This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The third Marvel Studios Captain America film is refered as "Third Captain America film", but this is inexactly on the list 'cause there is another 1990 Captain America film and the 1940's serial, that is, there are five titles of Captain on this list, the announced sequel it's not the third on the list. It's more appropriate a reference as "Untitled new Captain America film", "Next Captain America film" or "Untitled Captain America sequel".OscarFercho (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
It is actually fine as is, because we have the studio field. If we did not, then we would need that to further clarify. Both the 1940s serial and 1990 film are by other companies. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The movie The Amazing Spider-Man 2 it's not in post-production stage, it's to be released only in some days. It's not in any stage indicated on MOS:FILM. Their inclusion on the label In Production is confusing and it's not true about that film.OscarFercho (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Film stages are as follows: In development; Pre-production; Filming/Production; Post-production; Released. Thus, as ASM 2 has not been released, it is still in Post-production until it has been released. The production process occurs until it has been released; see The Avengers as an example. One of the post credit scenes was filmed after the premiere. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The animated film Stan Lee's that came out on February, 2014 is not on the list of animated movies. I tried to added but it didn't work. Now I think I shouldn't have added it because I don't have the accurate information about the studio, but someone should add it. It came out before Avengers Confidential: Black Widow and Punisher.
This is not a Marvel property (easy confusion as it is by Stan Lee). Also please remember to sign your posts using ~~~~ so others know who is posting/commenting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
In this section there is mention to Malibu Comics that is not an imprint. Malibu was a publisher bought by Marvel Comics and it had its own imprints (Genesis, Ultraverse, Bravura and Rock-It Comix). So I put the imprints in the box emphasising the imprint next to the publisher name. It is similar to Jim Lee's Aegis Entertainment that was a publisher with various imprints (Wildstorm, Homage, Cliffhanger and ABC) bought by DC. HÊÚL. (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
This list not make difference of imprints of the imprints, there´s no a section of Marvel Knights, or Marvel Max imprints. It's only a list of movies based on Marvel properties and its imprints.OscarFercho (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
But Malibu is not a Marvel imprint. The imprints are Genesis and Ultraverse. HÊÚL. (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Genesis and Ultraverse were "lines", not properly imprints. And, actually, there's no publicatios of both.OscarFercho (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
They were imprints. Malibu was a publisher not an imprint. HÊÚL. (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be more relevant to change the name of the heading to "From Marvel imprints and properties". It is quite irrelevant which imprint of Malibu the comics were published under, as there was only one that has been adapted to film. It should also be noted that a similar topic was discussed several years ago when deciding on the inclusion of other properties. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
"From Marvel imprints and properties" it's a very good heading of the section. Thanks.OscarFercho (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
In fact there was two adapted: Men In Black (Genesis) and Nightman (Ultraverse). Two different imprints. HÊÚL. (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
With The Second Fantastic Four Movie (Rise of The Silver Surfer(2007)), it is spelled wrong and that led to a lot of confusion. It is actually spelled "Fantastic 4: Rise of The Silver Surfer" not "Fantastic Four: Rise of The Silver Surfer". The difference is that instead of "four" they put "4". Bobkevin12 (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Not done As is, is correct. How it may have been stylized in marketing material should not be noted here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)