Talk:Thor (film)

Cosmic Cube

Can someone please explain why we can't write that it's the Cosmic Cube at the end "per WP:EGG"? I honestly don't understand how the guideline is supposed to apply. --Kreachure (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Good question, and I hope I can answer satisfactorily. If you go to Talk:Iron Man 2, you'll see a comprehensive discussion and consensus that according to WP:FILM and guidelines about writing about fiction, we can only describe a plot with what is seen and heard onscreen. The filmmakers never refer to the device as the Cosmic Cube. Comic-book fans may know what it's supposed to be according to Internet chatter, blog posts, etc. People connected withe film may even refer to it as such (although my understanding is they're calling it "The Tesseract").

Regardless, the final arbiter is what the filmmakers themselves have chosen to put onscreen. If they had wanted to call it the Cosmic Cube, they would have. Anything that we might add based on personal knowledge or belief is disallowed by the core policy of No Original Research. For film plots, we can only go by the primary source, and in terms of concrete, objective, irrefutable fact, the phrase "Cosmic Cube" is never used onscreen (and nor does the object in any way resemble the Cosmic Cube of the comics). The filmmakers don't call it that; even if we don't want to respect their wishes, Wikipedia guidelines state that we have to respect the primary source and not add outside commentary. I hope this helps. With regards,--Tenebrae (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And to expanded on what Tenebrae stated since we cannot call it the Cosmic Cube in the article, we also cannot link to it which is where WP:EGG comes in.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree I just hope this won't be Iron Man 2 all over again. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand now. However, I suppose there will be no objection to linking to the Cosmic Cube once Captain America: The First Avenger confirms that it is indeed the Cosmic Cube (known as the Tesseract in the Marvel Cinematic Universe)... --Kreachure (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

In the Captain America movie article, it all depends — none of us have seen it yet. It may be a mash-up, like how Anton Vanko in Iron Man 2 was a conglomeration of two characters. But for the Thor movie article's Plot section, no matter what another movie says, we have to keep with the manifest content of the Thor film itself, which as its own entity doesn't call the object anything. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Really, if it isn't already, this needs to be added to the FILM Style article thingy so the discussion doesn't have to keep happening. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Changed the description of the "unnamed device" to something a little less vague but that is still within Wikipedia guidelines. The information provided in the description is present in the film as the object is both "glowing" and "cube-shaped". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.227.11 (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it was less vague than it was in the film and I don't recall it glowing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I recall it being a luminescent blue. At any rate, I know we can't call it the "Cosmic Cube" even though that's what it probably was because of Wikipedia's guidelines, but it seemed better to give a general description of the what the device looked like in the interest of thoroughness rather than just call it an "unnamed device". "Unnamed device" could be anything from the Cosmic Cube to an old microwave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.227.11 (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't have a copy on hand though but I'm fairly sure it wasn't glowing, it was just a hunk of metal at the time. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, how about this. We don't have to call it the Cosmic Cube, but it's pretty implicitly the same prop as the Casket. Can we call it that? Or should we change Captain America (film) so that we make it clear it might not be the same shield in every scene? They don't state that either. Yuefairchild (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

First, it isn't the Casket. The Casket is a big ass Casket. The cube in Thor is an inanimate block of dark metal while the one from Cap is a glowing, blue thing every time we see it. While they are probably the same one, saying so here is just original research and not allowed.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

BOX OFFICE PLAY AROUNDS and other conflicts

I completely agree with the sequel notion, it must be added to the Thor article since its a famous movie many people would like to know the future of this franchise. Another big problem is an annoying incompetent fool who keeps on changing the Box office revenues to the older date, I want to keep it updated but some fool is ruining what i write. PLEASE STOP. This article should be of fine quality, thus it must be updated frequently I update it the second its been updated on Box OFfice Mojo. PLEASE RESPECT OTHERS WRITING AS WELL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddyghazaley (talk • contribs) 14:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't fair to ask for respect when you're calling someone an incompetent fool.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

First let me say that your contributions updating the box office revenue are greatly appreciated. You should contact the editor reverting your edits directly and remember to be civil. I did revert one of your edits regarding box office predictions as this information seems highly speculative. I think it might be best to wait for the actual numbers to come in. I wonder what others think. Regarding sequels that information is notable and should be added. However to date I have not seen anything substantial other than speculative reports with no attribution given to its source and vague comments by Branagh. I'll dig around for something useful.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Predictions, even by Roger Ebert, are not notable as they are complete speculation and largely subject to change.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it is okay to include box office estimates. WP:CRYSTAL says, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced... Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." I think that estimates from Box Office Mojo are acceptable because they've collected and tracked a lot of box office data. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

In addition, it may be worth considering rounding the box office figure. For example, $357,691,254 is specific but a false representation of the worldwide gross. They obviously did not collect every single dollar. Writing $357.7 million would indicate the margin for error as opposed to such a specific dollar figure. You can see this approach in use at Priest (2011 film). Erik (talk | contribs) 15:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I truly appreciate your comments, the predictions are clearly theoretical but would be removed later on. Its merely to provide readers with a possible result at the box office. As for the box office revenue representation, it clearly is the most accurate stats we have concerning box office data. Moreover, Box Office Mojo is provided with this information by the studios so it is the studios' words which is mainly accurate. We present the information given by a reliable site on wikipedia where every one can see the exact figures(thats what I personally believe). THANK YOU FOR the SEQUEL Contribution very informative and well said. Eddyghazaley (talk | contribs) 18:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This being an encyclopedia and not a news source like Wikinews, I believe we should not estimate and we should not give projections. There is no deadline, and an encyclopedia by its nature needs to have the most concrete and irrefutable information and data possible.

The aggregated studio figures are the generally accepted source by news organizations and academics worldwide, and while we are not privy to each studio's bookkeeping, we should not make assumptions that the figures are incorrect. The Wikipedia standard is not unknowable truth but verification by a reliable source.

That Priest (2011 film) or any other Wiki article does a particular thing has not been considered a valid argument on Wikipedia generally, since many Wiki articles need much work to reach policy and guideline standards. --Tenebrae (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Elba casting controversy

I have just had to yet again fix this article's confused discussion of the controversy over Elba's casting. I've fixed it before, but someone keeps changing it back to, "Elba's casting prompted a debate amongst comic book fans and a proposed boycott by the Council of Conservative Citizens, some insisting it was wrong for a black man to play a Nordic god." I'm sorry, but whatever the reason that someone prefers that wording, it's not accurate and it doesn't make sense. If you use it, it suggests that it was the CCC who were having the debate, with some of them thinking that Elba's casting was appropriate and some saying it was inappropriate - which obviously isn't the case. ALL of the CCC thought it was inappropriate; the debate was among the fans. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm writing a section and warn you for bias, Polisher of Cobwebs. The casting caused distinct offence to all Nordic faith adherents including Marvel comic fans. The "CCC" merely jumped in on the debate. I am changing this with references and this edit while it can be modified WILL NOT be removed by yourself or I will immediately escalate this situation. PeterHarlington (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Council of Conservative Citizens? Jane Foster's science HQ had HH symbology.

Petey Parrot (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

@PeterHarlington, previous consensus this information should be limited at best per undue weight. Please see the archived discussions. Furthermore the sources you cited do not seem to make the requirements of a reliable source. Also please do not threatening comments to fellow editors. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but whatever consensus you are talking about is rubbish. I am offended that the CCC organisation represent the entirety of objections when their presence is but one 10th of a percentile or LESS. You have to improve the material rather than a tyranny of reversion.PeterHarlington (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm completely happy for someone who is a better, more accurate writer than me to improve the article, or even reduce the material present, but there is no way in hell I'm standing for opposition to the casting of Idris to be equated almost 100% with CCC organisation. Go right ahead and improve on the material. If you want more citations, I will provide them. Ask away, change, reduce, rewrite but do not revert.PeterHarlington (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As the article currently reads only the planned boycott is attributed to the CCC, the "debate" is stated to be amongst some comic book fans. Also 'botcktherobber.com' is not a reliable source therefore their opinion on the matter is irrelevant.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Let's play. How many of the citations in this Idris section as it stands, reliable source? PeterHarlington (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss your edit that is fine but I will not engage any straw man arguments.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

How is it a "Strawman" to verify all other citations in the Idris section after your strictness regarding the citations I provided?PeterHarlington (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The PeterHarlington edit reads like soapboxing to me, and it's certainly written in heated and in no way neutral terms. And his edit-summary threat "DO NOT REMOVE. IMPROVE THE MATERIAL, OR YOU WILL PAY. I AM SERIOUS" is completely out of line and simply on its own could be grounds for his being blocked. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I did provide citations. However I accept your judgement and should have submitted the proposed changes to the talk page. But you can read my above comment where I make it clear that I am open to edits by someone else if something is insufficient. I will provide more citations and am looking for some. BUT I expect the current citations to now be shown the same strictness as I was shown because I am going to challenge them.PeterHarlington (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Giant Man and Clint Barton

though Jeremy is mentioned in the article and the movie, there was this giant man who fought with thor in the Movie and kevin had leaked info on this too, so can someone put a light on this somewhere? even here?116.71.39.44 (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Filming

Filming is missing a statement about the source format. This is the appropriate place to cover the format in which the film was initially shot. I have added a brief comment. I do see that it is mentioned in post-production, as well, but the initial format statement should be in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.39.1.227 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree the information is already covered, we do not need to state it twice and since the conversion process occurred in post-production, it belongs there. This has been reverted twice now by two different editors, please do not re-add it without obtaining consensus first. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this an attempt to bury the information? Source format is clearly a topic to be covered in filming. Post production is for post production items (hence the title). Source format is not a post production issue except as it pertains to transfer and presentation. Source format should be clearly covered under filming. 184.39.1.227 (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Wherever it goes, it needs to be footnoted with a reliable-source citation. Also, I would respectfully ask 184.39.1.227 to assume good faith. There's no reason for any editor to "bury" information. We're all here to provide information. Your comment seemed a little accusatory, and we all try to operate with good will here. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

2D by itself is not notable, the expectional part of your statement is the conversion process, which occured in post-production. If you had something else to add like information about cameras or film used I might agree with you. Also there is no attempt to cover this up as it's clearly stated to be converted to 3d in the post production section as well as the lead.-- TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"2D by itself is not notable" except if you are interested in the source format which many people are because they know the source format can significantly impact the quality of the release material which can be in a completely different format. This type of response demonstrates either a complete lack of understanding or a complete lack of "good faith." Creating a community that doesn't adhere to common-sense standards and fosters esoteric non-standard definitions for usage creates value only within the community. The simple answer is "post-production is for post production" and source format belongs under "filming" which isn't an opinion it is simple deduction based upon common usage of the words you are mis-using. I see no good-faith here only an effort to obfuscate information and a failure to follow any standard that the lay-person would be able to find useful.184.39.1.227 (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I would have to disagree with 184.39.1.227. 2D is what virtually ever movie is made in, so I also don't see the need to mention it. You mention "common sense'; I would say common sense dictates that we can safely assume all films are 2D unless otherwise noted.

Also, as I'd said before to this anon IP, your language displays an unnecessary incivility. Accusing another editor of deliberating trying to obfuscate is serious and also, I believe, nonsensical, since we all volunteer here to provide information, not hide it. As well, telling another editor he completely lacks understanding because he happens to disagree with you is uncalled for, and violates Wikipedia etiquette guidelines, in which we debate content without taking personal swipes at other editors. Please use more appropriate and civil language, as the other editors in this discussion are doing. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

When you start to make assumptions you fail to properly document. If you have missed that it is a frequent question whether or not a movie is filmed in 2D vs. 3D I am here to communicate that information--here, where it is appropriate (given it's my own research into common consumer questions). I am happy to provide numerous references, if you require. It reads like your key response is that "in our community we assume 2D." While I agree that 2D is common I think that assumption does a disservice to everyone outside of your community. I'm surprised there is such resistance to proper documentation--hence my strong suspicion that the information is being buried especially given the correction is a minor one. Just to be clear I'm not applying "common sense" in terms of assumption. I am using "common sense" strictly in an understanding that common word definitions be adhered to (e.g. in this case "post production" vs. "filming") which I clarified when I made the original statement. You jumped quickly to accusations. I hadn't accused anyone of obfuscation. I had simply inquired and/or stated my observations. The responses I receive seem to be very telling. Finally, I haven't taken a "personal swipe" at anyone--but I have accused a community of word-mis-use (if the pronoun left you wondering I am sorry it wasn't clear and blame the English language for the over-simplification of "you"). It is not my intent, at this point, to accuse anyone of anything. I have stated, factually, my observations. Nothing more. I do understand how pointed observations can appear, superficially, to be accusations. We can discuss the facts or we can allow distractions to take everyone off topic. My responses have been on par with the other responses, here.184.39.1.227 (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: "I hadn't accused anyone of obfuscation": Your specific words were, "Is this an attempt to bury the information?"

RE: "I haven't taken a 'personal swipe'": Your specific words were, "This type of response demonstrates either a complete lack of understanding or a complete lack of 'good faith.'

Your disingenuous comments notwithstanding, you have indeed made uncivil statements.

RE: "...given it's my own research into common consumer questions). I am happy to provide numerous references, if you require": A core Wikipedia policy is no original research. If a reliable-source publication indicates that there is something unusual or anomalous about this film so that 3D added after filming was complete is not to be considered post-production, then please cite that.

Finally, Wikipedia operates by discussion and consensus. I understand you are an unregistered user and may not have taken the time to learn some of the policies at the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Regardless, two editors disagree with you after several days of discussion that began May 29. You can certainly open a Request for Comment or seek other Wikipedia mediation. I'm not sure it's a productive use of your or our time to continue retreading the same area here. Perhaps having third-party comments would be more useful. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be noted that two major scenes of the film weren't directed by Kenneth Branagh? --Boycool (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The post-credits scene filmed during post produced is already mentioned to be directed by Joss Whedon.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Should the Jon Favreau-directed, Thor-stylized archive footage from Iron Man 2 be mentioned? --Boycool (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Strike that. I'll have to listen to the commentary again, because I'm not sure if the Iron Man 2 post-credits scene was filmed in the production of Iron Man 2 or Thor. --Boycool (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)