Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Film Budgets

First off, I apologize if this has been discussed elsewhere. At this point, the MCU is so massive there are quite a few places the discussion may have occurred. Anyways, I have some questions/concerns about the reported budgets (gross and net) for MCU films from Iron Man 3 to Doctor Strange. I understand these numbers are generally pretty fuzzy given studios reluctance to disclose them. However, it seems there is some inconsistency in reporting them. I assume there is solid reasoning behind listing some numbers and not others; I am just wondering what that may be. The films, in order of release:

• Budgets for Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World both make complete sense. BoxOfficeMojo (henceforth BOM), Deadline and FilmL.A. (henceforth FLA) all agree on the gross budgets ($200M and $170M, respectively). A little math is all it takes to arrive at the net budget. These are the first with a "net" budget because this was the first FLA report with them on it. So far, so good.
• Captain America: The Winter Soldier is listed as $177M per FLA. However, this does not match the $170 million listed on BOM. Why is the FLA report considered more reliable? The $170 million figure is often repeated by the trades, such as in Deadline’s annual profitability writeup. As seen by Guardians below, it certainly isn’t infallible so why the preference? I know the BOM number is probably low-balled, as reported production budgets usually are, but who can say for certain? (Also, why cite BOM if the number isn’t reported? Was the intent to report a range?)
• Guardians of the Galaxy is reported as $232.3 million gross and $195.9 million net, per the Forbes report. I trust Forbes’ reporting but doesn’t this throw into doubt the accuracy of FLA’s incentive reports? Their 2014 report list the gross budget at $170 million (matching BOM’s number) and incentives at $22 million (versus the $36.4 million from the Forbes article).
• Avengers: Age of Ultron is listed as $316 million gross and $267.4 million net. Once again, this contradicts BOM ($250M), a number that is repeated in quite a few places (including Forbes). I assume $250 million was Disney rounding down, but still, can we assume? Should a range be reported? A more precise number is not necessarily a more accurate one.
• Ant-Man is reported as $142 million, full stop. This number is again from FLA, although for some reason the net budget is not listed. The same report cited for Ultron above claims the film received incentives of $32 million from Georgia and $736,000 from the UK, for a net budget of $109.3 million. Is this net not reported due to the "estimate" note for the Georgia number? Furthermore, the BOM number is again in disagreement yet still cited.
• Captain America: Civil War is listed as $250 million (matching BOM for once) but the 2016 FLA report states it received $20 million in incentives from Georgia for a net of $230 million. Is this net not reported due to it being attributed only to Georgia, as opposed total? I would think the net would still have some value, especially since the vast majority of film incentives for Ultron would be from Georgia (if not all of them).
• Doctor Strange is listed as $165 million but the 2016 FLA report states it received $27 million in incentives for a net of $138 million. This one doesn’t have any qualifiers at all (like “GA” or “est.”) and seems to be equivalent to every other reported net listed. Why isn’t the $138 million reported?

Sorry about being so long winded. Again, I am sure there is some logic behind all of this. Most of my doubt stems from my unfamiliarity with FilmL.A. While they include quite a few sources, they fail to attribute sources to individual numbers. It makes it very difficult gauge the accuracy of any given value. The Guardians miss is particularly worrisome, as UK data is much easier to come by for films than anything domestically (as most MCU films after that point were). Their 2015 report even notes that Georgia “is perhaps the worst offender in terms of reporting and transparency.” If they are not able to get reliable numbers from Georgia, where many MCU films are shot, how reliable are their numbers for MCU films?

The 2016 FLA report is best in explaining their methodology, and it really does seem to be a hodgepodge of whatever happens to work for an individual film. “When compiling information about surveyed films in this report, FIlmL.A. initially relies on widely reported budget figures compiles in news reports and public sources like Box Office Mojo.” “After the initial data is compiled, FilmL.A. adjusts the reported budgets for films where complete budget information is available from other sources…” That probably works quite well in aggregate and results in a decent overall picture of the industry, but how trustworthy is any single number for one film? So yeah, your thoughts would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:767F:F15C:3D8C:8EC2:5B1:CA60 (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

'Black Panther' Sequel Confirmed by Marvel Studios Head

"Nothing specific to reveal, other than to say we absolutely will do that," Feige said of the Black Panther sequel. "One of the favorite pastimes at Marvel Studios is sitting around on a Part One and talking and dreaming about what we would do in a Part Two. There have been plenty of those conversations as we were putting together the first Black Panther. We have ideas and a pretty solid direction on where we want to head with the second one."

Could it be added to the point 7: Future movies of the MCU? There are all other projects listed.

The sequel isn't confirmed. Feige just said they are most likely going to do one with nothing specific to reveal regarding it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Coulson, Ronan, Korath

Hey, I'm keen to see these guys again (especially Coulson!), but don't they have to be on the billing block for two films to be listed in the recurring cast table? Shouldn't this wait until there's a billing block for Captain Marvel? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The press release stated that they "star". I think that's sufficient for now and we can revisit later once the billing block is released.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Cool, seems fair enough. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanos

When it lists characters and their actors, shouldn't it include Thanos? He shows up in the Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy films. In the Avengers films he is played by Damion Poitier and Josh Brolin, and in Guardians of the Galaxy he is played by Josh Brolin. Damion Poitier played him in the Avengers, and Josh Brolin plays him in Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers: Age of Ultron, Avengers: Infinity War, and going to be in Avengers 4. .2600:1700:F940:3470:A0AD:37E4:736B:AE49 (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ, at the top of the page.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Avi Arad

Shouldn't we mention he served as executive producer of Spider-Man: Homecoming in addition to serving as producer of Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk. --LegerPrime (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

We generally don't mention EPs.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Box office section - budget

Why are both the "gross" and "net" budgets listed for 4 of the movies in the box office performance table? Surely for the sake of consistency, only the gross figure should be listed (which is what the other 15 movies give). The figures exist for comparison purposes do they not? Need an element of consistency in there so I suggest removing the net budget figure from this particular table (of course it can still remain wherever else the figure is, such as on the movies own pages). Just a thought. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Albeit gross or net figures, I think there should definitely be consistency. On that note; between the different MCU articles there is also inconsistency concerning the budget amounts. What is stated in film article itself does not always match amount stated in this article - Infinity War even has several amounts within the article itself. What can we do to better this?SassyCollins (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I think just listing the net should be the case. With the “most expensive films ever” article, Ultron has its $365M figure listed, not the $444. Since they all surely had gross costs brought down by incentives and taxes, it should be an all or none case. I vote to only list one number per film. TropicAces (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

If only one is used, I do think some form of note would be necessary for those with 2 budgets currently, telling readers that this is the net (and potentially also stated the gross in the note), and to deter editors from trying to adjust the single figure. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, TriiipleThreat, TropicAces, Adamstom.97: To me the most recent revision to the box office stats of A:IW does not seem to be an improvement (if nothing else, it's certainly no longer aesthetically pleasing). The link to BOM has also been removed, in contrast to the other 18 films. Could you guys weigh in on this? (BP is also a range of 200-210) SassyCollins (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

SassyCollins I added the Infinity War BOM and Black Panther budget range links. That being said, I think the range in this circumstance can be a bit disingenuous, but so is putting the mean average ($205 for BP and $358 for IW) since those technical figures aren’t the ones given so we may just be boxed into a corner here, not sure how I feel about it. Maybe if we put the average just include a note like Favre said? TropicAces (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

TropicAces Much obliged. I feel having a single figure here is most appropriate, so am all for including a note. That being said, when more accurate figures eventually become available, I will happily adjust the table. A question I still have is: why are there now four references for A:IW? Are these all necessary? SassyCollins (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

probably not, I trimmed it. The 3 sources was to justify the range, but since the Variety article says “$300-400m” I think for these purposes it’ll suffice as lone budget source TropicAces (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Nice. Added range to top info-box. SassyCollins (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes references

This article lists the critics' ratings for each movie in the MCU from the website Rotten Tomatoes. Right now it lists 19 different references for that information, with a separate link to the Rotten Tomatoes pages of each movie. But Rotten Tomatoes has a single page where it consolidates the information for all the movies of the MCU, and that page also has links to the individual pages for each movie. I suggest we replace the 19 different references with a single reference to the page with information for all the movies. But when I made the revision, along with adding a ton of other information, someone reverted my edit and demanded that we have a discussion about it here. For some reason. - 173.171.160.127 (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you please show us this page? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It's linked on View collection of the individual films at Rotten Tomatoes. But it doesn't show the number of reviews and some searching is needed to find a wanted film. I prefer giving direct access to the page for each film with additional information like Average Rating, Audience Score and the actual reviews. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's a link to the revision 173.171.160.127 proposes (I suggested taking it up with Talk): (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_films&diff=846085126&oldid=846028699). I also stated that, with the addition of the separate RT-references (to continue making updating any RT-changes to any single film in the MCU possible - as with Metacritic), his revision is a winner. SassyCollins (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Individual references should be used, and we should not be including the other metrics the IP tried adding, especially the audience one per MOS:FILM#Audience response. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2018

2601:249:8300:62B1:C9FC:7E7F:76A8:BA63 (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe 2008-Present Phase One: May 2, 2008-May 4, 2012 Iron ManMay 2, 2008 The Incredible HulkJune 13, 2008 Iron Man 2May 7, 2010 ThorMay 6, 2011 Captain America: The First AvengerJuly 22, 2011 The AvengersMay 4, 2012

Phase Two: May 3, 2013-July 17, 2015 Iron Man 3May 3, 2013 Thor: The Dark WorldNovember 8, 2013 Captain America: The Winter SoldierApril 4, 2014 Guardians of the GalaxyAugust 1, 2014 Avengers: Age of UltronMay 1, 2015 Ant-ManJuly 17, 2015

Phase Three: May 6, 2016- April 26, 2019 Captain America: Civil WarMay 6, 2016 Doctor StrangeNovember 4, 2016 Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2May 5, 2017 Spider-Man: HomecomingJuly 7, 2017 Thor: RagnarokNovember 3, 2017 Black PantherFebruary 16, 2018 Avengers: Infinity WarApril 27, 2018 Ant-Man and the WaspJuly 6, 2018 Captain MarvelMarch 8, 2019 Avengers: Fallen HeroesApril 26, 2019

Phase Four: July 5, 2019-TBA Spider-Man: Field TripJuly 5, 2019 Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3May 1, 2020 Marvel Untitled films for July 31, 2020, November 6, 2020, May 7, 2021, July 30, 2021, November 5, 2021, February 18, 2022, May 6, 2022 and July 29, 2022.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Strange Sequel confirmed

Kevin Feige confirmed that a sequel to Dr. Strange will happen. Please note it under the "future" block in the article. http://comicbook.com/marvel/2018/06/28/doctor-strange-sequel-kevin-feige-marvel-studios/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.186.188.91 (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

As quoted, and in context, not something to mention until more concrete. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Story writing credits

Revisiting this discussion as it never makes sense as to why this is overlooked. In all of film history, story writing credits get as much attention as screenwriting credits. Both are notable and receive billing and on-screen credit. Because of this I note that this should be reflected on the MCU page as well.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Production Budgets

The budget for Doctor Strange is listed as "$165–236.6 million", with only the lower figure supported by the provided reference. Where's the higher figure from? 124.171.73.214 (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It's from a Forbes reference [1] in Doctor Strange. I have copied it here [2] but I don't know how well such spending numbers correspond to what is normally called budget. Studios filming in England have to file these numbers. They are used to determine the size of tax reliefs so there may be incentive to inflate the numbers. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for all the film articles listed here

Per the discussion I had with Favre1fan93 at his talk page, I am proposing that we adjust the release sections of each of the MCU film articles so that the opening subsection of each, which currently does not have a subheading, would now have the subheading "Theatrical". An example of this can be seen in this test edit (with the current format here for comparison). I am proposing this because the current format always suggested to me that the opening section was for the original and definitive release of the film with subsequent or additional information provided in subsections after it. However, that is no longer the case seeing as we have now added new information on the upcoming IMAX re-releases of the films. Since the opening sections are no longer just about the initial release I believe a change to the "Theatrical" subheading makes sense. I thought I would post this here to see if anyone had thoughts on the proposal. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This should be discussed at the MOS not here, as this is a meta discussion. FWIW, I like the status quo versions, more subsections tend to make the articles harder to parse. Especially this one. Something that will never be more than a sentence or two doesn’t need it’s own subsection.—AdamF in MO (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Adamstom.97: I like this proposal. SassyCollins (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Do not removed sourced content

“I don’t like it” is not a valid reason to remove sourced content. Please engage in discussion. The plot should be accurately described her as it is on the main movie page. —AdamF in MO (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

You need to calm down and clearly explain what your issue is please. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Relax, take a deep breath, and look at the history. —AdamF in MO (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I am perfectly relaxed thank you, and as someone once told me, "I’m not your errand boy. Do your own homework." If you want to discuss an issue at the talk page, then you should clearly explain it so that anybody watching can see what is going on and can respond with their thoughts. It is not up to everyone else to go figure out what your problem is. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The argument was never "I don't like it" and I never said it was. It's that what you added (sourced or unsourced, that didn't matter), does not fit with this article's WP:SCOPE or intention. Each film has three paragraphs: the first for the film's short summary/premise, the second for the major production/release info, and a third for any parts of the film relevant to the larger MCU universe and connections the film makes. So the part you tried to add for AM&W, with Lang being stuck in the quantum realm, does not fit within what this third paragraph is doing. From the film's post credit sequence, the important parts are the characters that disintegrate, giving us our tie to Infinity War. Readers can go to the film's article for the full events of the scene. Look at other sections on this page. In the Infinity War one, we just mention how Fury sent the signal to alert Captain Marvel. Similarly, for the Thor: The Dark World section, we only mention how that post credit scene included the Collector. It isn't relevant here to describe the full events of these scene either. That is the reasoning behind the continued removal of the info you wanted to add. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. I didn’t make that edit. I merely sourced it. But fair enough. I’m keen to wait until the next movie ties it in and re-add it at that point. --AdamF in MO (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks pretty clear that you included the prose plus a source. It wasn't there before your edit. And if it was days/weeks ago, that irrelevant because it was your edits that triggered this discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

You are still wrong. If you would like some help looking up diffs in article histories I’d be happy to point you in the right direction. You don’t seem to know how to look up past edits and when they were made. Hit me up on my talk page and I’ll be happy to assist. Cheers. —AdamF in MO (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow. You really need to cut the sarcastic attitude. As I pointed out in my last comment, your edit was what triggered this discussion with your readdition of content, and it was irrelevant to consider past additions (which I did note was probably possible) for this context. This and other popular articles like this have hundreds of edits over a couple days, so you can't expect editors to remember every small edit some random IP does from three weeks ago. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Cool story bro. Sure, you can’t be expected to remember ever edit by every IP, but you could have used an assumption of good faith that I know what I have edited. Plus my edit history isn’t terribly cluttered. Regardless, this carping back and forth doesn’t do anyone any good. I got a little out of line here, earlier in the week and I can freely admit that. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve this article? If not, my invitation to continue any off topic discussions on my talk page is still open. I’m game to continue a quibbling tit for tat with you, until the cows come home but it doesn’t do much to improve this article. Have the last word if you need it. Cheers. —AdamF in MO (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Future: Potential Projects

Thank you for whoever edited the Potential Projects sub-section in the future section! It is much easier to read now, we have a couple of paragraphs going on about Marvel's plans to continue developing films for the next two decades and then right at the bottom we have it simple: four projects being developed by Marvel in bold. Much easier to read. Although I have to say, there are plenty more that need to be added. These include: Nick Fury, Doctor Strange 2, Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 3, Ms. Marvel, Nova, Power Pack and Young Avengers. Thanks anyway though! Mystic Moore —Preceding undated comment added 09:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Vol. 3

Do we still want to be listing this as a film that is definitely coming? I feel like at this point, with no director and production delayed for several years at least, that it makes more sense to move it down into the potential projects list. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that might be best for now, and removing it from the table. The only thing for devil's advocate, is it is one of the projects that Feige/Marvel has confirmed is coming, despite the situation with Gunn, so I can see that as reasoning to keep it where it is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I would be comfortable moving away from that since all that Feige said was Gunn would be working on a third film, and nothing really more than that. Since Gunn isn't working on the film anymore and its been confirmed that there is no planned release date, I still think moving it down with the other potential films would be better. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

If you want to then go ahead and make that adjustment, that seems fine to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Timeline doesn't add up

Under Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) it says that Captain America: Civil War is eight years after The Avengers. But Thor: The Dark World is one year after The Avengers, Thor: Ragnarok is four years after The Dark World, "around the same period as Civil War", and two years after The Age of Ultron, which is one year after Civil War, so Ragnarok is one year after Civil War, and Civil War must be four years after The Avengers, not eight... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.246.63.129 (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Doctor Strange 2

Kevin Feige has said they are going to make another one day, "It's one of the reasons we've expanded to three films a year, is so that we could do the sequels to films that people have responded to--because we love to make continuing stories with characters people have responded to--but also keep doing the stuff that nobody's ever heard of, and people go, 'Why are you doing that?' That's fun... Sometimes it's where do those characters pop up? [Doctor] Strange, you know, whenever we do another Strange one, which we will do, it will be a number of years from the first Strange, and yet he's a very big part of Infinity War. So it is just a good problem to have when you have too many beloved characters that people want to see more of, whilst keeping to our core belief that we need to keep exploring nuance and keep doing different types of things." Feige and Marvel have intentions of doing the movie, and Benedict Cumberbatch has said he one more Strange solo movie to do. But the only thing just like those other potential movies is when exactly.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinky Rhino (talk • contribs) 18:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

All of that is great for the section on the Doctor Strange film article. Feige mentions all the time that they're going to do some film with some character (see Nova and Ms. Marvel). We have nothing concrete about this film like all the other potential projects listed here. Hence, WP:NORUSH and all of this can be kept on the DS article until we get a confirmation or report that a writer or director is attached, or somehow the filming actually does begin at the end of this year. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I mean know that next year maybe in Comic-Con, Feige is going to actually confirm Strange 2 as well as other films. It’s just that is kinda similar Black Panther, in which we know a sequel is going to happen but just don’t know when. Alrighty then, thanks for talking. Pinky Rhino (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

True, most people feel that, but it isn't anything concrete. Hence why we have WP:NORUSH. Wikipedia is always evolving as content and info is revealed. So as I've been stating, we have all info on the potential film at the Doctor Strange article, and once something more concrete is revealed that a sequel is actually moving forward, we can add it here as we did once Coogler officially signed on for Black Panther 2. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Blade

Blade was the first film based on characters from the marvel universe. Why is it not recognized on this page? Zach4747 (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Because it's not part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. (It also wasn't the first film - it was the sixth, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_Marvel_Comics.) Kimpire (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Phase 4

We have been avoiding using this term since Feige said they may not continue with the phases after Endgame, but the Doctor Strange 2 reports from THR and Deadline both use it, and THR specifically says Marvel has been tight-lipped about its plans for life after Endgame, which it is calling Phase Four. To me, that seems like enough to start using it instead of "Post-Phase 3". - adamstom97 (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd use the THR source over the Deadline one, until that is fully confirmed (or denied) by Marvel. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've made the change for now with the THR source. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Map of the MCU by Christian Tate

I discovered this map of the MCU by Christian Tate, which is up to date at the moment:

Source: Avengers Assembled It is "A visualisation of the links between past, present and future films, shorts and TV shows in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Updated for British GQ magazine, originally commissioned for Empire Magazine."

How do you feel about adding it to the article? Maybe at the bottom of the film list?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mc991 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Additional crew section

I believe that an additional crew section should be added to the page that includes other important parts that make up the MCU films such as the composers, the editors, the cinematographers and even the executive producers. I put in links to the composers/cinematographers but unfortunately there isn't a lot of links for editors and for some of the cinematographers. - Jonathanphillipwinters (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The Infinity Saga

According to Empire, Kevin Feige is calling the first 3 phases of the MCU "The Infinity Saga". I'm wondering if there's a way to change the article and the film list template here and in the main MCU article to reflect that. - Richiekim (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

TVBuff90 (talk · contribs) already did but he cited an unreliable source, so I removed it. Feel free to revert my revision with this updated source.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought I did cite a reliable source. My apologies for any misunderstanding.--TVBuff90 (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Size

Does this article run the risk of becoming too large soon? It's great, but really darn big.★Trekker (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

So based on the lack of replies here I'm guessing this is not of any urgent concern as of now?★Trekker (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

It is very large. Copyediting for conciseness and discussing specific issues on a case-by-case basis is the solution. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you think that there is a risk it might have to be split one day? It reads amazing right now and it would be sad if it turned into just bulletpoints in the future.★Trekker (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

danai gurira

im just here to say Danai Gurira was also in the avengers films— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanjiklub (talk • contribs) 21:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Far From Home

Why is Spider-Man: Far From Home now included in the Phase Three section as well as in the introduction? It's just completely false. They've stated time and time again that Endgame is the end of the Infinity Saga and the end of Phase Three. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday in China, Kevin Feige said that it's actually the last film in Phase Three. [3]. El Millo (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh right. Well that seems rather silly, but hey... TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Question asked of Feige in this interview is not audible, so we have no idea what he is answering to. Until Marvel officially changes what they have thus far communicated concerning Phases 3 and 4, we will stick to what is. SassyCollins (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

You can hear "Spider-Man", "beginning" and "MCU's fourth phase" as part of the question. I believe it's quite clear what he is talking about. ¿Would that qualify as original research? El Millo (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hypothetically, a) Feige might just really dislike this particular interviewer b) he's intoxicated and/or c) he said something to stir things up (like he's NEVER done before...). And that's going off of what you THINK you MIGHT be hearing during this interview. Let's not jump the gun and wait for an official response from Marvel/Disney. It's not a race. Let's be sure what we add is indeed reliably sourced and correct. SassyCollins (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93, Adamstom.97, TriiipleThreat, Jc86035, SMcCandlish, and Hijiri88: Could I get you to chime in on this? Cheers. SassyCollins (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is a decently reliable source covering the info: https://screenrant.com/spider-man-far-home-ends-mcu-phase-3-kevin-feige/ - Trailblazer101 (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

When ostensibly reliable sources are in conflict, report the conflict rather than pick a side.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Improvements like adding missing characters in the "Recurring Characters" Section.

Improvements like adding missing characters in the "Recurring Characters" Section, like Quicksilver, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerozxd28 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that Quicksilver was a minor character who wasn't really in anything aside from Avengers Ultron, and it would be better to keep the list short. Then again looking at some of the other minor characters included, such as "The Collector" who frankly has only made very brief cameo appearances outside of Guardians of the Galaxy, I think the list should probably be several names shorter than it already is. -- 109.78.227.196 (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion is explained at the top of this talk page. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Timeline is unofficial

The timeline presented as fact in this article is not official. It was published in a licensed magazine and was not created by Marvel Studios. The official MCU timeline should hopefully release with the Marvel Studios: The First Ten Years book coming later this year after Avengers: Endgame.

The current given timeline is misinforming and may be confusing users. I believe it should be removed until the official one is released.

B91302 (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

No, it comes from Marvel Studios: The First Ten Years book. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

That book was licensed to Titan publishing group. It was not compiled by Marvel (hence the blatant inaccuracies in the timeline). As previously requested, I move that this timeline be removed until one is released by Marvel themselves.

B91302 (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The timeline is inaccurate and incomplete - for example it is has been confirmed the events from "The Incredible Hulk" happen at the same time as "Iron Man 2" - am not opposed to having an unofficial timeline as long as somewhat accurate to known information, but if contradicts canon agree should be removed until official one is released. MoviePhan (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The way the timeline information is presented in the article is near-chaos in its focus on all the discrepancies and play-by-play details of how the timeline became public. What would be much, much more useful is some kind of table with footnotes explaining the more nuanced details when needed. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The "nuanced details" of the timeline is just unnecessary trivia for an encyclopaedia. The content that is there is relevant to the creation and release of the timeline, and to major issues that have been discussed in the media, both of which are things that we are interested in having here. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: In regards to this reversion, rather than edit war let's discuss the individual changes. The phrase "With Marvel no longer trying to complicate their timeline" is unsourced; the source actually says the filmmakers focused on developing stories individually, rather than focusing on long-term plans. Be wary of WP:SYNTH, which I assert that the old version (your reversion) includes. There is no reason to personify the company by saying "Marvel Studios realized that they could line up some of their films with references to one another"; again, unsourced, and the (same) source just says that the references were included, not that it was "decided" by some entity. Same with the Russo brothers, where it says they "wanted to continue using real time"; the source only points out the the films use real time, unless I missed something. Statements such as these are WP:POV/WP:OR. I don't see where in the source it says "Winderbaum said [Age of Ultron] was around the same time as Civil War and Homecoming (perhaps I should have just removed the attribution to Winderbaum, not the timeline connection). Please let me know if there's another specific problem with my intended edits; other than that last part I think my change is closer to the source. Thanks, UpdateNerd (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Your interpretation of SYNTH and OR is incorrect. Taking information from a source and rewriting it in a style that is appropriate for an encyclopaedia is just how Wikipedia works. Your version may, in some places, be closer to the precise wording of the sources, but it is not better for this article. You say "There is no reason to personify the company" but your alternative is to write, vague, passive, and somewhat-speculatory prose just because a source did it that way even though that is not how it should be done here. If a source says that a film includes a given reference, and we are discussing the creation of those references, then we need to phrase it as someone including the reference, not halting our narrative with a random, unattributed comment. This is where you start getting into {{who}} territory. As for the Winderbaum bit, the information comes from him even if a direct quote is not included. Yes, that is taking the source on faith, but that is what we do with reliable sources. If not, would you have us question the accuracy of direct quotes in sources if there is not video evidence of them saying it? What if the video could be doctored? See where this line of thinking leads?

Now, I am all for others improving what I have contributed. The section as it is already includes several improvements since I created the sectiona few months ago. However, you have not just made a few improvements here, you have made substantial changes based on a flawed idea of what Wikipedia's rules are, and so I stand by my preferred version being the superior of the two, and I would ask that you revert your most recent edit (made after you claim that we should discuss rather than edit war by the way). - adamstom97 (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:SYNTH, if the sources don't explicitly attribute something to someone, than we shouldn't assume they do—just because they're quoted in the same paragraph. That's using fuzzy logic, and you can make all kinds of POV claims that way. I in no way insinuate that we need video evidence to "prove" that someone said something; the question is whether the source itself was attempting to make that point. WP:IS about representing reliable sources accurately. That also means including qualifiers such as "about" or "roughly" in regards to time periods if they do as well. I'm not talking about language so much as accuracy of content with respect to sources. But to respect consensus policy, I'll hold off making further changes until a third party chimes in. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Very well. For the record though, "if the sources don't explicitly attribute something to someone, than we shouldn't assume they do" has nothing to do with SYNTH and I stand by my claim that your whole argument here is based on a flawed interpretation of policy. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It may not be exactly what the policy says, but the idea is the same: the sources should be reflected accurately. That's not a misinterpretation. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The real problem here is actually the opposite of what B91302 says: we are picking out certain primary "official" sources that gloss over the blatant plotholes in the films themselves (i.e., picking and choosing primary sources that contradict other, better-known primary sources), rather than summarizing what secondary sources say about them. Yes, doing the math on our dates does in fact wind up in line with the best reading of the films themselves (that "eight years" at the beginning of Homecoming was an error), but this should be attributed to secondary sources like this one, that explicitly address said error. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Timeline also doesn't have Captain Marvel… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.186.208.139 (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Captain Marvel sequel.

Although it is discussed in the article dedicated to the film, it does not appear in the list of potential MCU projects. Hektor (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The list here is for when some sort of action has actually happened towards it, since people talk about what they would like to do all the time and it doesn't always lead anywhere. The content at the Captain Marvel page does not cover anything concrete yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

You do think that some action has actually happened towards Blade for instance ? I do not clearly see the « action level » difference between an Ant-Man and the Wasp sequel (which is in the list) and a Captain Marvel sequel (which is not). If I compare :

• Feige said he had "pretty amazing" ideas for a Captain Marvel sequel (Captain Marvel article).
• Peyton Reed noted that he and Marvel were "hopeful" about a third film, having discussed potential story points (this article).

Hektor (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Hektor (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2019

'Phase 4' needs to be added including: Avengers:Endgame, Spiderman Far From Home, Black Widow HarryOzzy (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

 

NiciVampireHeart 09:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Far From Home is the LAST film of phase 3 --35.21.122.125 (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Phases

The article divides the timeline into phases without explaining the significance of this division, nor who is responsible for the division. Is it built into the vision of the production company? Is it something fans made up? Can someone knowledgeable about this explain it in the article? Largoplazo (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Basically, when releasing the movies, Marvel groups them into various arcs aka phases. But yeah, you bring up a good point that casual readers might not understand what phases really mean. I've added an intro sentence explaining about it in the paragraph that begins listing the movies in various phases. Starforce13 (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

In addition to the added explanation, the phases are clearly discussed throughout the article by people from Marvel Studios. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Recurring cast members chart

I have WP:BOLDly updated this chart; see this edit. It has exactly the same information it had before, but should display better on mobile devices, and hopefully be easier to read. The main issue is that actor's names are repeated way too often. Actors don't change THAT much, and when they do, it's often times not any clearer in the old format when they changed or why (e.g. Terrence Howard & Don Cheadle both being in the same cell for "Iron Man series" for Rhodes). A lot of cognitive load is reduced by always having the actor(s) in the same column, and then use humble check marks for "appearance."

I will say that while checking this table out, three thoughts:

• I think all the colspan cell merging just makes the table harder to read and harder to maintain. I've left it as is for now, but not every time there's similar information across columns does it make sense to merge them, especially now that actors names aren't being constantly repeated. For Bucky, it's not clear to me that having 1 big check mark to combine Ant-Man, Avengers, Black Panther, & Captain America is easier to read than one big check mark, and it's weird since they're only next to each other because they're close alphabetically.
• Why is Max Favreau listed for Spider-Man? It's a tiny uncredited cameo of no importance not even confirmed within the film itself. By this kind of argument, the actresses for young Carol Danvers in Captain Marvel should be listed as well; they're clearly playing the same character and are at least in the credits by name, unlike Max's cameo.
• In the same way, I'd consider Lou Ferrigno's tiny voice actor cameo to not be worth of inclusion. Put it in a table footnote at most.

Any thoughts? SnowFire (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

What the old table looks like on mobile

I love your format better. The previous one didn't make sense to repeat the actor names over and over - especially since it's the same actor 99% of the time. I also agree that about removing Max Favreau's uncredited, unconfirmed cameo as Spider-Man. Otherwise, we should credit the other "young version" actors like Young Carol and Young Gamora who were actually credited. Starforce13 (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you can put your proposed new format here first and let people weigh in on which format they think is better. I for one am opposed. El Millo (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: Okay, sure, we can discuss, but... you're not giving us a lot to work with here with just "I don't like it". Why are you opposed? Other than User:Starforce13 above, User:SassyCollins expressed support, so it's currently a rough strawpoll of 3:1 in support of the revision. Here's my suggested version of the chart for reference. I think there are some undeniable problems with the "old" version:

• More than 50% of Wikipedia's traffic is from mobile these days. Mobile phones have famously horrible resolution compared to desktop, so cramming in the relevant data on the "left" before the user has to scroll is important. By sheer luck, this isn't so bad since almost everybody was in "Avengers" which is the second column, but the Ant-Man column still pushes most of the actor list away a bit, and for characters not in the Avengers users have to scroll quite a bit far to the right to see the actor. Why not treat all actors the same? (See sample screenshot of what your preferred version looks like to the right, and how Korath is MIA.)
• There's so many columns that even on medium-resolution desktop, it pays to find ways to make the columns narrower and more compact so as to avoid horizontal scrolling. Pointlessly repeating actor names makes the columns longer; having a checkmark keeps the columns nice & narrow. And the actor is in fact the same 98% of the time.
• Even when the actor changes, I'd argue my format is more helpful. The old table has to stick Howard & Cheadle in the same cell, since the actor changed from Iron Man -> Iron Man 2, but there's just 1 column for "Iron Man series." By showing a succession of actors in the actor column, it's easy to write who succeeded who and when.

That's my reasons for supporting my own change. I'm happy to discuss potential compromises or other ways to get it better, but I think the above concerns about the old format deserve consideration. SnowFire (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

First, I think it just looks messy with two columns in bold, plus the years etc. and the tick with the green background, given that we would already have the distinction between white and grey. Second, in the mobile version, as you are scrolling horizontally and you move away from the left, you can't see the name of the actor anymore. The information in this table shows who plays who, but it also shows in which series of films, and I don't think one bit of info is more relevant than the other. I think it is much more convenient to have the actors' names in the same vertical space as the name of the franchise. Third, regarding the years next to the actors, I don't think it helps much. For example, I would have to go somewhere else in the article to find out when the Iron Man movies were released in order to know if the Hulk was played by Norton or Ruffalo and, given that they were released from 2008 to 2013, I still wouldn't know who played him. I then would've to go search in which one of the three films the character appeared and only then would I know that it was Ruffalo in Iron Man 3. With the original format, I know who played him and in which series of films, and the doubts are at least a bit more narrowed, as in War Machine's case in the Iron Man series. That is not to say that we couldn't add a note or something to clarify the year, but I think the original format just works better. El Millo (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

If the complaint is two columns in "header" style with the !, it's effortless to make the second column a normal white background column (change to a | ). That's actually what I tried at first, but I thought it looked bad and was visually distracting to go light grey background -> white background -> dark grey background; keeping it to one color looked better. That said, I'm not opposed to giving it a try if you want. However, I'm not sure what you're saying with the "distinction between white and grey"; my version had no white, so it's just a distinction between green & grey. White would only be added if your suggestion was incorporated.

For your second comment, all I can say is that I hard disagree. It is more convenient for the actors names to appear immediately and in a consistent location, i.e. the 2nd "actor" column, rather than being forced to scroll around, which nobody does (I am not making this up, check mobile website design, avoiding horizontal scroll unless absolutely necessary is considered good form). Additionally, for people on the mobile version, they won't even be able to SEE the "header" row that indicates which movie series is being referred to past the first 5-6 rows or so.

For the third point, the section headings in this very article have the years; "Iron Man 2 (2010)" and the like. That said, even if the years were omitted entirely or the reader just can't remember them, so be it; it's a table, it doesn't need everything in it. Your example of Norton -> Ruffalo is the one time in the entire old table that is actually a useful distinction; I don't think that one case is paying for the massive expansion in table size from constantly repeating actor names, and generally being unreadably wide, and that case is still in my revision if the reader can remember / guess that basically everything not "The Incredible Hulk" is 2012 & beyond, which is a pretty easy ask. That said, yes, if you really think it's necessary, we could add table footnotes similar to the Spider-Man one that says "Edward Norton's last movie was TIH, and Ruffalo's first movie was The Avengers" for readers for whom the year isn't sufficient. SnowFire (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Formatting (like green vs gray or making it bold) is a non-issue for me. My main issue is using the actor's names to indicate which franchise a character appeared in. They make the table unnecessarily wide and unstustainable in the long run especially since we're about to have even more franchises added in Phase 4. Using color and/or checkbox to indicate where they appeared can help keep the table narrow. Technically, in the future we could update the column headers to abbreviations like GOTG, IM, CA, SM which can really help reduce the table size. But it would be useless if the table gets stretched by repeating the same actor several times.

For characters played by different actors, we could do something like "Edward Norton (TIH)" for the exceptions... instead of using the year. Starforce13 (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe putting the full name the first time and just the last name the other times could help with the width issue. El Millo (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

That would also be weird, inconsistent, and "surprising." Who is going to read "Pace" and know what it means for say Lee Pace? Even using last names is still going to make the table unsustainably wide; per Starforce13, if anything, the direction should be toward chopping down the column headers to abbreviations to save space, which really wouldn't leave room for last names.

Anyway, I'm happy to keep chatting, but I'm boldly restoring the revised table - right now, it's just you defending the old style, which will become less and less feasible as time goes on anyway. SnowFire (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I've gone and undone that edit. Such a massive change really requires more discussion and a proper consensus. Your proposed table also has many problems as pointed out by Facu-el Millo that I mostly agree with. I suggest putting your version in a sandbox so we can improve it or propose alternatives and then when we get a consensus we can make the change. - Brojam (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Brojam: I am baffled by this. What are these "problems" and how are they any better on the "old" format? I made the change again after Facu mostly skipped over my responses to the issues he raised above. All I see are stylistic preferences in Facu's comments, not "problems." My table has the exact same data as the old one, so I really don't see how problematic it could be; it is not a massive overhaul requiring an RFC or the like, and I did discuss the issue here. Could you please go into more detail about what, precisely, is the problem with the new format? I've made User:SnowFire/MCUtable for a temporary sandbox table if you think it'd help, but I'm basically satisfied with my version of the table as it is right now. SnowFire (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I just don't see how your version really fixes your main issue about mobile viewing, but that's just my feeling. We could always in the future have the columns be the phases rather than the film franchises since we are getting close to the limit on the front for the width of the table. - Brojam (talk)

I have not thoroughly read through this discussion, but I have looked at the suggested format and believe it is a great change. I myself was planning on suggesting some sort of change anyway as the table currently is completely unreadable on mobile and not much better on my laptop. The suggested format carries out the exact same function (showing which films the characters appear in, and who portrays them) but in a much better way. I would like to see the actor column not bolded as I think that is a little too much, but other than that I support the change. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I put the revised version back in again, this time with the "Actor" column unbolded and two endnotes specifically for Norton & Howard. I still don't believe these endnotes are necessary or add much myself (it's a table, not an exhaustive list, people can click on the relevant links already), but hopefully that should address the complaint above about it not being explicitly spelled out? SnowFire (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Can any of the following be added to the chart, since they have technically appeared in multiple MCU franchises:

- May Parker (Captain America; Spider-Man; Avengers)
- Harley Keener (Iron Man; Avengers)
- Ned Leeds (Spider-Man; Avengers)
- J.A.R.V.I.S (Iron Man; Avengers)
- F.R.I.D.A.Y. (Avengers; Captain America; Spider-Man)

- bigwhofan (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2019 (GMT)

Please see the FAQ at the top of the article for the inclusion criteria. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Phase 4

Phase 4 is not listed up and it should be.

https://news.yahoo.com/marvel-announces-release-dates-every-141228518.html

Majinsnake (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

All the release dates from your source are already in List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Other projects. The films are unconfirmed. I don't think it's known whether they will all be called phase 4 films, or whether that term will even be used officially in the future. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Remove "Blade" potential film

I think Blade should be removed from the potential films section here. There has been no news of substance on this since 2015 and I have not even seen speculation of a Blade film being made in the MCU recently. What does everyone think about this? Colourlight (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't fit in with the rest of the section which are clearly works that are in real development. Maybe we should change the "Future" section to three ones named "upcomming" (for films that have started filming, which means they are almost guaranteed to come out) "in development" (for those who there are active talks about and seem to be moving forward) and then "Potential projects" (Blade and Moon Knight and such which have only been proposed at one or another time).★Trekker (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. If we are going to keep Blade on here, then in order to be consistent, we would need to include movies like Inhumans and Power Pack. Inhumans was turned into a TV show, but it was not envisioned as an adaptation of the movie. In other words, the Inhumans movie is technically still in development, but without a release date. Same sort of thing goes for Power Pack. Power Pack was announced as a movie over a decade ago, alongside movies like Shang-Chi and Cloak & Dagger. We need to make some sort of distinction between active development movies (Black Widow, Eternals, Black Panther 2, etc.) possible movies not yet in development (Captain Marvel 2, Spider-Man 3, etc.) and older projects with no updates (Blade and Power Pack). --Bold Clone 18:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah there are tons of films that have been talked about that have been proposed and could end up being made but aren't worked on at the moment, it could fill out a good section.★Trekker (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Mixing rumored projects like Blade etc in the same main section with official movies with release dates like Spider-Man : Far From Home just looks odd. I think once a film gets an official release date, it should be moved to a separate "Upcoming" section right below the current movies and before the "Timeline" section. Starforce13 (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Support proposes made by @*Treker, Bold Clone, and Starforce13: Splitting the films into "Future"/"Upcoming", "In development", and "Potential projects" seems like a nice change to differentiate the projects. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Also support proposed changes. Came to talk page because Blade looked odd there lol. StaticVapor message me! 06:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and be bold change it now, people all seem to agree that it's a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change. I've moved "Upcoming" slightly up to be above "Timeline." It seems to flow better next to the other official movies - unless there's a pressing reason to have "Timeline" come in between the movies. Thanks. Starforce13 (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2019

"Ant-Man and the Wasp" is not linked to it's respective page — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant-Man_and_the_Wasp — like all the other films are.

This is in the paragraph directly above the contents panel.

Thanks. Hfk73jala84ls (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: It is linked earlier in the section. See a paragraph up. Izno (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Two paragraphs up to be precise. A second link is omitted per MOS:REPEATLINK. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2019

There is a part covering "Avengers: Endgame (2019)" that isn't correct. It states "The film features no post-credits scene, a first for an MCU film." while this is not correct. Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) also featured no post-credits scene. This should be changed to "This film features no post-credits scene, second to Avengers: Age of Ultron." Or something similar.

Source: https://io9.gizmodo.com/joss-whedon-says-avengers-age-of-ultron-has-no-post-cr-1696258220?IR=T

EDIT 1 (reply) : Yes I am a massive Marvel fan and know the scene with Thanos but that is not an "after final credits" scene it's a mid credits scene as you said. "Age of Ultron" is the only other MCU film that has nothing at the *VERY* end. It should be changed though because the statement is incorrect. It should just say "The film features no post-credits scene." I don't think the Spider-Man Far From Home trailer does count as a "post credits" scene as it is just the trailer for the next movie in the timeline.

Also the source IS correct, please read properly:

“There will be a tag,” Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige clarifies. That is, there will be a short, epilogue-like scene that pops up shortly after the credits start. “But there’s not a post-post-credit scene.”

“There is nothing at the very end. And that’s not a fake-out,” Whedon says. “We want people to know so they don’t sit there for 10 minutes and then go: ‘Son of a bitch! I’ll kill them!’”

Iamironman08 (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Have you ever even watched Age of Ultron? The movie features a post-credits scene; it shows Thanos retrieving the Infinity Gauntlet from a heavily protected vault. Your source is over four years old and is very clearly wrong. --Bold Clone 19:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The article is referring to post-credit scene, as any scene that occurs after credits begin. This includes mid-credit scenes which the source you reference specifically says Age of Ultron had.

On a separate note from this. Should we change it from "The film features no...", to "The original release of the film featured no post-credits scene"? Seeing as now they are showing the Far From home trailer as a post credit scene. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm a no for mentioning it as a post-credits scene as it's not really a "scene", however I'd say that it's worth mentioning. QueerFilmNerd^talk 03:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree, it's not a scene, it's a trailer.★Trekker (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Timeline Error

Before Avengers: Endgame release date, the Russo brothers released an official timeline showcasing the 22 Moves in the MCU in Chronological Order.. Therefore the movies need to be shown in Chronological order.MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose: The list should remain in release order. This is a list of movies, not a list of in-universe storylines. There's a "Timeline" section that dives in-universe to explain that. It's not up-to-date but that's where timeline stuff should go. Listing them by chronological order can also be spoilers for some fans and it breaks the phase structure. Starforce13 (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Power Pack wasn't officially announced.

From the section involved: "In September 2017, Marvel Studios announced plans to revisit the film with Jonathan Schwartz", despite the source clearly not being Marvel studios and instead is secondhand information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.79.120 (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Fixed it to be proper. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2019

The second paragraph of the Timeline section begins:

With Marvel no longer trying to complicate their timeline

This should read:

With Marvel trying to no longer complicate their timeline

As written, it implies that during Phase One, Marvel was actively trying to complicate their timeline. That isn't true, and it isn't supported by the linked article. The suggested revision would miss some of the nuance in Feige's statements, but I don't think that's a problem for an encyclopedia article. There are other, possibly better, ways this could be fixed, such as replacing "complicate" with more positive phrasing, or moving the negative ("With Marvel now trying to avoid complicating their timeline"), etc., but I suggested this because it's the smallest change that makes sense. --157.131.246.136 (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Spider-Man: Far From Home in Infinity Saga

There seems to be some confusion about whether Spider-Man: Far From Home is in Infinity Saga. The original articles used "22" films because it hadn't been revealed that Spider-Man: Far From Home is in Phase III, which is part of Infinity Saga. All the 23 movies in Phase 1 - 3 are in Infinity Saga unless otherwise confirmed by Marvel Studios. Please don't use outdated articles to justify excluding Spider-Man: Far From Home from the saga. They were published before Kevin Feige officially revealed that Spider-Man FFH is the one that closes this chapter. this article seems to get it right. Starforce13 (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Just for reference, we now have official confirmation that Far From Home is the conclusion to Infinity Saga as well: (link) Starforce¹³ 00:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 June 2019

In the "Recurring cast and characters section, Rhodey/War Machine is listed as appearing in the Spider-Man films rather than the Ironman films. Additionally, both Djimon Honsou and Lee Pace (portraying Korath and Ronan the Accuser, respectively) appear in the billing blocks of Guardians of the Galaxy and Captain Marvel. They should, thus, be in the recurring cast section based on the rules set forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1342:40A3:40D5:DA8D:688E:F8D5 (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done El Millo (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 July 2019

Frank Grillo, portraying Brock Rumlow/Crossbones appears in the billing blocks of Winter Soldier and Civil War. He also appears in Endgame. He should, thus, be in the recurring cast section based on the rules set forth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1342:40a3:7469:7459:51f6:d4a9 (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding CinemaScore to Critical response

i think we should add CinemaScore to Critical response like another marvel movie page (List of films based on Marvel Comics). 14.139.122.120 (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

CinemaScore is not a critics site. It's audience response.★Trekker (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I created another section for audience response.★Trekker (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

If there is consensus for a section on audience response (I do NOT think such a section is necessary) it should at least be a section that is completely filled with information, not a whole bunch of empty cells. SassyCollins (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

People always dislike it when someone comes up with a new idea they're not used to seeing yet on Wikipedia. As for calling my edits "half-assed", it's not my fault that not all the sources are awalable yet because I need to get an account on one of the websites to see it, (which I'm planning to do because this subject of film reception is something I care about), but I guess this is one of those cases where people feel the need for something to be "perfect" right away. Which is frustrating because Wikipedia is an ongoing process and always being changed and evolved. Studios care what audiences think, that's why movie companies pay tons of money to CinemaScore and PostTrak to get that info, because it's important. It's also very frustrating to put in a ton of work on something which is relevant and then someone comes along and pretty much says you need to ask for permission first.★Trekker (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, and to be clear; I have said nothing about your edits themselves, rather I have an opinion on the final product. As for needing the product to be perfect; I don't agree it needs to be perfect. I do, however, think it should be more complete than it is as of now to be moved to the main-space, (and yes - but again, MY opinion) if at all. SassyCollins (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

What would you say needs to be added before it's put back?★Trekker (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I would say ALL cells that are now empty but COULD be filled because the info exists, should be filled. If, with that done, there remains a vast amount of empty cells, the question should remain if the table is noteworthy at all. As a final thought: maybe look into feasibility of combining the two tables into one. Cheers. SassyCollins (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Tip: set it up like Favre up top for the drafts of upcoming films (1) and invite people to collaborate. This might also increase consensus for the addition of this section. SassyCollins (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't really see how combining video sales and audience ratings into one table would make much sense. They're not really the same thing.★Trekker (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I think CinemaScore should be under Critical Response with Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Just because audiences aren't professional critics, doesn't mean their evaluation of the merits and faults of a film isn't a critical analysis. This is why the CinemaScore is under "Critical Response" for most movies' pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:D00:35CF:25EF:B972:3BE8:BF7E (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

100% disagree. By that logic box office could also count as "critical reception" because it shows people voting with their dollars.★Trekker (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I commend Trekker for his work, finding the list of CinemaScore ratings is easy, but gathering all those details from PostTrak is an impressive piece of work. I think the article is certainly better with that information included in some form or another. Even including CinemaScore in the RT/MC table in the short term although not as good would still be better than the current situation of not having CinemaScore listed at all. As for there being a few gaps, Wikipedia was built on gaps, and Perfect is the enemy of good. Either way please include CinemaScore in some form! Since I had to dig into the article history to find the list of CinemaScore and PostTrak scores for all the Marvel films I link to it for others and again thanks Trekker for putting together that table. -- 109.78.227.196 (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

There are pages that have a "Reception" header, then "box office response," "critical response," and "audience response" as separate sub-headers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feldssa95 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the others in adding the CinemaScores to the article. It seems like there's a consensus to add that data, but not necessarily a solution to implement it. I would suggest adding a column to the current critical response table for the CinemaScore and changing the section's title to "Critical and public response". - Brojam (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

But CinemaScore is a complelty different thing than critical response, I think having them together would just be so confusing. Why are people so down on PostTrak? It's no longer very hard to find ratings from them for the majority of the films now and they're the prefered source of audience reactions now days for studios.★Trekker (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hence why it would be under "Critical and public response". It's still part of Reception after all, and this way, we don't have to duplicate the table with all 22+ films again. - Brojam (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The page already duplicates the list of films for the box office and the critical reception. And if the split does end up happening like sugested below size won't really be a big problem for the page anymore.★Trekker (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

All the more reason not to duplicate it for a third time when we can easily just add a column to the existing one. - Brojam (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

No, absolutely false. You're pretty much saying we should confuse readers, misrepresent information and give priority to box office over all other things, since it gets it's own very detailed section with nothing else cramed in. Audience response is not the same as critical reception and I will not accept go along with any attempt at confuing that for the sake of someone thinking it looks a little less nice to have films listed another time. That is 100% an estetic issue and has no place in this kind of discussion.★Trekker (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you're underestimating the ability of readers' comprehension. I personally don't think any of it would be remotely confusing to the average reader. And, I think you should give the benefit of the doubt to all of us arguing that critic and audience sites should be together and that if we thought it was so confusing, we wouldn't argue for it. But, let's say there was a heading "Critical and Audience Response," and the columns were Rotten Tomatoes, MetaCritic, and Cinemascore. Even if a person hadn't heard of any of those sites, I think a logical reader would innately figure that critical sites come first then audience sites because of the heading. Then since the column name has the word "Critic" in it, it would be obvious that the previous column is also a critics' column which would mean the last column was an audience column. I know what I described sounds complicated, but readers do these type of logical deductions all the time in fractions of seconds. Furthermore, aesthetics are very important in article writing, ESPECIALLY in graphical representations of data. Writing is about engaging your audience and I think there is an argument to be made that having a third similar-looking table in a row would get monotonous for a reader. I don't really care either way as long as PostTrak is added if it's in a separate table (a two column table would seem unnecessary when you can just add it to the critics table). Regarding your question why people are so "against" PostTrak: I don't think we are. It's just much less known to writers and readers than CinemaScore because you need a subscription to access scores. - Feldssa95 (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Considering it's not that hard to find the PostTrak scores for the films (since I've already done that), that's not really a huge issue and I don't see why that would matter.★Trekker (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

At this point, it should just be added for the sake of the useful info. I often want to see the CinemaScores and/or PostTrak of all the MCU films in an array and there's nowhere else that really offers that. So, I disagree with SassyCollins that such a section is unnecessary (and it seems many others do too). But I also think that we shouldn't be so pedantic about where this information. At some point, having the information on the page in a still coherent and understandable way is more crucial than disputing minor details and splitting hairs. I personally think we should go back to the way Trekker had it with CinemaScores and all of the PostTrak scores that are available. I don't think it's big deal at all that there are no PostTrak scores for the early movies. - Feldssa95 (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I think CinemaScore should be added and the section should be renamed as "Critical and public response". --Mazewaxie 13:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

What about PostTrak? I really don't get why people don't want it too. It's the top polling servide for the film industry today.★Trekker (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that we should keep the "Critical response" section as is, and add a new "Public response" / "Audience response" section for the scores from CinemaScore and PostTrak since those have both been brought up beforehand. It would be simple and nice to have both CinemaScore and PostTrak scores shown for the public's scores, just as is done with the critics' scores because it shows multiple different scores. This is, of course, unless PostTrak doesn't have scores for all of the MCU films. If that is the case then maybe we could just include CinemaScore's scores in the public / audience response section and maybe find another public review site. Trailblazer101 (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

PostTrak has scores for all films after it was created, which was in 2013.★Trekker (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Than I'd say it's not as useful for that reason. Adding a section for responses from CinemaScore would be just fine. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Why would that be better? All it does is keep information away.★Trekker (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I mean, if PostTrak doesn't have responses for all of the films, is it really necessary? We can have it, I really don't care. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't have PostTrak data for 10 of the 22 films. It's not really useful when almost half the films don't have the data. - Brojam (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I think it is. Keeping it out is all about estetic preferences, which shouldn't matter. Leaving it out is exactly what it is, leaving out information.★Trekker (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Considering that, I guess it's fine to include the information that CinemaScore provides rather than not including it at all. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

So did we ever land anywhere on this, @*Treker:,@Trailblazer101:, @Brojam:, @Mazewaxie:? It seems there's a general consensus to add at the very least Cinemascores and people seem to be ok with PostTrak. It also seems that most disagree with ★Trekker and think this data should be combined with the critical response table. I personally like the way the Pixar movie page has it but without the coloring. In the end, as I have said, having the information on the page in a digestible way is more important than squabbling over what that best way is. So since there is an apparent consensus to include the data, we should just put it in. Feldssa95 (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it can be added in. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it can be added too. We can go back in the history and recover the data. --Mazewaxie 19:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't the PostTrak scores be added in as well since people generally seem fine with its inclusion? Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding PostTrak. I don't want to cause more controversy, but how did we decide what the average Cinemascore is? You can't really average letter grades. If you go by the American GPA system, it averages to a 3.96, which is very close to an A, but is that still considered an A average? Feldssa95 (talk) 2:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m for the idea that Cinemascore and PostTrak should be added as COLUMNS in the existing table instead of creating a new section and table for them. It’s just a bad design. A new section would also open room for people to start arguing to add those BS Rotten Tomatoes audience scores. The page is already too big and there’s no need to add extra length unless we absolutely need to. As for the format, we could do a rowspan / colspan where Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic columns are under a “Critical” subheading (merged header column); while the audience columns are placed under a “Audience” subheading. Starforce¹³ 03:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Is this setup good? I have the edit format of it ready to go. We can always add the PostTrak scores to the "Public" colspan at a later date if needed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the format I had in mind. Starforce¹³ 23:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Add Valkyrie in Recurring Characters

The following discussion 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.

---

I'd suggest adding Valkyrie in the recurring characters list. She was in the billing block on Ragnarok posters and starred in Endgame. She got just as much credit in Endgame as Hope and Hank Pym. That is, they were all in the credits block but left out in posters because spoilers. So why do they and the Collector qualify but not Valkyrie? Starforce13 (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The table is for actors that have "appeared in the billing block for at least two of those films". Both Hope and Hank Pym appeared in the billing block for Ant-Man and Ant-Man and the Wasp. Valkyrie only appeared in the billing block for Thor: Ragnarok. El Millo (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought it's appearing on billing blocks for two different franchises. i.e Hank, Hope would need to have been in billing block for Endgame. Personally, I don't like the rule. I think if you're main cast (billing block) in one franchise and appear in another, you should qualify. Starforce13 (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The rules are there to restrict the size of the cast list here, as it was getting too long. If you want the full list then you can go to the separate article that has that. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2019 (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.

Future Other Projects

Where are Nova, New Avengers and Thunderbolts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.36.185.29 (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

There's no reliable source to confirm that they are being planned. Starforce¹³ 20:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

X-Men / Mutants Film

Just a note - Kevin Feige used "Mutants" when referring to the movie at SDCC. Although X-Men and Mutants are often used interchangeably, X-Men usually refers to the specific X-Men team and not necessarily all the mutants. There's no confirmation that the movie will be about the X-Men team. We just know it's about Mutants. We should keep it that way until otherwise confirmed. Starforce¹³ 03:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

In this video Feige confirms he used the words/terms 'mutants' and 'X-Men' interchangeably: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dInXtRrqcuw. Although this doesn't 100% confirm that he is talking about an X-Men movie, it's clear that he meant the X-Men by saying 'mutants', in whatever form they'll come to the (big) screen. UnderIrae (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

My issue isnt more that he didn't confirm anything, just stated that there wasn't time to talk about F4 or Mutants.Hackerjack (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The IGN question was whether they won’t do an X-Men titled movie... and after saying they’re interchangeable, he agreed that they won’t do that, they would do something different. So since the term he used is “mutants”, what’s the motivation to change it to X-Men? Put it in another context - if he said he was going to do a Spider-Man movie, and someone asked him if it won’t be about Peter Parker, then he says Peter Parker and Spider-man are interchangeable but proceeds to agree that yes, they’ll be different.... that doesn’t mean the movie would be about Peter Parker. Not all Spider-Men are Peter Parker just like not all mutants are X-Men. Yet, in a lot of contexts, they can be used interchangeably. Doesn’t mean we should change one to whatever term we prefer. Starforce¹³ 11:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Although most of the press used X-Men in headlines, the actual reliable news sites like Deadline and The Hollywood Reporter used "Mutants" when describing what Feige announced. THR puts it best when it says "and movies about mutants (code for X-Men)." Screenrant and Comicbook.com are fan interpretation and fan theory sites, not actual reliable news sites. When you have to choose between them and reliable news sources like Deadline/THR, go with the latter. Starforce¹³ 14:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that this should stay posted as "mutants" until a title for the film is actually presented. SassyCollins (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)