Talk:Captain Marvel (film)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 June 2019 and 24 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kiriat Monterroso, Cecybueso (article contribs).

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2019

To the "Home media" section, add that Captain Marvel was released in Blu-Ray 3D format in every region except the USA. https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=305995 NimaZeighami (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Forums are not reliable sources. — MRD2014 (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Cast

Hey there, Facu-el Millo and TriiipleThreat. There was nothing "be bold" about the edit, it was fairly conventional. None of this was meant to be controversial, nor out of the ordinary. The producers have specifically chosen the names and order of the main actors featured above the closing credits full list. The decision on those prominently displayed names is seen by all of the tens of millions of customers who have already seen, and can continue to confirm, with every single viewing of the source material. It's not a tricky item based on original research or a random personal opinion about which actors should come first - it is a direct result of the prominent billing of the cast as determined by the people who produced the film and laid out the credits (sorry, prominently seen Akira Akbar as Monica Rambeau, who becomes a Captain Marvel in the comics - the producers have placed you in the general cast list). I admitted, and did include a note for transparency, that one change had been made - I included the actor performing the 13-year-old version of Carol Danvers along with the actor performing the grown version. That change may have been an overstep, and if her name should properly be moved to the bottom of the list of the 14 actors that the producers deemed should be included in the highlighted credits, then so be it. Regarding the order of some actors in the prose below the main cast list, such as Chuku Modu and Vik Sahay, that simply adopted their order in the longer cast credits where their names appear, while the little addition of prose explaining their context in the film ("On the planet Torfa, Chuku Modu portrays Kree spy Soh-Larr, while Vik Sahay plays a heroic Torfan") does not seem to need removing, but maybe this was controversial. Regarding the roles themselves, they have been referred to as credited, per WP:CASTLIST: Minn-Erva is not entered here as Doctor Minerva, Korath is not entered here as Korath the Pursuer, Talos is not entered here as Talos the Untamed, and none of those names have been used in this list - by the same token, Ronan and Agent Coulson are the names as credited for those two characters. If needed, the extra prose after the credited role can hold any further details, such as Ronan is "a leader of the Accuser Corps in the Kree Empire", or perhaps "the Supreme Accuser of the Kree Empire"(?), or that "Gregg stated that Phil Coulson would be younger in the film …". Again, none of this was intended as a stretch or bold change, and I addressed some of this in the edit summary to show that it was not some kind of spiteful revert. Thoughts? Jmg38 (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The thing is that cast lists in film articles never go by the same order as in the film's end credits. There is a general consensus about basing the order off the billing on the poster. TriiipleThreat referred to your edit as "bold", I presume, precisely because of that, because you changed the criteria by which the actors were ordered. Now, in my opinion, there is no reason why we should treat this specific article's Cast section in any different way than any other article's. El Millo (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Not sure where it says a "movie poster" versus actual on screen credits. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film refers to Billing (performing arts), and Billing discusses the opening and closing credits for films. Is there a different Manual of Style that says movie poster names only? Jmg38 (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The MOS allows us to decide as a community what is best for each article, and the established consensus for all MCU films is to follow the billing unless there is clear consensus to include someone who was not billed but we believe should have been, or to take out someone who was billed but we believe should not have been. So if there is someone you think is missing from the list, or someone you think does not deserve to be there, then make your case and we can see what the consensus feeling is on that after discussion. Otherwise, the list should remain as billed. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you - was not aware that the consensus for MCU articles was the movie posters. Where can I find that discussion, as it may come in handy on some other items I am working on? Jmg38 (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, this has been discussed many times at many articles over many years. You may be able to find something in the talk page archives of some of the other MCU film articles. I know that we have discussed changing the order from that which is billed on the poster at Avengers: Age of Ultron and Avengers: Infinity War several times. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Should/could this be added to the Manual of Style/Film, as a subsection for MCU? Not every one of the 118,409 active editors, who do not live and breathe MCU articles, will know that something different has been agreed to for those articles, or should ever be expected to read through random talk page archives, hoping to just maybe find some MOS information, if the MOS that exists for this purpose could simply include it. Jmg38 (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo, Adamstom.97: per the suggestion, I did explore the archives, which led to Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron/Archive 6#Mention of Atwell and Elba in the lead?. It seems that the discussion is about how to chose the names to include in the opening of the article, where it would create a "cloud of blue" if every one of the actors shown with their own highlighted page/pages in the film's main credits were included. The suggestion was to use the movie poster to provide guidance for the names that appear in the lead - and that makes tons of sense, and is good guidance for all film articles, not just MCU. What we have been talking about here is the actual cast section of the Captain Marvel article, not the lead section. Jmg38 (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The only time that we have not used the same list for the lead, infobox, and actual cast list is Infinity War, I believe. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. This has worn me out, too much work required to find the unique secret MOS for MCU buried in archives of random talk pages, but which doesn’t actually always apply, as in Infinity War. In the end this was all about 3 names from the main pre-scroll credits, so I will stop trying to find logic and just go relax at a movie. No need to answer the other items I asked about but which have been ignored, regarding the ability to make up the credited roles and regarding clarification of what was wrong with the short prose added regarding the characters seen on planet Torfa. ;) Jmg38 (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• I oppose the dogmatic way these cast sections are structured. This article is the lesser offender among the two non-Sony MCU films this year, but "we structure the list based on the poster billing, which is not subjective" is simply a ridiculously laughable excuse that keeps getting trotted out every time this is brought up. It is a subjective decision to use the cast list given in pre-release marketing materials rather than an objective ordering based on reliable secondary sources (or even the film's end credits, which are not trying to hide the real cast so as not to spoil the film). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2019

In the critical response section please change "Ehrlich did praise Larson's performance, however." to "Ehrlich praised Mendelson and Larson's performances."

The Indiewire review says : "Giving the best performance in a movie that relies on its excellent cast to compensate for its empty characters, the ever-reliable Ben Mendelsohn elevates Talos into a genuine menace" so since he gave the best performance it seems appropriate to mention him too. -- 109.76.135.145 (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Arguably the review doesn't actually praise Larson for her performance at all. Found the edit where the Indiewire review was added, the claim that Larson was praised for her performance was there from the start but I'm not seeing it in the review. -- 109.79.169.24 (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Larson's performance is mentioned in the article body 2-3 times, as well as in the summary at the top, and Mendelsohn is, as you admit in the above quote, only mentioned as the best performer in a cast of several of such good performances. Also, quoting a positive view of Larson's performance fits a "theme" established by this source and quoted in the image caption immediately to the left; removing the reference to Larson and adding in Mendelsohn would hurt the synergy. On a related note, your arguing that the Indiewire review doesn't actually praise Larson's performance when it's actually much more prominent than the praise for Mendelsohn's makes it difficult to assume good faith. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The review specifically said Mendelsohn gave the best performance. It is odd to ignore something that specific and that was the point I wanted to address, I could think would still like to see that omission corrected, and only suggested the smallest possible change but I'm not hung up on the specific wording. (The sentence particularly drew my attention because it is oddly stilted and feels tacked-on, I can see now that is at least partly a result of it being cut down from the earlier wording.) I only asked for that one specific change, my other comments are incidental, I was surprised it took so long to get any response at all and still wanted to see the change made.

I agree Larson gave a good performance but the Indiewire article doesn't articulate that very clearly, there are better sources to pick from if you specifically want to praise Larson. The review does mention Larson repeatedly but it seemed like a more mixed report to me, I guess you can read it both ways, but it is an odd choice when the reviewer singled out Mendelsohn as the best performance. (Personally I think she did great work with an underwritten part, and the whole amnesia thing didn't make it easy for her.) There was clearly an effort to establish the theme that Larson gave a good performance but the section shouldn't neglect to mention other aspects of the film. I can certainly understand why people did that at the time reacting to all the trolls but the critical response section has room for change and can and should be improved. If you are worried about balance, more reviews could be added. Such as the one from Christy Lemire at RogerEbert.com which says "the character, and the tremendous actress playing her in Oscar-winner Brie Larson, deserved more than fine." Vulture/NYmag makes their praise of Larson is unequivocal "The best reason to see the movie is Larson". Those could be added to the text or simply included as named references beside the image captain to reinforce the point but that's another matter.

I only asked for what I thought was a small reasonable and specific request because the extract from the Indiewire review is kinda clunky and not particularly accurate, so I am still asking for a small change similar to above. Any other changes you think to make after that would probably be good too but please do make the small change requested. -- 109.77.229.77 (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so would you be in favour of replacing the Indiewire citation entirely with the above Lemire quote? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Should it say...

In Audience response section, it said "Unlike Wonder Woman, which was watched by more men than women, Captain Marvel's initial audience was 61% male according to PostTrak." If WW watched by mostly men and CM watched by 61% male, should it say "Like", not "Unlike" or should men compared to women be corrected like WW watched by more men and CM by female or WW watched by more women and CM by male? PlanetStar 04:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The source says more women than men watched WW, so I flipped it so our article was correct. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I wrote that the wrong way round when I was adding it. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

GA nomination

@Adamstom.97: Did you do a source check to verify that this article includes no plagiarized text? Certainly, IMO, several sections of it include far too much quotation relative to original text. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)