Talk:Thor (film)

Idris Elba on casting

Saw this today. It's quite a bit of coverage and seems worthy as a source to reference. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Saw that too, seems THR is using a old quote that is already present in the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Aw, okay. and I thought that the article was going to go in-depth about Thor itself. It provides the history, which is interesting but does not belong here. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually its not the same quote but close to it. I do however prefer Elba's wording in this article. [I] Will update the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Triii. Would you kindly explain why you have reverted the following edits I made under Casting for Idris Elba? I wrote the following: "He is the all-seeing and all-hearing guardian sentry of Asgard, he stands on the rainbow bridge, Bifrost and stands watch for any attacks to Asgard. Heimdall stood as the guardian of Asgard, defending the city's gates from any intruders, and was one of the most trusted servants of Odin...The casting prompted a boycott of the film by *some* white supremacists..." and I reduced the quote down because most of the section is just negative feedback. If you want a criticisms section, put it in the article at the end as is the norm. Thank you. Conficutus (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page, I readded the word "some". However the description you wrote is overly long, the movie is unreleased so we only use the most basic of descriptions as there are a lot of current unknowns. Also we don't want to overburden the cast section with plot information. The quote you removed was in response to the criticism that balances out the criticism itself. The quote should remain as is full and intact as not to misrepresent Elba's words.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've read the above talks, I think I know why the full quote is being put in here and as said previously, it isn't plausible for us to have the casting section of Idris Elba primarily addressing the criticisms. These should be addressed to Kenneth Branagh, who chose him. I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. Instead of having a section under casting for Isris Elba with this , why not just have a H2 section called Controversy or Criticisms at the bottom of the page and leave the casting section to explain what the role of Idris is, as all the rest of the characters do? That's the norm isn't it? Oh and it seems somewhat odd for you to complain about the length of the casting section for Idris Elba, saying what I wrote was *Overly long* and yet when the quote was reduced you reverted it? Conficutus (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like you to have a look at other Cast sections: [[1]] [[2]] [[3]]

As you can see from other articles, it would be more acceptable and to Wikipedia standards, to erase all the unnecessary information from the casting sections and simply have listed the names of the people cast in the film. Then, just as you can from the link above of the controversy stir surrounding the film Cleopatra, you can have a controversy section at the bottom of the article. Surely this is the more plausible way? Obviously you are very protective over how the article is, even though the rating of it is a C rated article. I think several people have already pointed out the criticisms belong elsewhere. Conficutus (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Overly long in regards to plot only descriptions per WP:PLOT. Also per WP:FILMCAST relevant background information is perfectly acceptable. No information provide in this article is unnecessary as it provides background and insight to the characters. Lastly criticism for Elba's is coming from a small vocal minority giving it is own section would place WP:UNDUE on it. The topic is covered in five short sentences (2 criticizing and 3 in response). --TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

What about WP:TOPIC ? How about including the positive side. This is what Kenneth has to say: "“Idris Elba is a fantastic actor – we were lucky to get him. He provides all the characteristics we need from Asgard’s gatekeeper, the man who says, “Thou shalt not pass”. When Idris Elba says that, you know you’re gonna have a problem. He’s smart, intelligent, handsome and an absolute joy to work with. If you have a chance to have a great actor in the part, everything else is irrelevant,” he said.“If you’re going to say the colour of his skin matters in a story like this, look at 50 years of Thor comics to see how many ways great artists have bent alleged ‘rules’. Look at the Norse myths to see the way they confounded and contradicted themselves. " I don't see that quote included. Obviously, the height of this controversy stir means it deserves its own section. I mean, you have one sentence on what the cast role is, the rest of the paragraph talks about the controversy it has caused. That's not following guidelines [[4]]. There should be a section for controversy. Conficutus (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A director calling his actor "fantastic" is hardly notable. Besides Elba reasonably counters the criticism in his own words which in my opinion is more worth more as he is the recipient of this criticism.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

How is a director defending his decision to choose an actor not notable? Incredible. An actor defending himself is notable, but the director that defend his own decision for choosing the actor in the first place isn't? They are some serious issues here. I think you need to look at WP:STRUCTURE. The controversy needs a section of its own to give equal say to Idris, the director and the reason for the controversy. Already we have two large quotes. Anyone in the right frame of mind can see that you're not following WP:NPOV guidelines. It deserves its own controversy section. Conficutus (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A director calling his actor "fantastic" is hardly notable. Besides Elba reasonably counters the criticism in his own words which in my opinion is more worth more as he is the recipient of this criticism.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You have repeated your opinion. The director chose th actor, so the director should have a say in why *he* chose the actor as this is what the controversy is about. The controversy has nothing to do with what Idris says, but why the director chose the actor. This is where you are going wrong. Conficutus (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the double post. Of course Branagh is going praise Elba as he has already done with everybody else he has casted in this film. If we add every time the cast and crew says something nice about each other, the article will become bogged down with everybody patting themselves on back. The "contorversey" is covered and countered with the appropriate amount of weight.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No Triiiple. This is wrong. I could equally say, of course Idris is going to defend himself, yet you have no problem including his quote. The director chose the actor. He of all people deserves a say as to why, and he has explained himself. It's WP:NPOV. The director deserves a say, and possibly the actor. But certainly there is no need for both and if one quote should be chosen, it should be the directors. That's the bottom line. So are you going to change the quote, add the section or am I? Conficutus (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The article will remain as is unless you have WP:CONSENSUS to support your bold change.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

And the consensus is we should have a section for controversy on it's own so that the director can have say on this too, or else, remove what Idris said and put in what the director has to say about *his* decision to *choose* Idris Elba to be *cast* in *his* version of Thor. And here is something mentioned above in one of your conversations about the quote you think works well currently "also, I suggest that the soundbite from Elba's interview should be pruned just to give the actor less opportunity to make a fool of himself. It's easy to sound stupid in unrehearsed interviews, but It would be difficult to say anything more dumb or trite than "If you know anything about the Nords, they don’t look like me but there you go. I think that's a sign of the times for the future. I think we will see multi-level casting ... and I think that's good" --dab" Conficutus (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been sick and unable to edit for a few days. I'd thought this issue had been settled by consensus. From what I gather, a small fringe group objected to Elba's casting on racial grounds. Elba, the object of this ire, responded with a comment. I would say that had Brannagh said something specific and detailed about Elba's casting -- that he deliberately wanted multi-racial characters, that the studio told him he needed ethic characters to appeal to the ethnic market or whatever it may or may not be — then that would be solid and useful information. Brannagh simply calling an actor "fantastic," which is pro forma business-as-usual, really isn't notable.

Additionally, I would also say that this relatively small issue might be deserving of a Controversy section if it had made significant national news coverage, or if noted civil rights leaders had weighed in with opinions. This issue, brought up by a fringe group (and maybe not even a formal group at that) seems as if it's getting blown out of proportion, thus getting into Undue Weight territory. Can you see my reasoning? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with WP:UNDUE. This is what the director said about his decision to choose him: "“If you’re going to say the colour of his skin matters in a story like this, look at 50 years of Thor comics to see how many ways great artists have bent alleged ‘rules’. Look at the Norse myths to see the way they confounded and contradicted themselves. " This is clearly a more succinct and acurate reflection of the argument that should be presented here. Any sane person should see that. Conficutus (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that saying someone who disagrees with you must be insane is a good argument. It is also uncivil. Having an entire controversy section because one small fringe group said something gives that fringe group far more importance than they deserve, hence WP:UNDUE. Is there anyone besides this tiny fringe that had a problem with Elba's casting? Was there any organized opposition, a petition, a boycott threat? Was it any sort of significant story in the mainstream press, or just some tiny item buried in the paper? These are some reasons to contradict your statement, "It has nothing to do with WP:UNDUE." I'm not calling you insane for disagreeing with me, but giving reasons.

That said, I'm certainly willing to meet you halfway and say that if you want to include the shorter Brannagh quote (e.g. Added Brannagh, "If you're going to say...contradicted themselves") following the existing Elba quote, I myself would have no objection. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done, I replaced Elba's response in lieu of this one. We really dont need one sentence about a boycott from a small fringe followed by 9,000 remarks stating how wrong they are, it just gives the controversy more attention then it deserves. I left Elba's second quote because that is in regards to casting in general not a response to the boycott.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've found a better source to add to the casting section of Idris Elba and I would like to include it on the grounds that this is Idris Elba describing what he feels it is like to act in this part, as all the rest of the actors do in casting sections. Currently, Idris Elbas casting section is far too long, only talks about the controversy and doesn't give him a say as to what he feels like playing the role. http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/apr/03/the-god-in-idris-elba ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 16:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence does talk about his inspirations. I didn't see much in that article that you posted regarding his character specifically, was there a quote in particular you wanted to add?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's been added. The paragraph has been cleaned up and I think all would agree this is far better. What do you think? ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 17:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I disagree, the quote you added was more in praise of Branagh. The focus should be kept directly on the role itself. Also the comments you removed addressed his casting directly and reflection of his inspiration for the character.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a clear improvement to the section. Kenneth's input is just his description that he thinks the controversy is "daft" and Idris has briefly described his appreciation in having this part to play, as well as his appreciation of Kenneth who gave him the role. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 17:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect his appreciation isn't notable, he of course was happy to take the part as I am sure every other actor in movie is happy to be involved. The quote you added was not an improvement especially in comparison to what you removed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Another revert. I think it's clear Triii that you are going against yourself here. Here are the edits that you keep reverting: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thor_%28film%29&action=historysubmit&diff=424887284&oldid=424886638. Here is what you said earlier: " I replaced Elba's response in lieu of this one. We really dont need one sentence about a boycott from a small fringe followed by 9,000 remarks stating how wrong they are, it just gives the controversy more attention then it deserves."

In that respect, I have coupled two sentences together about comic book fans and white supremacists, I have removed the overly long quotes and replaced them with succint ones describing 1. How Idris feels to play the part as Heimdall (which is what all casting sections should have) 2. Idris defends Kenneth's decision to cast him in the film. and Kenneth's quote has been shortened to his description that he thinks the controversy stir is "daft". There is nothing else that needs to be in the article. Anyone interested in wikipedia standards should see that you are not acting in the best interests of the article. The version done by myself is much more in synch with the rest of the casting descriptions. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 17:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The reaction by some comicbook fans and the boycott by white supremacists are two separate things. Idris's feeling's about playing part as I stated above are not notable. I could load up the article with comments from each actor expressing their gratitude for being involved. Their appreciation offers no insight to the role itself. The comments you removed was in regard to his casting in general not a response to any criticism,which by the way also contained information regarding his preparation for the role.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Triii, you seem to be completely missing the point. You have contravened yourself again. Here is what you wrote: Idris's feeling's about playing [the] part as I stated above are not notable. Perhaps we should make the follwoing edits to the article then:

• Chris Hemsworth as Thor: The god of thunder based on the Norse mythological deity of the same name. Director Kenneth Branagh and Marvel Studios chief Kevin Feige chose Hemsworth after a back-and-forth process in which the 27-year-old actor was initially dropped from consideration and then given a second chance to read for the part.[8] Hemsworth said the film stays true to the comics, stating, there are "so many different versions of the comic books, they've sort of bonded quite a few of them to form this particular story, but it's all very true to the original stuff".[9] On his take of the character, Hemsworth said, "We just kept trying to humanize it all, and keep it very real. Look into all the research about the comic books that we could, but also bring it back to 'Who is this guy as a person, and what's his relationship with people in the individual scenes?'"[10] About approaching Thor's fighting style, he remarked, "First, we looked at the comic books and the posturing, the way [Thor] moves and fights, and a lot of his power seems to be drawn up through the ground. We talked about boxers, you know, Mike Tyson, very low to the ground and big open chest and big shoulder swings and very sort of brutal but graceful at the same time, and then as we shot stuff things became easier".[11]

• Natalie Portman as Jane Foster: A scientist and Thor's love interest. Marvel Studios stated in an announcement that the character was updated from the comics' initial portrayal for the feature adaptation.[12] When asked why she took the role, Portman replied, "I just thought it sounded like a weird idea because Kenneth Branagh's directing it, so I was just like, 'Kenneth Branagh doing Thor is super-weird, I've gotta do it.'"[13] Portman also stated that she really wanted to do a big effects movie that emphasized character, and getting to do it with Branagh was a new way of approaching it, relative to Star Wars.[14] Regarding her preparation for the role Portman remarked, "I signed on to do it before there was a script. And Ken, who's amazing, who is so incredible, was like, 'You can really help create this character'. I got to read all of these biographies of female scientists like Rosalind Franklin who actually discovered the DNA double helix but didn't get the credit for it. The struggles they had and the way that they thought – I was like, ‘What a great opportunity, in a very big movie that is going to be seen by a lot of people, to have a woman as a scientist'. She's a very serious scientist. Because in the comic she's a nurse and now they made her an astrophysicist. Really, I know it sounds silly, but it is those little things that makes girls think it's possible. It doesn't give them a [role] model of 'Oh, I just have to dress cute in movies'".[15]

• Tom Hiddleston as Loki: Thor's adoptive brother and nemesis based on the deity of the same name. Hiddleston was chosen after previously working with Branagh on Ivanov and Wallander.[5] Initially Hiddleston auditioned to play Thor but Branagh decided his talent would be better harnessed playing Loki. Hiddleston stated that "Loki's like a comic book version of Edmund in King Lear, but nastier". Hiddleston also stated that he had to keep a strict diet before the start of filming because "Ken [Branagh] wants Loki to have a lean and hungry look, like Cassius in Julius Caesar. Physically, he can't be posing as Thor".[16] Hiddleston looked at Peter O'Toole as inspiration for Loki as well explaining, "Interestingly enough, he [Kenneth Branagh] said to look at Peter O'Toole in two specific films, The Lion in Winter and Lawrence of Arabia. What’s interesting about The Lion in Winter is, [O'Toole] plays Prince Henry, and what’s beautiful about his performance is you see how damaged he is. There's a rawness [to his performance], it's almost as if he's living with a layer of skin peeled away. He's grandiose and teary and, in a moment, by turns hilarious and then terrifying. What we wanted was that emotional volatility. It’s a different acting style, it's not quite the same thing, but it’s fascinating to go back and watch an actor as great as O'Toole head for those great high hills".[17]

Hemsworth, Portman, Dennings, and Hiddleston at the 2010 San Diego Comic-Con International.

• Stellan Skarsgård as Erik Selvig: A scientist doing research in New Mexico who encounters Thor.[18][19] Skarsgård stated that he was not initially familiar with Thor.[20] As to why he took the part, Skarsgård remarked, I "chose Thor because of [director] Kenneth Branagh. The script was nice and we got to rehearse and talk to the writers and do some collaborating in the process to make it fit us. So I had a very happy time on it. What I always try to do is immediately do something I just haven’t done so I get variation in my life. I’ve made about 90 films and if I did the same thing over and over again I would be bored by now. I try to pick different films, I go and do those big ones and having done that I can usually afford to go and do some really small obscure films and experiment a little".[21]

• Colm Feore as Laufey: King of the Frost Giants.[22][23] Feore stated it took five hours for his makeup to be applied.[24] About his character Feore remarked, "I am the King of Frost Giants. And if you’ve seen any of the Frost Giants, you know that I am, of course, the Napoleon of Frost Giants. We’ve got some massive, fabulous guys who dwarf me and come in at around eight-and-a-half feet, nine feet. But, no. Can’t you tell by the commanding presence? I am the boss".[22]

• Ray Stevenson as Volstagg: A member of the Warriors Three; a group of three Asgardian adventurers who are among Thor's closest comrades, known for both his hearty appetite and wide girth.[25] Stevenson previously worked with Kenneth Branagh in the 1998 film The Theory of Flight, and with Marvel Studios as the titular character in Punisher: War Zone. Stevenson wore a fat suit for the role, <del? stating, "I've tried the suit on, and what they've done is kind of sex him up: he's sort of slimmer but rounder.". Stevenson said, "He's got every bit of that Falstaffian verve and vigor, and a bit of a beer gut to suggest that enormous appetite, but he's not the sort of Weeble-shaped figure he is in the comics. He's Falstaff with muscles. I've got this amazing foam-injected undersuit that flexes with me.".[26]

• Kat Dennings as Darcy Lewis: A co-worker of Jane Foster.[32] Dennings described her character as Foster's "little helper gnome".[14] Dennings also stated that her role was expanded during the rehearsal process.[33] Dennings explained, "She’s kind of like a cute, clueless, little puppy or maybe a hamster. There wasn’t much on the page for the Darcy role to begin with and I didn’t even see a script before I took the job so I didn’t really know who Darcy was at first. But she really evolved — she’s so much fun now even. She’s very Scooby-Doo if that makes sense. She’s always three steps behind and reacting to what’s happening with these great expressions; 'Zoinks'. She gets things wrong and doesn’t care".[34]

• Anthony Hopkins as Odin: [37] In an interview Hopkins stated he knew nothing of the comic. About the film he said, "It's a superhero movie, but with a bit of Shakespeare thrown in". He also revealed that the film uses all modern language.[38] Hopkins stated, "I'm very interested in that relationship between fathers and sons", and that, "My father's relationship with me was cold. He was a hot-blood character but to me, cold. When I was young, he expressed his disappointment because I was bad in school and all of that. He didn't mean any harm, but I felt I could never meet up to his expectations." Hopkins also expressed that he finds a personal resonance in the Odin role, saying, "He's a stern man. He's a man with purpose. I play the god who banishes his son from the kingdom of Asgard because he screwed up. He's a hot-headed, temperamental young man... probably a chip off of the old block but I decide he's not really ready to rule the future kingdom, so I banish him. I'm harsh and my wife complains and I say, 'That is why I'm king.' He's ruthless, take-it-or-leave-it. Women are much more forgiving; men are not so forgiving. I know in my life, my karma is, 'If you don't like it, tough, move on.' And I move on. I'm a little like Odin myself".[39]

• Joshua Dallas as Fandral: [45] Dallas said he believed that Fandral "would like to think of himself a philanderer. He would like to think of himself, I was saying, as the R. Kelly of Asgard. He’s a lover, not a fighter". Dallas also mentioned that Errol Flynn was an inspiration for the character stating, "He was a big inspiration for the character and for me. I watched a lot of his movies and kind of got that into my bones. I tried to bring out that little bit of Flynn-ness in it. Flynn had a lot of that boyish charm that Fandril’s got all that in him".[46]

And as for you mentioning the comic book fans and boycott, I think they are linked and therefore should be mentioned in the same sentence. Ultimatly though, in attempting to keep the section as it is, you are not following WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM guidelines. The rephrased section would simply bring it back in to line with the rest of the article, while also ensuring it is not WP:UNDUE ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 08:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Also, you might want to note that all the actors mention Kenneth in their quotes, so I don't see how you should have a problem with Idris mentioning Kenneth. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 08:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not compare a casting character to Idris's: Idris's is "The all-seeing, all-hearing Asgardian sentry of the bifröst bridge, based on the mythological deity of the same name.[27] News of Elba's casting was met by online complaints from some comic book fans and white supremacists who saw it as inappropriate for a Norse deity to be played by a black actor.[28][29] Idris says, "When Kenneth asked me to be part of it, I did find myself questioning race," Elba confesses. "But Kenneth hadn't even given that a thought. He just needed an actor who has presence and command, and felt that I fitted the bill...It was so refreshing – and a testament to [Kenneth] as an actor and director that his casting was genuinely colour blind. I feel very proud of being part of that movie." [30] Kenneth Branagh described the controversy stir as "daft"" which is comparitive to Natalie Portmans character: Natalie Portman as Jane Foster: A scientist and Thor's love interest. Marvel Studios stated in an announcement that the character was updated from the comics' initial portrayal for the feature adaptation.[12] When asked why she took the role, Portman replied, "I just thought it sounded like a weird idea because Kenneth Branagh's directing it, so I was just like, 'Kenneth Branagh doing Thor is super-weird, I've gotta do it.'"[13] Portman also stated that she really wanted to do a big effects movie that emphasized character, and getting to do it with Branagh was a new way of approaching it, relative to Star Wars.[14] Regarding her preparation for the role Portman remarked, "I signed on to do it before there was a script. And Ken, who's amazing, who is so incredible, was like, 'You can really help create this character'. I got to read all of these biographies of female scientists like Rosalind Franklin who actually discovered the DNA double helix but didn't get the credit for it. The struggles they had and the way that they thought – I was like, ‘What a great opportunity, in a very big movie that is going to be seen by a lot of people, to have a woman as a scientist'. She's a very serious scientist. Because in the comic she's a nurse and now they made her an astrophysicist. Really, I know it sounds silly, but it is those little things that makes girls think it's possible. It doesn't give them a [role] model of 'Oh, I just have to dress cute in movies'".[15]" You can't complain about actors talking about why they think Kenneth chose them for the role, a brief mention of Kenneth's opinion or why they feel they are suited to do the part. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 09:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

First let me say you are on the verge of edit waring and can be blocked from editing. Secondly you are not reading what I wrote, I said Elba's feeling's about playing part are not notale. You have highlighted a few other quotes from actors but what you are not releaving they contain a WHY. Why they took the part. The quote you are attempting to force in the article does not offer any useful insight as to why just a thank you. Again I would to remind you of WP:BRD, you made bold change to the article, I reverted it, and now we are discussing. Do not change it again unless a WP:CONCENSUS is determined here to do so.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason whatsoever for the version I have done to be reverted. You said: "you are not reading what I wrote, I said Elba's feeling's about playing part are not [notable]" I already replied to that above, in the very exhaustive list of cast character quotes clearly showing that all the actors have had a say in WHAT their part is and WHYthey feel they were chosen to do the part and HOW they feel doing the part. The source from the Guardian which I have included, addresses the controversy, why Idris feels Kenneth chose him for the part and how Idris feels about being chosen for the part. Nothing is different from the casting section of Natalie Portman. Here are the edits you keep reverting [[5]] and as has been very elaborately explained here already in great detail, your reverts are wrong. There is NO reason whatsoever for reverting the page. None. The version I have done is much more succinct and see per WP:UNDUE. The source from the Guardian [[6]] is a much better source, not only is a recent one where Idris is addressing the issue of the controversy, but also he explains in detail other areas too. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 10:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Portman is stating why she took the part, this is an internal reflection on herself in a section about her. In your quote Elba is commenting on Branagh's decision. All he is saying is that Branagh felt he was best the person for the job. Ofcourse he felt Elba was best person for the job or he wouldnt have hired him. This why this isnt notable. The quote offers no background or insight on the casting or the role. Also again you are lumping together some fans reaction and the white supremacist, they are not the same and you make no mention of the boycott which is the most notable piece of information about this controversy and the reason it has picked up media attention. WP:UNDUE does not mean ignore the problem.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

In the quote, Elba comments on Kenneths decision to address the controversy. Obviously, he cannot address the controversy, without mentioning Kenneth who chose him and why Kenneth chose him to do the part. This is why it IS notable. The quote does offers more insight in to the role than the previous one, saying that he was chosen because of Idris being an actor of him being well-known as an actor of "presence and command". The fans reaction, and the white supremacists are one of the same thing. You can easily include a few words saying that some threatened a boycott. I notice you make no compaint of Kenneth saying the controversy stir is "daft", so we should just leave that sentence in too. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 11:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC) I am 100% sure that the version I have done is a vast improvement because it addresses the controversy and explains why Idris was chosen for the part, and like all other actors, he has expressed his appreciation for being given the role, for example, Natali says about being cast as a female scientist I was like, ‘What a great opportunity,...exactly the same lines as Idris saying he felt "proud" to be part of the movie. Further, Kenneth's input as him thinking the controversy as "daft" is enouough in the article and any more would be WP:UNDUE₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 11:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If you read the entire quote Portman is say its a great oppurtunity for little girls to have a role model but regardless there was alot more to her quote then a mere expression of gratitude.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict

You've just reverted 12 days of Idris Elba editing, including your own edits, without discussion. That certainly isn't WP:CIVIL. You're supposed to discuss first in a edit controversy. Clearly, you find that I have the better argument, so rather than conform to it you are undoing over 24 edits to the article. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 11:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC) I still think the previous version was better. So basically, you have changed your mind again here: [[7]] and you're now working from an 12 day older revision on the Idris section. So I can say that clearly we have a difference in opinion on how many sentences/words should be given to this controversy, what sources ought to be used, whether Kenneths input as dscribing the controversy as "daft" is important, and what we should include from what Idris says (ideally, Idris should comment o nthe reason he was chosen and how he feels about that) I think this source is a better one [[8]] in every way and I don't think Idris needs to address the criticisms. Why not just put in that Kenneth said the controversy stir was "daft". Anything more will be WP:UNDUE and let Idris talk about his role in the film, as all the rest of the actors do? ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 12:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually this edit is the one that broke protocol after you reverted my revert. You made a bold change, I reverted and then we discuss. Not keep reverting while discussion is in progress so the page remains to your liking. What I have just done is restored the original quote agreed upon at the top of this discussion, removed less notable part of the controversy since you feel it is getting to much attention and restored the relevant information regarding Elba's preparation that you haphazardly removed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That simply isn't true. I put the comment on the talk page at 16:53, April 19. I therefore put the comment on the page before I made the edit. Your uncivil actions have been plain disregard to discussion and the multiple edits as well as the agreements we have already made in the article. It is uncivil to revert to a 12-day-old version, especially after your statement about an impending edit war and blocking of my account, as well as the way in which you have said I must discuss changes. After a very long discussion, and several progressive edits, you cannot just reverse the whole lot (days of edits) without discussion. For example: we already agreed that Kenneth should have a say. This was then removed by you. It is just very rude, to be discussing an article and improving it, and then when the reasons for the change have been very clearly pointed out, the entire section to be reverted, not simply to an earlier revision, but one that is 12 days old. It's very demoralising as you can probably see I am doing most of the discussion anyway. We agreed #1. That Kenneth should have a small say in this on the controversy since it addressed his decision #2. We agreed that there is too much said on the controversy itself and not what Idris role is, or what he has to say about his role, hence the above. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 13:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to have third party mediate, but this is what happened. You started a discussion on the talk page at 12:53, April 19, 2011 and then updated the article at 13:15, April 19, 2011, not sufficient time for anyone to respond. Also I did not threaten an edit war I stated you were on the verge of edit warring with your revert of my revert at 13:29, April 19, 2011 and again at 05:03, April 20, 2011, after I explain to you the bold revert disccusion cycle. I have made no uncivil comments or actions.

• 1. Elba say should be given the opportunity to speak for himself especially since this addresses him directly.
• 2. In your quote Elba isn't saying anything insightful about the part just that he is thankful to Branagh for giving it to him.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to follow this dispute and failing miserably due to its drifting so far away from the actual content of the edits involved (as all content disputes seem to do). But the one point that is sticking for me is Elba's comments: I completely agree with Trii on the point of the "thanks" quote. It does not adequately provide any real world context, especially in light of the backlash his casting has caused. It makes more sense to me for us to briefly note any research he has done for the role (his looking to the comics) and his reaction to the controversy. The quote where he basically just says thanks is rather useless for our purposes. Millahnna (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Previously, you accused me of making the edit before I put it on the discussion page, which it isn't true. I am glad you recognise your error on that. Normally, it takes around 10 minutes for a response here. Perhaps incivility would be the wrong word, however, you are clearly being rude in ignoring discussions and not following WP:EDIT guidelines. I am doing what I can to discuss, but regardless of my discussions, you have reverted to a 12-day-old revision of the page, in other words, voided all the discussions we've had about this section. Your two points which you have come up with here (on your own) contravene what was decided previously:

• 1. On 20:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC), you used a  Done template and basically said that Kenneth's imput was important. You [changed the article yourself] and said replaced quote per talk page. However, today on the 19th April you have reversed all edits made since these discussions began, including the one that you made on the 08 April. You did this with no discussion whatsoever despite claiming that if I were to revert again, I could be banned. In other words, TriiipleThreat has undone all the edits that have been done since our discussions began. And this is very demoralising that he should be able to get away with it.
• 2 It is your opinion that Elba doesn't say anything insightful. However, he explains thoroughly why Kenneth chose him for the part, why Idris feels he is good for the role and how Idris feels doing the part. All the other characters in cast sections do the same. Idris should not have to explain what research he has done for the role. Other characters have explicity mentioned they have done no research for the role so why would it matter if he has or hasn't done research. The section is supposed to address primarily how the actor feels or thinks about the role. Not addressing controversy, criticisms or having to justify themslves by the amount of research they have done. Millahnna, Triple Threat has basically ignored this whole discussion page here and what was agreed by both of us right from the beginning. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 14:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I think this version is much more succinct and per WP:UNDUE ":The all-seeing, all-hearing Asgardian sentry of the bifröst bridge, based on the mythological deity of the same name. News of Elba's casting was met by online complaints from some comic book fans and threats from some white supremacists who saw it as inappropriate for a Norse deity to be played by a black actor Idris says, "When Kenneth asked me to be part of it, I did find myself questioning race," Elba confesses. "But Kenneth hadn't even given that a thought. He just needed an actor who has presence and command, and felt that I fitted the bill...It was so refreshing – and a testament to [Kenneth] as an actor and director that his casting was genuinely colour blind. I feel very proud of being part of that movie." Kenneth Branagh described the controversy stir as "daft". I think " This is nothing more or less that needs to be added than this. It address how Idris feels to play the part, why he was chosen and the controversy right on the head. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 14:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I was tried of this conversion but I have always maintained that Elba should have a say. This was changed when you removed Elba's other comments about his casting. And if we were are going to only have one response it should be Elba's not Branagh's (as it and this section is directly focused on Elba). Elba's original comments were proposed by Erik whom I was more in agreement with than you, unfortunately he is taking a wikibreak and has been unable to comment. Again in your quote he is simply praising Branagh, and Branagh would not have cast someone who he thinks would not "fit the bill". Your edits also ignore the boycott (the most notable piece of information as it has gotten the most media attention), his direct response to the boycott and any preparation he has done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, you and Eric have a history on here. You agreed that the director, Kenneth, should have a say too. It was only when Kenneth's quote was shortened to him thinking the controversy was "daft", edits made today, that you started having an issue with his input. What I have written above is succinct, to the point and nothing else is needed. Elba gets a say too (so what is the problem), but it's so much more to the point. It address how Idris feels to play the part, why he was chosen and the controversy right on the head. That's all that is needed. Anything else is just WP:UNDUE. The above quote does mention the Boycott, which is what I have proposed. Fine, the "fit the bill" comment is somewhat obvious, but it's part of the quote. But you are being highly critical. May I remind you that your quote from Idris mentions Cleopatra, Gandhi, flying hammers and horns on the head, so please don't try to cherry pick a comment like "fit the bill". So many double standard comments made here. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 14:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Your quote essentially states two things, Branagh hired Elba because he was right for the part and Elba's gratitude towards Branagh for giving him the part. The quote you removed was direct response to boycott (not indirectly through praise of Branagh) and made valid comparisons to other casting choices and the fallacy that this is an controversy over a fictional being.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No. It says that

• 1. WHY That Kenneth was looking for an actor who has presence and command , and that Idris had that ability. Earlier on, Idris explains that his previous roles in series like Luther have given him this edge.
• 2. CONTROVERSY It explains directly about his concerns of race, and the question he is asked is about the controversy stir.
• 3. HOW It explains how Idris feels to be in this role and that he respects Kenneth for his "colour-blind" approach - and no complaints, because other actors have given reasons why they respect Kenneth and wanted to act in his fill in the cast section. In a lot fewer words than your quote too. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 15:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:Millahnna and User:TriiipleThreat that the quotes they note re: Brannagh and Elba are non-notable. (For example, what actor in the role WOULDN"T have command and presence?) I agree that the extremely minor tempest-in-a-teapot about some factions opposing the casting should be given no more than a sentence for reasons of WP:UNDUE. I thought we had reached a compromise version, but it seems that isn't enough. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} a.k.a. User:Conficutus, is behaving in a way that disrupts Wikipedia to make a point. Pasting hundreds if not thousands of words and crossing them out? Reiterating the same arguments over and over in order to try to wear down those who disagree with him? User:Asgardian was banned from Wikipedia for much the same behavior, and I confess I would support a user RfC for Conficutus at this point. He has gone far beyond the pale in his extreme argumentativeness and at this point I question the value of, at the very least, having him continue to edit this article. Multiple editors disagree with him, yet that seems to make not difference in his obsessive desire to flog this issue for weeks and weeks now. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

[User:Tenebrae]] - I was copying and pasting the cast sections to prove that it is OK to have characters describe their feelings about acting in the film. If I don't make my point clear, it won't be accepted. Anyway, ever since you got involved I haven't done any reverts against you or anyone else for that matter. I also haven't done any more reverts forcing me to take it to discussion hence the amount of discussions I am having. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 16:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing all the comments, I really do feel that Triiiple is simply trying to give this controversy stir more popularity than it needs. All that is required for the controversy stir is two sentences. "Some comic fans made online complains and some white supremacists threatened to boycott the film. Kenneth called the controversy stir "daft". That's all that is needed. No defence is needed or justification from Idris Elba. No one needs to ask how much research he needed to do...those two sentences are fine, Idris should be free to talk about how he found the part, why he felt he was chosen to do it - just as everyone else. It's simple WP:UNDUE. Otherwise, you're giving this controversy more attention that is deserves or needs. It was an empty threat anyway, we hardly hear of this boycott that is supposed to happen. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 15:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll call it WP:SEEKHELP for now and leave it for today. Think you'll find that since this conflict has been with just the two people, me and Triii (I understand Triii has asked others for help from people involved), I really don't think it qualifies for Rfc. You've only just got involvled today and rarely had any input in this. I'm going WP:SEEKHELP KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 16:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have addressed the NPOV of this section on the WP:NPOVN noticeboard. Idris Elba # Thor NPOV concern . Thank you. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 09:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It really is hard for me to follow what's going on a little bit so I don't know if I can be a help. I do say when there is disagreements it's probably best to have suggestions to please both sides. And this is just me but we shouldn't probably use the phrase "not notable" on information. Information doesn't have to be notable just constructive for Wikipedia standards while notability is mainly an argument on whether a article should exist or not. So "Not constructive" would probably be better. I feel that Confictus might be getting a little overboard with whatever he want's done being done that it could be exhausting TriiipleThreat and other editor's out. Maybe he should do some meditating as well so he can a clear head at this as well. Anyways I can tell both of you want what's best of what's for the article but remember working together and resolving differences does a better job at getting that done. I wish I could be more of a help but this conflict kind of makes my head spin to where I am not sure who to support. So a simple explanation of the different opinion's might be nice. And that third opinion section might be good that. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

References for Reception

Yay! Review time. This review from IGN might be useful. I might find more in the future. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should stick with selected "Top Critics" because of weight issues. Its still early more will come. I did leave the sole negative review in the interest of neutrality.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason why I said "might" and did not put it there. I happen to notice this before going to Rotten Tomatoes but it's not really too important when you got Rotten Tomatoes showing every review there is. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I'm here to provide a third opinion on a "disagreement about the casting section of Idris Elba". I'm not familiar with the topic of this article and have not edited here before. I had a quick read through the discussion above and it appears that this is a dispute between [User:Conficutus|Conficutus]] and TriiipleThreat. If there are others involved in the dispute, then this cannot be a third opinion and you will need to follow other methods in the dispute resolution process.

I'll read through this talk page further, but it would be very helpful if you could summarise the nature of the dispute below.

Third opinion

Thepm (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (KN→ ^{talk • contribs})

The casting section of Idris Elba [9] clearly contravenes policy per undue policy and also cast policy, and it has been suggested that the intention here is simply to highlight a very, very small view of some white supremacists which is per wikipedia policy wrong; User:TriiipleThreat defends the inclusion of this controversy and Idris Elba’s long-winded defence claiming “per balance” but all this does is give more undue weight to the controversy, other users (2) have suggested that the controversy should not be mentioned anyway, and another user (1) claiming that, if it is, it should only be a sentence long (see NPOV Noticeboard Discussion) and I maintain that despite User:TriiipleThreat's claims that there is little information to put in the cast section for Idris Elba [10] I mentioned at least one source but that was ignored above by the user who said "Idris's feeling's about playing [the] part as I stated above are not notable" ! (17:51, 19 April 2011) despite WP:FILMCAST - I therefore wrote this, additionally, his excuse is no reason to go against WP:FILMCAST & WP:UNDUE guidelines.

Viewpoint by TriiipleThreat (talk · contribs)

....I have no problem with removing the "controversy" all together was my original position. However this dispute has moved far from its origin and has recently mostly been about Conficutus' additions of comments from Elba, that Millahnna, Tenebrae and myself deemed to be non-notable, as they provided no insight to the role itself. However if the controversy is to be addressed then Elba's unedited response is permitted in the interest of neutrality. Either way we should not add non-notable content to lengthen Elba's section just to make it en par with other actors as Conficutus suggested.

2nd Viewpoint by KN→ ^{talk • contribs}

You had no problem with "controversy" a year ago o the 11 June 2010, saying "Prezbo (talk) [the controversy] has no bearing on casting, however would be notable in the reaction section after the release". This is really humourous. If (and the WP:NPOVN board should decide this) the controversy should be addressed it can be addressed in one sentence. "Online complains about Idris casting for a Norse god were passed off as "daft" by Kenneth and "ridiculous" by Idris." There you go. It's not hard. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 20:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion by Thepm

....

Hi Folks. I'm afraid that after reading through here a little further, it's become apparent that third opinion isn't the right tool. There are already a few people involved on the talk page and third opinion is really intended as an informal 3rd view for situations where there are exactly 2 editors involved. For that reason I'll step out and suggest that you might like to try one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options.

A small comment that might help Conficutus is to ensure that you understand policies before you offer them as cause and that you nominate the correct policy. For example your reference to WP:CAST above does not seem to be relevant as it is related to "cast" in the sense of "casting votes" not in the sense of "movie cast".

One further general comment is remember that wikipedia is not a vote. Decisions should be made based on sound arguments and use of policy where appropriate.

Good luck!

--Thepm (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Replacement on Thor #Idris Elba

Obviously we need something that will replace this deleted content, so I was thinking the following:

• "It's an extraordinary visual spectacular," says Elba. "It's different from anything else I've done; but at the same time, it's been pointed out to me that here I am playing a central, solid figure again – the one that people should trust. [11] I feel very proud of being part of that movie." [12]

This would bring the section back in to line with Wikipedia standards: KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 12:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I moved this discussion here from Conficutus's talk page for wider attention and input. Let me begin by saying we do not NEED anything, we would LIKE more insightful content from Elba. Unfortunately (and I do not mean to be disagreeable), but this not very constructive either. Elba again here is offering more praise for the film. The comment, "I am playing a central, solid figure again – the one that people should trust" doesn't say much of his interpretation of the character. The comments in the cast section our more than mere filler, and we should not be in habit of adding content for the sake of adding content. Frigga's and Hogun's sections are also very short for this same reason. If Elba makes a more substantial comment about the role we will add it. Until then remember there is no rush.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous. You are defending the right to put in something that is clearly WP:UNDUE - a controversy stir involving a very small minority of white supremacists - while silmutaneously finding fault in information that is appropriate for a filmcast sction i.e. "which uses well-written prose to describe the casting and staffing decisions made, as well as discussing the reasons behind some of the cast decisions, the thoughts of the actors themselves about their roles, and some brief explorations of their careers before and after the film, e.g:" [13], which the [[14] source] I have offered does. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 19:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that article would make a great source for the article about Elba, himself. But he doesn't say much of substance about this film specifically (since that wasn't the focus of the interview at large) beyond a couple of minor things about the controversy and a line or two that may be hard to parse without running the risk of interpretative language on our parts (I'm thinking specifically of the central solid character line there - I think I know what he means by that but it seems we may have to spell it out).

If I recall correctly, another source was put forth in the longer thread above where he made note of something more specific to his approach to this character. What if we used this source to mention his response to the controversy (colour blind casting or mentioning that he thought about race) and the other to address the acting approach? I do think we should mention the controversy but should keep it brief. It takes two sentences, at most, to cover what it entailed (not counting any response from cast and crew). I'm having another one of those moments where I fear I'm not making sense... am I? Millahnna (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Colour blind casting and what Idris thinks about race are also mentioned in this same [[15] source]. Plus, it's the best source we have about his views about the film and his role and his previous roles and how they have helped with the part. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 20:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Here's everything that is mentioned in the article about Thor: ""In scripts you are still often seen like that – imposing, athletic, scary," says Elba. "The way to break that cycle is just to do. Take my latest film, Thor, for example. It's not written for a black man – it's just a character. And that's the way forward."Thor is certainly a different kind of role for Elba – his first foray into the realm of the superhero. Based on the Marvel comics, Thor has been described by critics as a somewhat counter-intuitive blend of Nordic mythology, CGI special effects and the unlikely direction of Kenneth Branagh.Elba joins an impressive cast, including Anthony Hopkins and Natalie Portman, to play Heimdall, the god who mans the bridge between the human world and Asgard, the realm of the gods. He is clearly excited about the film and says he can't wait to take his nine-year old daughter Isan to see it."It's an extraordinary visual spectacular," says Elba. "It's different from anything else I've done; but at the same time, it's been pointed out to me that here I am playing a central, solid figure again – the one that people should trust. Take Stringer or Luther – that seems to be a common denominator in the characters I play."Casting Elba to play a Nordic god has not been without controversy. As a black person who was born in Norway, I tell Elba I personally don't see what all the fuss is about, prompting more of his trademark chesty chuckle."When Kenneth asked me to be part of it, I did find myself questioning race," Elba confesses. "But Kenneth hadn't even given that a thought. He just needed an actor who has presence and command, and felt that I fitted the bill."It was so refreshing – and a testament to him as an actor and director that his casting was genuinely colour blind. I feel very proud of being part of that movie." - which is quite a lot when considering User:TriiipleThreat keeps claiming there is very little information to put in the WP:CAST (hardly an excuse). And as I said above, the controversy can be reduced to one sentence. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 20:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, Elba's saying that he sees himself as a central figure in the film and that's he proud to be in this movie really are self-promotional and non-notable. Every actor sees his or her role as important, and every actor is proud to be in a big movie (and the script is the best ever and the director is an insightful genius, etc.) In journalism we call this "Dog bites man." I don't mean to sound flippant, and I respect your passion. But the quotes you give above really don't say anything significant or unusual. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know that's what he says in that article. That's why I mentioned it in my comment above. Like I said, what if we use the one or two lines about race from THIS source (i.e. the one you referenced in the comment I replied to) to note his reaction to the controversy (I think simply saying that he "questioned race" but ultimately liked the colour blind casting is sufficient) and the other source mentioned in the messy long thread above to note his thoughts on how to approach the character (the only specific I can remember at the moment is researching the source material). Millahnna (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see that in the article. The Elba quote I see there, which seems appropriate, is, "We have a man [Thor] who has a flying hammer and wears horns on his head. And yet me being an actor of African descent playing a Norse god is unbelievable? I mean, Cleopatra was played by Elizabeth Taylor, and Gandhi was played by Ben Kingsley".[30] --Tenebrae (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That works for me.Millahnna (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yawn. So you are gaming the system per playing dumb . Allow me to reiterate:

Currently, the Idris filmcast section is WP:UNDUE and contravenes WP:FILMCAST guidelines. On the neutral noticeboard it has already been commented that the controversy should not even be included. If it is, it should be a sentence long, because anything more would be giving too much weight to a blown-out-of-proportion controversy stir regarding a few disgruntled white supremacists who threatened a boycott - taking the form of a few hundred “likes” on facebook. Based on balance, we have stated that if the controversy be included, it can/should be one sentence long, saying “Idris Elba’s casting as a Norse god created a small controversy which Kenneth passed off as “daft” Idris as “ridiculous”.”In terms of the source that I have, please don’t get distracted. The issue here is the current state of the article. Once you sort out that, then you can focus on other sources. It’s called casting the beam out of your own eye. Currently, 80% of the Idris Elba filmcast section is devoted to addressing the controversy, and for User:Tenebrae’s sake, allow me to make clear that that includes Idris Elba’s defence. Or, put in a different way, they are no sentences whatsoever in Idris Elba's cast section that is relevant to WP:FILMCAST except the first one. Or, put in a different way, the section needs at the very least a . The section must be changed. Again, for those who have a complex with memory retention as seems to be the case, I have repeated it here: ““Idris Elba’s casting as a Norse god created a small controversy which Kenneth passed off as “daft” and Idris as “ridiculous”.” Please feel free to comment on the above sentence before I change the article. Thank you! KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 10:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? I am not gaming the system or playing dumb. If you intended that reply to go someone else, would you please indent appropriately? This sor tof thing has greatly contributed to the overall confusion in sorting out the arguments about the content here. Perhaps the complex isn't with memory retention but with clarity of conversation?

I reiterate that I agree with those who feel that the controversy should be mentioned, but only briefly and that an equally brief summation of Branagh's and Elba's responses to it should be included. I agree with Confiutus that Elba's cast section currently devotes too much space to the controversy but I disagree with some of your choices about what quotes to present (in his section in general not just in relation to the controversy). See earlier conversation about "thanks" comments.

And with that I'm done commenting on this issue. I was concerned before that I was not being too clear. Now I realize that the whole conversation is like a dog chasing its tail. There is no clarity to be had here only deliberate obfuscation. Millahnna (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I want to note that Conflictus' uncalled-for assertion that those who disagree with him are gaming the system or playing dumb crosses a hard line of civility — particularly when the other editors have clearly tried to find common ground with him. I thought we were all treating each other with respect here, and I would urge Conflictus to strike out those remarkably uncivil, unfair and untrue comments. It --Tenebrae (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I've tried come up with a compromise that hopefully works for everybody. The complaints from comic book fans and the boycott are both addressed. Elba's response is shortend to Conficutus' liking and Polisher of Cobwebs' clarification is noted. I still contend that any additional content be more than self promotional verbage.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I applaud TriiipleThreat's surgically careful edit, and I'd like to try and nuance it a bit with two technical questions and one comment.

Has there been a boycott, or just the threat of a boycott? And were they threatening to boycott the movie (still not out in the U.S.) or to boycott product-placement advertisers (such as Dr Pepper)? Also, having Elba call the threats ridiculous is fine for what it is, but it's vague. His comment about Elizabeth Taylor and Ben Kingsley is specific, informative, and frames the issue in historical context. It's also only a sentence long. For those reasons, I would urge us to put that sentence back in, or to discuss counter-reasons to the points about specificity and context. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. The source states that the CCC is boycotting the film, how much effect it is having I have no idea. I also thought Elba's full response was well stated (THR even called it artistic) but I'm interested in settling this issue and moving on.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

By full response you mean the Taylor/Kingsley sentence? I think that given the amount of material recently excised that even Conflictus could not object to adding that single sentence. Conflictus, please weigh in. Let's see if we can reach a somewhat fuller compromise. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think User:TriiipleThreat has improved the Idris Elba section, yes. I maintain my view that it can be addressed in one sentence per WP:UNDUE with more WP:BALANCE per WP:NPOVN by the following:

“ "Online complaints [1][2] about Idris Elba's casting as a Norse god were passed off as "daft" by Kenneth Branagh and "ridiculous" by Idris". ”

We don't need to mention any or all the different terms the media uses: "white supremacists", "racists", the "comic fans" or the "COCC", but we can just say "online complaints" to encompass all to ensure it is not WP:UNDUE or POV pushing/promoting. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 22:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I was actually asking for a response about the sentence with the Taylor/Kingsley comparisons.

Also, please discuss before adding what appears to be a non-notable quote of Elba saying, "Wow, these sets are big!" --Tenebrae (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You're cheerrypicking again. Firstly it was "fit the bill", now it's Idris describing the sets which according to WP:FILMCAST is fine. I really do feel you are not borderlining on disruptive editing now. Here's the edit I made: [16] I did it because you keep complaining that there isn't any WP:FILMCAST information to put in the article. This is film cast information. "...which uses well-written prose to describe the casting and staffing decisions made, as well as discussing the reasons behind some of the cast decisions, the thoughts of the actors themselves about their roles , and some brief explorations of their careers before and after the film, e.g:" Is there an attempt here to prevent any information whatsoever going in this section apart from to do with the disgruntled comin fan controversy? KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 23:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC) May I remind you that Natalie Portman in her FILMCAST section says: "When asked why she took the role, Portman replied, "I just thought it sounded like a weird idea because Kenneth Branagh's directing it, so I was just like, 'Kenneth Branagh doing Thor is super-weird, I've gotta do it.'"" "Super-weird"?, "gotta do it"?, "weird idea?", "Kenneth directing it" - yes, somehow I don't think that your logic is standing up too well here, or are you questioning the "encyclopedia significance" here? I mentioned if before but I do feel you may have to try casting the beam out of your own eye. Please stop acting in this disruptive way. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 23:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing is a mighty big charge, and I would urge you not to make it lightly. I would be glad to have any admin look at the following quote and render an opinion as to whether it's non-notable fluff:

Just the bigness of the show. It’s so epic, these huge sets were just amazing to look at. And they really pat [sic] attention to detail. When you read the comics, you see all the drawings, and to actually see them in real life, it’s like, “Whoa!” ... I’m sure I’ll be back in something cool.

"It's like, 'Whoa!'"? Surely you can see that that's really not of encyclopedic significance. The one piece of solid information is that Elba has a four-picture deal with Marvel Studios.

And I still haven't gotten an answer about including the Taylor/Kingsley sentence, which actually says something. I think you can see I'm not just putting something in without discussion in this section. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be easier to address your concerns if you kept your posts chronological in descending order on a page.

To respond to your Natalie Portman argument: Wikipedia generally frowns on pointing to other articles to promote our point of view, since other articles may have problems with them themselves. That Portman quote is atrocious, and I could certainly find a less frivolous quote to say why she took the part.

If you feel that strongly about this quote, we can always do an RfC.

And, again, I'd appreciate if you'd stop making baseless accusations of descriptiveness. I'm the one saying, "Let's go to the talk page and discuss it" rather than making unilateral edits to a controversial section. If anyone's being disruptive, its the one making edits without discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, it would be courteous if you would please respond to my request for your opinion on the Taylor/Kingsley sentence. It really isn't very good Wiki etiquette to keep ignoring a politely asked-for request. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've already responded to your Taylor sentence, see above (22:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)). I've responded to it indirectly. The fact is, out of all the editors here, I've done the least editing on the article in the past week and the most discussion. Edits have only be reverted on trivial explanations (nit-picking) every time within 10 minutes by you or User:TriipleThreat who keeps claiming I need to discuss more, or that there is a consensus, making WP:BOLD an unreality and it would appear you are WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM. Any tag team type behaviour (WP:GANG) makes more candid the reason why editors with clean hands need to look in to a situation. None comic fans, or people not affiliated with the users involved on here as was Millahnna. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 00:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Your response was so indirect, I still don't see it. I'm afraid I don't understand why you object to a direct response. Honestly — I don't get it.

Regardless: You need to please stop throwing around accusations. If you have a complaint, report it properly to an admin. If your complaints have a rational basis, I've found the admins to be by and large responsive and responsible. If you're not willing to do that, then please stop the equivalent of repeated name-calling; it's pointless and uncivil.

I'm particularly taken aback by the tag-team accusation: Go to my and TriiipleThreat's talk pages and you will see conclusively and absolutely that we are not colluding or even discussing this with each other.

You say you are providing the most discussion. I would respond that tirades and baseless accusations do not count as constructive discussion, nor do long blocks of text that tend to come off as bludgeoning.

I propose you make a post stating — in simple, direct terms — exactly what it is you want, and ask editors to comment. Go to the WikiProject Comics Notice Board and put up a neutral post asking editors to come to his page and comment. That would be more constructive than another round of coming back here and name-calling. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the definition of tag-teaming at the link you provided yourself is "meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus." As I'd mentioned, I and the other editor you blithely tar have not speoken with each other. And if there's anyone having trouble with consensus, it would be you.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

My tag team comment is a general one. I wouldn't go to Wikiproject Comics Notice Board because we don't need WikiCOmics expertise. This is a problem that needs clean hands. Comic book fans have been disgruntled with Idris Elba's casting as Heimdall, this is why we've had this WP:UNDUE problem ,no doubt where an attempt seems to be being made to not improve or add to the Idris ELba casting anything relevant to WP:FILMCAST and as much attention to the controversy itself. It would be civil if you would reply to what I wrote above, on 22:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC). Also currently, you used the word "issue" in the section, while I sed the word "threat". As I said before, that word is misleading simply because Idris wasn't referring to the "issue" (the general debate) but the controversy or threat. You still haven't changed Natalie Portmans casting section and you still haven't restored the parts which you yourself said were notable to the section (regarding Idris's future films with Marvel). That's four things. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 00:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Again with an unwarranted and at this point slanderous accusation. If you believe people are ganging up on you and have unclean hands, then go get an admin. If you don't have faith enough in your accusation to do that, then stop accusing.

"Issue" is NPOV.

I didn't realize I was required to go and work on the Natalie Portman article immediately.

I've tried to address your concerns by suggesting the Taylor/Kingsley sentence. You seem to be slapping away the hand I proffer. Fine. As for your question at 22:42, 24 April 2011 — what question? I really, truly don't understand your obliqueness.

Now: Either get an admin and back up your accusations, or stop accusing. If you make unwarranted accusations again, then I will ask an admin to intervene to stop your incivility. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What accusations? I said I'm still waiting for you to do those four things. I'll repeat them here. Firstly, please respond, give your opinion, as to what I said here: "We don't need to mention any or all the different terms the media uses: "white supremacists", "racists", the "comic fans" or the "COCC", but we can just say "online complaints"/"Compaints" to encompass all to ensure it is not WP:UNDUE or POV pushing/promoting." Secondly, I've said at least four times now that the controversy can be addressed in one sentence: "““Idris Elba’s casting as a Norse god created a small controversy which Kenneth passed off as “daft” and Idris as “ridiculous”.” Please tell me why we don't just use that. Thirdly, I don't understand how you could thing "issue" is NPOV and not "threat", please elaborate. And you still haven't changed Natalie Portman's section, nearly 24 hours later, that's on average, 288 times longer it takes you to revert my edits. Your passion for NPOV does appear to be delusive in this regard. Don't forget to include the four film commitment Idris has signed up to. You said that was notable. Thank you. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 16:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You ask, What accusations? "Tag-team," "unclean hands," etc.

The current page reads: "Elba's casting prompted a boycott by the Council of Conservative Citizens and a debate amongst some comic book fans, insisting it was wrong for a black man to play a Nordic god. In response Elba called the debate, 'ridiculous'.[30][31]" It already does not mention "white supremacists" etc., so I'm unsure from where that claim of yours arises. This plainly worded two-sentence passage has nothing WP:UNDUE about it. Your phrase "[S]mall controversy" is too vague; it would be irresponsible (whitewashing, as it were) not to attribute the issue to a named organization when that organization is publicly known. While I believe adding the Taylor/Kingsley sentence would provide needed context — saying "ridiculous" without saying why seems simply like saying "nyah-nyah" — I would not make the addition unilaterally but only if other editors felt likewise.

If you would read the article, you would see the four-picture commitment has already been added.

RE: "on average, 288 times longer it takes you to revert my edits" strikes me as an obsessive comment. This is aside from the fact that we're all volunteers and we get to things when we can amid our real-life responsibilities. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm just comparing how long it takes you to revert my edits in comparison to changing the article as discussed - I find it interesting. I just think mentioning the CCC is wrong, as I had a quick scan on the articles and they are many different terms used "racists", "white supremacists", "comic fans" and the "CCC". Have you deleted the content from the Natalie Portman cast section yet? I don't think "small controversy" is too vague, but we could change it to "small racial controversy". How about that? KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 17:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC) About the article, it says: "Elba's casting prompted a boycott by the Council of Conservative Citizens and a debate amongst some comic book fans, insisting it was wrong for a black man to play a Nordic god." I don't think the term "debate" here is appropriate. As mentioned before, it wasn't the "debate" that Idris was referring to, it was the racial "controversy" stir. I would politely request that you make amendments to the section? At the moment, it sounds like Idris is calling the debate ridiculous, which isn't true. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 17:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Stating the boycott came from the CCC is accurate and helpful as there is an existing article about the group. The term "debate" is how it is described by the source and Elba's "ridiculous" comment is a direct response to said "debate". The term is verifiable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is, with the caveat I'd mentioned. Apparently, so do other editors: At least two on this talk page explicitly agree with this, and no other editors has discussed or made changes to that section. I think it's time to accept consensus. Also, I ask you stop badgering a fellow editor about the Natalie Portman article: As I'd mentioned, we're volunteers, and we get to things when we're able to.

I'm not sure there's anything really left for you and I to discuss — you're absolutely free to seek informal or formal mediation, an RfC or any number of dispute resolutions Wikipedia makes available. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I think we should add that Kenneth called the controversy "daft" as that would be more accurate per WP:BALANCE. Don't get me wrong, I think the section has been improved, it just needs a little clean up. Also, I still feel the controversy can be addressed in one sentence. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 11:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Have we established a consensus on that?

Idris Elba’s casting as a Norse god created a small racial controversy which Kenneth passed off as “daft” Idris as “ridiculous”.”

Personally, I feel that would be a vast improvement. I have no idea why the CCC is mentioned when no boycott has taken place, or we do not know the extent of the boycott yet. It may turn out to be relatively small. Eitherway, I think we've established that the current wording, though has seen an improvement, is wrong. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 14:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse Me!

Movie isn't out everywhere yet. Is it advisable to put the plot there before it's released? Or is it another stupid Wikipedia rule?Kelzorro (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The movie has been released in Australia.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It's already out in 3D

The intro to this article says that it's scheduled to be released in 3D. I saw it on April 21st in Australia and it was in 3D. So for accuracy's sake that ought to be ammended, unless I'm missing something. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing that out.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Idris Elba's Film Cast section

I've been told there is little information to put in Idirs Elba's WP:FILMCAST here by User:TriiipleThreat and it would seem I am the only one providing sources for this. I'm putting here all the info we can choose from to put in the film cast section, collected from all the discussions and sources I have mentioned throughout these discussions. Is there little information to put in the filmcast section of Idris Elba? :

• "Heimdall is “the brother of the warrior Sif. He is the all-seeing and all-hearing guardian sentry of Asgard, he stands on the rainbow bridge, Bifrost and stands watch for any attacks to Asgard. For ages, he stood as the guardian of Asgard, defending the city’s gates from any intruders, and was one of the most trusted servants of Odin."

• "You took the role of Heimdall in Thor because you wanted to work with director Kenneth Branagh. Is there a moment that epitomizes that experience for you? Every day. This is a man that’s an amazing actor. Just hearing him giving his take on how to mold me as an actor. This is a man that called me up personally and said, “I know this isn’t a big role, but I would really love to see you play it.” It’s Kenneth Branagh. I was like, “Definitely.” [17]

• ""In scripts you are still often seen like that – imposing, athletic, scary," says Elba. "The way to break that cycle is just to do. Take my latest film, Thor, for example. It's not written for a black man – it's just a character. And that's the way forward." Thor is certainly a different kind of role for Elba – his first foray into the realm of the superhero. Based on the Marvel comics, Thor has been described by critics as a somewhat counter-intuitive blend of Nordic mythology, CGI special effects and the unlikely direction of Kenneth Branagh.Elba joins an impressive cast, including Anthony Hopkins and Natalie Portman, to play Heimdall, the god who mans the bridge between the human world and Asgard, the realm of the gods. He is clearly excited about the film and says he can't wait to take his nine-year old daughter Isan to see it."It's an extraordinary visual spectacular," says Elba. "It's different from anything else I've done; but at the same time, it's been pointed out to me that here I am playing a central, solid figure again – the one that people should trust. Take Stringer or Luther – that seems to be a common denominator in the characters I play."Casting Elba to play a Nordic god has not been without controversy. As a black person who was born in Norway, I tell Elba I personally don't see what all the fuss is about, prompting more of his trademark chesty chuckle."When Kenneth asked me to be part of it, I did find myself questioning race," Elba confesses. "But Kenneth hadn't even given that a thought. He just needed an actor who has presence and command, and felt that I fitted the bill."It was so refreshing – and a testament to him as an actor and director that his casting was genuinely colour blind. I feel very proud of being part of that movie." [18]

• "You just finished your stint filming Thor as the Asgardian warrior Heimdall. How was that? It was an interesting genre of film to make. I had never done comic book stuff, so that was really great. What was the coolest part? Just the bigness of the show. It’s so epic, these huge sets were just amazing to look at. And they really pay attention to detail. When you read the comics, you see all the drawings, and to actually see them in real life, it’s like, “Whoa!” Do you see yourself doing another superhero character or are you good with the crime dramas?I have a deal with the Marvel Studios team, a four-picture commitment. I’m sure I’ll be back in something cool." [19]

• "I would like to be in the lead position, with characters around me," says Elba, mentioning Nick Fury or Blade as potential roles for him to sink his teeth into. "If that's what I'm going to do, it's better to be the kick than the sidekick." "It's a big, big, big film," he added. "I saw the trailer and I was like, 'Damn, I'm in that movie?'"[20]

I personally think there is plenty of WP:FILMCAST material...compared to Idris Elba's casting section now, it does make me think that an improvement should be made (additions). Thank you.

KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 17:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Is the film version of Heimdall, Sif's brother? I have not yet seen the film but I have not seen anything in the trades or elsewhere to indicate it. The rest is already stated in the article without all the wordy and subjective phrasing.

• Elba taking the role because he wanted work with Branagh, seems fine as is the case with Portman.

• Elba talking about his casting in this quote, "The way to break that cycle is just to do. Take my latest film, Thor, for example. It's not written for a black man – it's just a character. And that's the way forward." also seems fine. The article previously had similar quote talking about "multi-level casting" that you objected to. The following praise of the film and Branagh isn't notable.

• As Tenebrae stated Elba's comments about the sets aren't notable either. The four-picture deal is already noted in the article.

• Elba's desire to play other characters aren't notable in this article, neither is the praise for the film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's what WP:FILMCAST says. "which uses well-written prose to describe the casting and staffing decisions made, as well as discussing the reasons behind some of the cast decisions, the thoughts of the actors themselves about their roles , and some brief explorations of their careers before and after the film , e.g:" No, we don't want anything t do with addressing the racial aspect: ""The way to break that cycle is just to do. Take my latest film, Thor, for example. It's not written for a black man – it's just a character. And that's the way forward." also seems fine." - this is addressing the racial aspect per the controversy stir. So, as explained many times before, we don't want that because it will add more WP:UNDUE weight to the section about race. What about "He is the all-seeing and all-hearing guardian sentry of Asgard, he stands on the rainbow bridge, Bifrost and stands watch for any attacks to Asgard. For ages, he stood as the guardian of Asgard, defending the city’s gates from any intruders, and was one of the most trusted servants of Odin" that's a much better description. Also ""It's an extraordinary visual spectacular," says Elba. "It's different from anything else I've done; but at the same time, it's been pointed out to me that here I am playing a central, solid figure again – the one that people should trust. Take Stringer or Luther – that seems to be a common denominator in the characters I play." and everything from here seems great too [[21]. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 18:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Why did you suggest something and then say it adds undue weight? Also the controversy created by fans or white supremacist and Elba remarking on race and the casting process are separate topics especially when Elba makes comments about it in no relation to the controversy. Your description is very wordy and adds elements of subjectivity. These descriptions should be VERY basic and brief as is the case with the other characters. Specific plot related information if deemed important should be addressed in the plot section. The quote, "It's different from anything else I've done; but at the same time, it's been pointed out to me that here I am playing a central, solid figure again – the one that people should trust. Take Stringer or Luther – that seems to be a common denominator in the characters I play" is very vague. Again nothing in that last source is of any note.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

To Conflictus: Talk pages have to abide by the same rules as other pages. Trying to evade consensus by putting your version of an article on the talk page is against guidelines. It needs to be removed or I will ask an admin to intervene. I'm genuinely sorry it's come to this. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, regarding Conflictus' most recent addition about Elba taking the role because he wanted work with Branagh, I said it was fine in the above. We can discuss it further if you like.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Given the huge, bombarding walls of text he's been posting, this was buried. Here's my take on its formatting. (Also, I'd just like to note that, for reality's sake in this discussion, actors who aren't big stars virtually never turn down roles in major movies. The real reason actors take roles is that they're offered, and it's work. Regardless....).

Idris said Branagh's involvement was a great incentive to take the role. "This is a man [who is] an amazing actor. Just hearing him giving his take on how to mold me as an actor [was important]. This is a man [who] called me up personally and said, 'I know this isn’t a big role, but I would really love to see you play it.' It’s Kenneth Branagh. I was like, 'Definitely.'” [17]

--Tenebrae (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What about: {bquote|"It's an extraordinary visual spectacular," says Elba. "It's different from anything else I've done; but at the same time, it's been pointed out to me that here I am playing a central, solid figure again – the one that people should trust. Take Stringer or Luther – that seems to be a common denominator in the characters I play."}} This would apply well to WP:FILMCAST "thoughts of the actors themselves about their roles <, and some <brief explorations of their careers before...the film". KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 11:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we've already discussed about this but the comment doesnt add anything of any constructive value, its simply too vague.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's just that he mentions his previous acting experiences (Stinger, Luther) and how them strong characters are similar to his role in Thor. That's what WP:FILMCAST says: "some <brief explorations of their careers before...the film". I don't see why not. It adds some background knowledge to the section KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 12:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

He is just using buzzwords without any real context.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. In both Stinger and Luther, he was the main character. Very popular characters here in England anyway. Plus, the article currently says: "boycott by the Council of Conservative Citizens", but it's not a boycott. The CoCC threatened a boycott and also, I was doing some research, not all the members are for the boycott anyway, actually, very few. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 13:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Actually, the CoCC "called for a" boycott. Which is even worse. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 13:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with TriiipleThreat that the quote is just fluff. Agree with Conflictus that if it were a threat of a boycott as opposed to having gone through with a boycott (and with the movie not out yet in the US, not sure what they would be boycotting at the moment), then we should make that distinction. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, according to Conflictus' contributor history, he has only been registered on Wikipedia for less than a month. Not wanting to bite a newbie, I'd have to suggest that it's inappropriate for someone so new, who isn't completely experienced in the collaboration/consensus method of Wikipedia, to take up so much of other editors' time and effort on what appears to be a single-minded obsession with Idris Elba. Conversely, judging from his apparent familiarity with (albeit his misinterpretations of) Wikipedia policies and guidelines he keeps referencing, I would like to ask if Conflictus has actually been editing Wikipedia longer, under another name. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of being User:Ashgard an you have already implied. What I'm saying about the current version is that, the boycott hasn't happened, but the article makes it out like it has. If it hasn't happened yet, the issue is 100% non-notable and really should not be in the article at all. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 14:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not true future events are notable but we have to be careful with our wording.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

To Conflictus: I haven't implied anyone in particular. I'm just wondering, as is perfectly reasonable to do, whether you are a new Wikipedia editor or whether you have edited under another name. We have a right to have some idea of with whom we are collaborating. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Why isn´t there a German version of this article?

It would be interessting, to know, why there isn´t a German version of this article? We know, Germans loves their tradition and culture - ich can´t explain myself why there isn´t a article...

iam sorry for my english —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.76.130.149 (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thor isn't really part of German culture. It's more part of the Scandinavian countries. "Germanic" is not the same thing as "German". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.88.117.32 (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Most likely because nobody fluent in German has written one yet… --Jasca Ducato (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Wenn man deutscher Artikel will, muss man zum ersten der Artikel schreiben! (If you want a German article, you first have to write that article. =p) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW. Meanwhile there is a German article. And the movie has been released in Germany on last thursday (April 28th). It would have been quite difficult to write an article about the movie before it hit the theaters since the German WP has a quite strict rule against that.--BECK's 09:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

970 A. D.

vs. New Mexico? Not that I expect a comic to make sense but there's usually more continuity than that. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

In 970 A.D., Odin (Anthony Hopkins), king of Asgard, wages war against the Frost Giants of Jotunheim and their leader Laufey (Colm Feore), to prevent them conquering the Nine Realms, starting with Earth. The Asgardian warriors defeat the Frost Giants and seize the source of their power, the Casket of Ancient Winters. In the present

If this is to what you refer, it's made clear that the Mexico stuff doesn't take place in the year 970. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, see that it was apparently there at 22:07. The continuity break is the common one for graphic novels, with the 970 scene the standard backgrounder. It's not especially salient in the current composition, suggest new ¶ 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've separated the sections to make it clearer Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Just US or Worldwide?

So far it just says an Aussie date and a US date. Is that US date the release date for the rest of the world or just us? The worldwide date should be given unless they plan on releasing in only two countries. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMRELEASE we only list the earliest release (Australia) and the release date in the country that produced the film (U.S.). Listing every country's release would be exhaustive.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is the US getting it after Australia?74.100.60.53 (talk)