They paid the full $274.8m. The tax rebate came later.

Going back to my first comment on this matter, we do have a valid reason to prefer "spending" instead of "net spending": because the purpose of including the budget at all is to give the reader a sense of the scale of the production - not to give an account of the production company's financing and profitability. Why not? Because we can not achieve that purpose using only this tiny slice of information. Film financing and profitability is extremely complex, and the fact that we know about a tax rebate tells us nothing about the many other factors that go into determining a film's profitability - and to show "gross" and "net" as we currently do is highly likely to mislead the reader, because we haven't grossed up or netted down any of those other factors. It's false precision. Never mind that it's extra clutter in the infobox, which is supposed to be for concise summarised information, not trivial details.

I could understand reporting a "net" figure if that's all sources provide, but I can see no upside to including "net" when "gross" is readily available.

The Variety source is problematic for three reasons: 1) a later articles contradicts it ($250m); 2) it doesn't explain where its figure comes from; 3) it doesn't describe their $220m figure as net, so it's an assumption by Wikipedia editors that this is a net value, presumably because we suspect Variety got it from Forbes. Taken all together, this is probably best explained by Variety just being sloppy. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources don't have to explain where they get their figures from. Trade press usually obtain their figures either through an examination of audited figures if available, or via a contact connected to the production. As for not describing the figure as a "net budget" this is splitting hairs now. The expenditure on production costs is the production budget i.e. what the film cost to make. In the context of John Carter this exact same figure is described as the "net budget". This figure is further corroborated by Variety as the "cost". Fine, you have a different perspective, but it does not usurp those found in reliable sources. Betty Logan (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

What is the purpose of including a net budget when a gross budget is available? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

For the same reason we include the gross budget when the net budget is available. Inclusion in Wikipedia is based on proportionate coverage by reliable sources, and both metrics are commonly reported. If you want an underlying rationale for why some sources favor one metric over the other then you'd need to put the question to them. Betty Logan (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the John Carter source and it very clearly distinguishes gross from net and reports them as two different metrics. We’re not obliged to report two metrics here. The template (assuming, for the moment, that the template reflects consensus) just asks for the production budget. Why don’t we report the metric that corresponds most closely to what the template asks for? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I have restored it. Cherry-picking goes against Template:Infobox film. It is not for editors to decide which figure is "more useful" or more correct. The net figure is commonly reported by reliable sources because this is actually closest to the final expenditure on the film's production. Betty Logan (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

International Box office discrepancy between sources.

The Article lists two sources for the opening weekend total. But one source puts the international total at $63.3 million, while the other source puts it at $41.5 million. That's a little too large a number to just be a rounding error. Can someone explain what gives? MLcausey (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

are there enough critic reviews?

I feel like more critic reviews should be featured in the Critical Response section, such as the positive reviews from IO9 and The Hollywood Reporter and the negative ones from The New York Post and The Telegraph. At the moment it feels a bit empty. if there's a reason it hasn't been done already, that's fine. 2A02:C7C:A4B6:1A00:5422:2760:981E:CB69 (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@2A02:C7C:A4B6:1A00:5422:2760:981E:CB69 sorry just realised the Hollywood Reporter's one is already there. the others are not though 2A02:C7C:A4B6:1A00:5422:2760:981E:CB69 (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

In the old parlance of 'column inhces' there's really only one critical view given here which leads me to believe that's pro-Disney editorialising going on

It's not making any money so a consensus based on that alone shows it's not well liked Montalban (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Plot summary - Supreme Intelligence

I've noticed that the plot summary has a note explaining that the fall of the Supreme Intelligence was "depicted in Captain Marvel (2019)". However, the destruction of that entity is only depicted via flashback in The Marvels itself. That flashback follows up on Danvers' intention to stop the Supreme Intelligence in Captain Marvel, even if we don't see her destroy it in the 2019 film. I reworded the opening sentence of the plot summary to clarify this, but it may be better leave the note out to avoid further confusion. jhsounds (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I have adjusted the note so it says the flashback happened soon after Captain Marvel (with a source), rather than trying to have the "as depicted in" wording. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Troubled production?

This Variety piece discusses the problems this production had, including the need for reshoots—but I don't see any of this reflected in our article. Oversight? Or has someone been "tidying it up", soda speak? – AndyFielding (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

It is in the post-production section. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Temporary semi-protection of Talk page

In response to a request at WP:RPPI, 72 hours of semi-protection has been applied to the Talk page due to a volume of repetitive commentary that risks overwhelming it and making orderly discussion impossible. Thank you for your understanding. Chetsford (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

New Information

[2] This source puts loss at around 255 million.UnboundBeartic (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

More context from that source (I've added the emphasis): "So, The Marvels appears to have lost Disney and Marvel Studios around $255 million looking exclusively at the figures from its theatrical run. Luckily, much of this revenue ought to be recouped in home entertainment sales - including digital and physical - along with streaming deals like the amount Disney pays itself to put its movies on Disney+. Looking at the 2022 MCU movies (the last year for which the profit and loss data is currently available), Deadline reported home entertainment and streaming totals ranged between Thor 4's $300 million and Doctor Strange 2's $340 million. Only time will tell if The Marvels' at-home arrival can compensate for a disappointing theatrical haul, but these figures could indicate Marvel Studios may still be able to turn a small profit or at least break even on its $219.8 million spend.". Concerns about this source have also been raised over at Talk:List of biggest box-office bombs#The Marvels (a discussion UnboundBeartic has been participating in). Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

As I noted in that discussion, The Direct, as a fan site/blog, is an unreliable source and not a reputable source for box office information. See WP:MCURS for a list of what is and is not reliable. This is just WP:Beating a dead horse to prove something which cannot be verified yet as it is still far too early to determine what the actual loss figure is, what with all the financial analysis, marketing, etc. that goes into it. To reiterate, wait a few more months to a year to see if anything highly reputable comes along. There is again, WP:NORUSH. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Budget

Just as an FYI, expect the budget to rise again around September 2024, as this is when the next UK tax filing will be released. poketape (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo Source discrepancy

The box office totals in the article don't match the source (Box Office Mojo). Is there a good reason for this, or perhaps has BOM updated totals from initial estimates, but the article hasn't been correspondingly updated?

Article says:

Box office $206.1 million

The Marvels grossed $84.5 million in the United States and Canada, and $121.5 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $206 million.

Whereas the source says:

All Releases DOMESTIC (43.3%) $84,500,223 INTERNATIONAL (56.7%) $110,663,691 WORLDWIDE $195,163,914

Am I missing something? Dcfcowper (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

It appears that this figure was given by BOM which then retracted it, likely as an overage of the actual gross, which tends to happen with these sites. Now, The Numbers actually lists a higher gross than what BOM does, so I will implement that as the correct figure. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, it appears BOM had an error and it has now gone back to listing the 206 figure. I have restored it as such. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

A lot of films were affected by this "error", including Man of Steel. Some algorithm or formula was probably having issues and has since been fixed. Not sure if it's been fixed across the board, but I also don't think this is the first time that's happened. Perhaps moving forward we should capture an archived version of the page and include it in the citation. GoneIn60 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Huh. Thanks for letting us know. I know there is an archive option for the cite BOM temp, though I haven't seen it used as frequently as it should across these film articles. This might be enough incentive to do so. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we usually avoid archives for box office and other things that are constantly changing, but we should be fine to add an archive once the theatrical run is done. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Good point. In this situation, the odd unexpected financial updates occurred on older films as well (long after their theatrical run had ended), and each of those would have benefited from an archived citation. But generally you are spot on. Archived snapshots are a waste of time during a film's theatrical run. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

"Box Office Disaster"

Madame Web ends its opening by stating it is a "box-office disaster" because it's only just surpassed its budget.

The Marvels failed to surpass its budget and is the lowest performing MCU movie. Surely given the financial definition of "box office disaster" that Wikipedia uses for Madame Web, that would be applicable here.

Why isn't The Marvels also labelled as a Box Office Disaster considering it lost the studio money, failed to break-even and did not even surpass its initial budget? 2A00:23C7:812:3A01:307E:D00:36D1:224C (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It has been removed. The unsourced claim was added in this edit, and it shouldn't have been without citing reliable sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Unconstructive, disruptive comments and accusations of other editors' intents and complains against the consensus. Ranting editor does not seem to be here to WP:Build an encyclopedia. Collapsing per WP:TALK#POSITIVE. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You could either read pages and pages of talk pages or. Tl dr, a group of editors decided to put the most sugar coated euphemism possible because they didn't want it called a bomb. For some reason this specific film has absolutely massive amount of discussion about how to phrase that i have not seen in any other film page ever. Read the talk page it's quite amusing Holydiver82 (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC) The editors wanted to wait for more academic reliable sources to discuss and analyze the box office as a whole, rather than using the bare minimum of reliable sources available from only the first few months of its theatrical run. Your comments and assumptions are not really constructive, let alone helpful, to this article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC) I don’t think academic sources are needed but I do think waiting is still the right answer. There’s nothing misleading or incorrect about the current wording. The sources from around the release date of a movie tend to run hot. We may get a different characterisation of this movie once we get sources written by cooler heads. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC) the film has been out of the cinema for months and is already on disney+, exactly how much longer do we need to wait? how many more articles do you think will be written about a film that old? those sources are now writing about madame web, or dune. we have multiple reliable sources commenting on the marvels being a bomb after it was no longer in cinema. exactly what do you think is going to be written or going to change at this point? for months the default response has been "you just need to wait longer", exactly how much waiting is needed? Holydiver82 (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC) Until some sources come up that warrant changing the article. The term "bomb" is ultimately a kind of value judgement. It's informal, fuzzy, and IMHO not very encyclopedic. The only reason we would normally entertain it is if we see a great deal of weight in the sources pointing towards labelling it this way. Articles about movies written around the time of release suffer from hype/hate bias, and particularly this one. The passage of time may serve to turn the heat down and allow a more objective retrospective characterisation of the film. We haven't even had final financials, so I'd expect that to eventually trigger some articles. At the moment, the movie is still part of a weird little culture war branch, with anti-fans on one side ("this movie must be called a bomb at all costs, because that proves Disney's strategy leads to failure, which proves that their progressive politics leads to failure, which proves Communism doesn't work, so you have to agree with me!") and wagon-circlers on the other ("this movie must not be called a bomb at all costs, because that cedes ground to the haters, which legitimises their grievances, which are adjacent to sexism, which is adjacent to traditional values, which is adjacent to authoritarianism, which is adjacent to fascism, which is adjacent to Nazism, and we all hate Nazis so you have to agree with me!"). You decide if it's worth your time being on one side of this polarization trap, or whether you are here to build an encyclopedia. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC) I applaud you for finally speaking the truth of the entire debate. none of this is about how many reliable sources are provided, and MOS acclaimed or WP Headline or NORUSH. this film is seen a singular statement on the "culture war". the entire debate has nothing to do with any wikipedia guidelines or standards on sources. it is entirely about the culture war and as you said "this movie must not be called a bomb at all costs, because that cedes ground to the haters, which legitimises their grievances". so a consensus was made to not call it a bomb for that singular reason. my problem with that is it flies in the face of reality, and i dislike the attempt to use wiki guidelines as cover for personal bias regarding the "culture war" Holydiver82 (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC) No one on here is knowingly giving into a nonsensical "culture war" and, from what I can tell in the discussion, most of the editors just want more accurate resources to analyze the box office that have had enough time to shift away from all of this bullshit, and are not engaging in any way of personal biases as you seem to be assuming here. The policies and guidelines are in place specifically so we have a groundwork to go off of when such material gets heated or disputed, not to "attempt to use wiki guidelines as cover for personal bias regarding the "culture war"" as you have falsely accused without evidence. Making such claims is not helping the constructive or WP:CIVIL nature of the discussion process, and you have already been warned at your talk multiple times about making such assumptions of other editors on this talk. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC) You have missed the point entirely. My extreme examples were supposed to be lampoons of the noise going on around this film, not a description of Wikipedia editors. Here we are striving to rise above this nonsense, not participate in it. Both of these “sides” are absurd in equal and opposite ways. If you can only see fault in one, you might be on the other. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC) the discussion was after it was out of the cinema, and those multiple reliable sources were either ignored or dismissed, as can be seen in this talk page. multiple times. when over and over those multiple reliable sources were brought at no point did anyone advocating for not calling it a bomb even acknowledge the sources or agree to even discuss calling it a bomb. trying to figure out, is 4 enough? because you told me that 4 reliable sources were needed per MOS Acclaimed, and the marvels has more than that amount. is that now not good enough? the movie has been out of the cinema for months and is already on disney+, exactly how much longer do we need to wait? Holydiver82 (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC) I'm not going to rehash statements which have already been said or further entertain this discussion. The ACCLAIMED MOS and HEADLINES policy has already been explained to you and the consensus has already been established and implemented. If you want to be constructive and help, then please find updated reliable sources that attribute to it being a bomb, rather than criticizing other editors and making assumptions, which do not appear to be WP:Assuming good faith and are just continuing something that is unlikely to change without new major points and sources to reference. It is generally advised to wait six months before trying to change an established consensus, so in that time, I would urge you to research potential sources and familiarize yourself with MOS:ACCLAIMED and WP:HEADLINES rather than asking other editors to explain things for you. It is not our responsibility to hand you everything. If you want to help, then please do so in a WP:CIVIL manner. If not, then you don't have to respond, and neither do we. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC) I have read those guides multiple times, while purposely vague they are quite easy to understand. the problem of course is that the consensus on this page completely ignores those guides. the reason i have to keep asking for explanation is that editors, such as yourself keep moving the goalposts on those guides. it says multiple, so of course there had to be a 'discussion' on what exactly the word multiple means. you said it means 4 or more, then the next day on this talk page you seemed to imply that "minimum" of 4 was not enough. if the goalposts were not moved constantly i would have significantly less questions about said guidelines. a small level of consistency in the application of MOS Acclaimed would prove to be quite helpful Holydiver82 (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC) If you have questions about the MOS, then take it to that talk page, not here. I have said 4 is a good rule of thumb that has been used in practice across these articles. The consensus specifically highlighted ACCLAIMED and HEADLINES as to which sources to use and which ones did not fall in line with those were removed, so the notion that "consensus on this page completely ignores those guides" is utterly false. The bomb information is in the article in the box office section and is attributed to three reliable sources that fall within those guidelines, as the others were deemed not to. I'm not saying 4 is a must have or the definitive minimum, though it is more preferred and a good rule of thumb, though more would be preferred and can be added should they become available and meet ACCLAIMED and HEADLINES. Rather than trying to call out something that isn't entirely true and in a manner that hasn't been quite constructive, you can try and help WP:Build an encyclopedia (which is always changing and improving) and gather more sources to see if they would qualify. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)