Talk:Thor (film)

Response to OnlyForQuadell late shot

He claims: "My balls "insult" is bogus, I never said what you think I said."

The truth: As I have said before and he incredibly denies, he said "Balls! Or maybe, nowadays you don't need any balls for that...." on his talk page at 01:26, 31 August 2011. For him to deny what's in black-and-white is just remarkable. And in fact, an admin has just blocked him for precisely that kind of vulgar, insulting, uncivil language.

I have my suspicions as to why User:Erik, who is not an admin, would unilaterally take it upon himself to declare a discussion "closed" only after the editor with whom he has been siding has blatantly lied and been uncivil one more time. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Plot speculation and/or reference needed

My first change was made because I felt it qualified as extrapolation the way it had been written. (I apologize that I initially used "speculation" since "extrapolation" is more appropriate.) Plot summaries based purely upon what is in the film can only state what is actually seen, and the scene only implies that Selvig may be under the control of Loki. Stating that he is in fact under Loki's control is extrapolating upon what is seen. I added the reference because that reference clearly states that it was their intention for Loki to be controlling Selvig. Without the reference explaining that it is not extrapolation it should be changed as I stated above, so the reference is necessary to keep that sentence from violating the rules. Spidey104 14:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

First thank you for starting a discussion. Technically both you and Darkwarriorblake were correct. And you are also correct that "Plot summaries based purely upon what is in the film can only state what is actually seen". However in this case the "implication" as you refer to it is heavily present in the scene and in my opinion obvious to the audience. Loki doesn't have to say "I am controlling Dr. Erik Selvig" to make the case. As for the reference, it is not need because again as you say "Plot summaries based purely upon what is in the film can only state what is actually seen", the general audience was not given access to this interview, so we do not write plot summaries by taking in account supporting materials. Similarly the stinger in Iron Man 2 does not make reference to Mjolnir, even though numerous outside sources including other films state it is in fact Mjolnir. I'll be glad to hear opinions for more editors on the subject.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Based on the link I previously posted I thought any sort of implication was out because it was not explicit. Obviously I was wrong in that. In that case would it be fine to adjust the sentence to say that the control is implied? Spidey104 20:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I need to rewatch that scene, but it seemed fairly obvious to me that Loki made Selvig agree, so much so that it was explicit not implied. Any other opinions?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoAJTGhDdVs - I'm failing to think of an alternative film at the moment where there would be an argument for extrapolation. This is a film aimed at families and kids, it isn't a cerebral mind-game. It's straight forward what is happening here. Selvig has no association with Loki prior to the events shown before the credits, he doesn't believe Thor is anything but a loon. Then we see invisiLoki who says a line, Selvig repeats the line verbatim with ominous music. I just don't see what is left to interpretation there. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"I'm failing to think of an alternative film at the moment where there would be an argument for extrapolation." What do other films have to do with this? Spidey104 13:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Dark and Triiiple: Loki says, "Well, I guess that's worth a look," Selvig says, "Well, I guess that's worth a look." The plot we have ends with: "Loki, invisible, whispers to Selvig to agree, which he does." That's exactly what happens. We don't say, "Loki assumes control of Selvig's mind." The plot as we have it is only saying exactly what happens on the screen, unless I'm missing something. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I also support the concerns by Darkwarriorblake, TriiipleThreat and Tenebrae. The film's post-credits scene pretty straight-forward in what is going on. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"Agree with Dark and Triiiple: Loki says, "Well, I guess that's worth a look," Selvig says, "Well, I guess that's worth a look." The plot we have ends with: "Loki, invisible, whispers to Selvig to agree, which he does.""

By your own statement you say that what is currently written is not what happened. A better way to write it would be "An invisible Loki whispers and Selvig repeats the same sentence verbatim." Possibly include a statement of mind control implications, if you so desire, but at least state what you yourself admit actually happens. I have never disagreed with the interpretation of the film. I am only arguing on the rules as I see them, so comments on the heavy implications of the scene are pointless. Spidey104 13:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I've worked with you often, Spidey, and I know you're a good and thoughtful editor. I'd have to respectfully disagree that my transcript of the dialog is incompatible with "Loki, invisible, whispers to Selvig to agree, which he does." It's simply not credible that two such disparate people at the same instant would independently use the exact words, "Well, I guess that's worth a look." Selvig doesn't say, "Sure, I'll look at it," or "OK, let's get started," or "Thanks for the opportunity, Col. Fury," or "OK. Sure," or a million other variations.

Let's break it down.

• The first three words — "Loki, invisible, whispers...." — I'm sure we can all agree on. He is Loki. He is invisible. He's speaking in a softer voice than normal speaking volume.

• Likewise the last five words: "to agree, which he does." Selvig is a he. Selvig does agree.

• Which leaves two words: "...to Selvig." Aside from the astronomical coincidence that Selvig would use the exact same words as Loki, we have to ask: Who is Loki talking to? Himself? Someone offscreen? In all sincerity, who else do you believe he is speaking to? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I have never disagreed with the interpretation of the events of the film, but rather with how they are presented here based on the rule I linked to above. In your break down of the final sentence I agree with points 1 and 3. My disagreement with point 2 is about subject confusion, but that is getting away from the main point.

The rule I have brought up is why the Iron Man 2 article says Coulson finds a large hammer instead of saying he finds Mjolnir. Spidey104 14:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Because it isn't called Mjolnir in the film and relies on a film that didn't exist at the time to say that is what it was. You don't need to watch another film to understand what Loki is doing to Selvig, without external knowledge you DO need to watch another film to know what Mjolnir is and again, that WOULD be extrapolation, since it isn't called that in the film and requires another film to understand that wasn't going to be out for a year at the time.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

So you've admitting they are different levels of extrapolation. Thanks for the clarification. Spidey104 14:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not seeing how the existing sentence in this Thor article is extrapolation in any way whatsoever. I thought I demonstrated that in the breakdown of every individual word. There's also no extrapolation in the Iron Man 2 article, so I'm not sure it's accurate to speak of "different levels" when there appears to be no extrapolation at all going on.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There's got to be a middle ground between the over-general current text ("Loki, invisible, whispers to Selvig to agree, which he does.") and the over-interpretive allusions to mind-control. How about "Loki, invisible, prompts Selvig to agree; Selvig repeats his words verbatim."? 74.74.150.139 (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a little clunky, but otherwise, I'd have no problem with that. What does everyone else think? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that's less specific about what is clearly going on in that scene. It's obvious to people watching it and I even went and found that source that backed up the obvious. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of phrase "Selvig repeats his words verbatim" without a quote of Loki's original words, which I also am not a fan of as it lengthens the plot unnecessarily. How about "Loki, invisible, prompts Selvig to agree, which he does."?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

While I like the more concrete, observable physical-action phrase "whispers to," I can certainly live with "prompts." If Selvig had used any other words, there might be doubt, but as we've discussed above, the use of the exact same words refutes coincidence. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"Loki, invisible, whispers to Selvig to agree, which he does verbatim."?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"An invisible Loki prompts Selvig to agree, which he does."? Gets rid of of the clunky "verbatim" and loses the excess commas. Spidey104 20:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

After looking them over, I really like Spidey's version.AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Call me crazy over here but I was under the impression your problem was 'extrapolation' not the way it was written. Your suggestion is exactly the same as it is now, replacing whisper with prompt. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You might be crazy, but this is not evidence of that. I've given up the fight about the 'extrapolation' because it isn't worth my time. My above sentence suggestion, that has already gotten a second vote from AdventurousSquirrel, is an attempt to fix what I can about that sentence: how poorly written it is. Spidey104 21:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I like to think I'm flexible rather than wishy-washy, so, yes, I, too, am fine with Spidey's more streamlined version, though I think because both Loki and Selvig are named in the sentence, "he" can mean either. Adapting Spidey: "An invisible Loki prompts Selvig to agree, which Selvig does." --Tenebrae (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thor (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Searson (talk · contribs) 21:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, it's well written. There may be a little more use of "blogs" as sources than I'm comfortable with. They're not suppossed to be used to begin with, but I can bend this a little with regard to certain blogs (those published by reputable news outlets: LA Times, WSJ, etc) as most often that is an easier format for publishers to allow certein columnists to publish reviews and the like; I have a "Blog" of sorts myself for a print magazine, I'm the only writer they allow to do this, it has editorial oversight and is just a means for me to quickly publish articles relating to the Magazine and the internet in a timely fashion, not a "personal reflection" type of blog that wiki is against, but I'm getting off point, here. I'm going to look at some of the ones I'm not familiar with a bit more closely. Before I say they're "reliable" or not. The prose is generally good, but one of my pet peeves is over use of certain filler words like "Also". Sometimes it is warranted and I usually remove it unless it's in a direct Quote. In the Sequel section it's in each of the paragraphs: "Also in September", "Also in August", "Also in October". Try and rephrase this in a better way. thanks--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful critique, I'll try to clean up some of the prose.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!-Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox information about director.

Hey guys, seeing as Joss Whedon directed the post credits scene, which is already stated in the article and see this link [1].

So in the info box, should it say that the film was directed by just Kenneth Brannagh or Kenneth Brannagh and Joss Whedon?The Editor 155 (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Is that a serious question?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact is covered in the body of the article. I dont think its notable enough for inclusion in the infobox. Besides Branagh is the only credited director of the film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Triiiple. We can mention Whedon's involvement in the article body. Having both in the infobox gives the impression of both being equally responsible for the film, and I think a note in parentheses would just add clutter. The article body is the best placement. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Critical response

Would it be OK if we replaced Richard Roeper's positive quote with another critic's positive quote that actually says something and gives a reason? "The best since Spider-Man!" is a blurb, not a thoughtful, explanatory reason such as "I found the family scenes poignant" or "The action scenes were well-choreographed," or some such. Roeper isn't saying anything substantive whatsoever in his quote. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

good suggestion. Go and do it and i'll be there to proof-read it!! Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I readded Roeper's review with his full quote, the blurb was taken from part a larger quote that did provide substance (Hemsorth's performance).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Context makes all the difference! Good one. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The article currently states that the film "received generally favorable reviews." Would it be fair to change this to "received mixed to positive reviews?" I realize that the film has 77% on Rotten Tomatoes, but many of those reviews were pretty lukewarm (it's average score after all is only 6.7, signifying exactly that, a mixed response). It's score on Metacritic would also suggests that critical response was mixed or average. S. Luke (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I would say so but not because of RT's average score but because Metacritic's aggregate is mixed while RT's is positive.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Teseract

I want to mention that the tesseract was what was seen in Captain America, but there was a glitch and when I fixed it Wiki thought I was edit warring! Help! Somebody else has to fix it, or else I will be blocked from editing! All I need, is for one of you to put "(which is the tessaract seen in Captain America: The First Avenger)" after it says "mysterious object." Again: Help! Stupid glitch!

No prob! Happened to me once before, so I completely sympathise with you!

There is no glitch, people are undoing your edit because it is information from another film and has no reason to be in the plot section of this one. The system thinks you are edit-warring because you keep replacing the content despite numerous discussions on the matter saying don't do it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It has a place on it. The films are connected, and it should be stated for people who could potentially want to know about it. It should be mentioned on it, or at leasted somewhere on the page. And it as never stated on a discussion page 'don't do it.' And true, it isn't a glitch, but that was the best name I could think of for this. As far as I know, the computer is deleting it thinking I'm edit warring because I just happened to be editing the same time somebody else did, and it thought the info was contradictory, which it wasn't, it always says that, though. I put it back, it thought I was trying to start an edit war, and I did it again, not knowing it thought that. The story of the Avengers are in the same series, and are connected, so just because it doesn't have the same hero in it doesn't mean its in a completely different universe. It has a big part in the Avengers, and should be said at least somewhere in the article. If you have any contradiction, or an idea of where to put the info, be my guest to reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.73.96 (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm genuinely tired of having this discussion with people. No one has any idea what role that box will have in the Avengers and any comment that the box at the end of Thor and the box in Captain America are the same is pure original research which is not acceptable on Wikipedia and does not belong in the plot. I don't know why there is a push to consider all readers of Wikipedia stupid, but they aren't. The cube has no story, it has no history in Thor and any external commentary does not belong here. If it appears in the Avengers and is called the Cosmic Cube it will still not be acceptable to alter this article with the information retroactively because it is not what is presented in the film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, fine, it may or may not be the Cosmic Cube, but its a fact that it is the same cube in Captain America! Have you even seen the films? I know I have! They're the same, and it should be mentioned. nd I'm not saying they're stupid, but I didn't know that they were the same because of the time gap between seein the movies. I only know for sure now because I re-watched the tagclip! I was expecting to find it on Wiki, but people like you don't want "external commentary." Bah!

It isn't a fact, its an assumption. One that still doesn't belong in this article. It only appears in Thor at all in a post-credits scene that was filmed after the rest of the movie was completed, its an advert for the Avengers and has nothing to do with this film or this article. The only place it will ever belong is in the Avengers article and that will still require actual sources to back it up. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm no talking about the Avengers, I'm talking about Captain America! But I think we can compromise. Would it be acceptable to put it on the Marvel Cinematic Universe (all of the Avengers films) page, and I will mention it is only an assumption, though it's dead obvious they're the same. I mean, I won't say the dead obvious part, but the assumption part. And its a legitimate part of the movie, not an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.73.96 (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

After ddoing some research, I found out that it is the Cosmic Cube, and it is the one in Capatin America. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.27.17 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 22 January 2012

Not only is Darkwarriorblake correct, but this sort of WP:NOR debate has been occurring ever since at least the first Iron Man movie. It is the consensus of both Wikipedia and of WikiProject Comics that the plot of a given movie contain only that which is manifestly and concretely stated in that given movie. Anything else is speculation and personal knowledge. If you want to open a formal RfC on the issue, you're entitled to. Otherwise, it is getting to be disruptive forcing other editors to continue responding to what is a closed issue. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If your going to be that picky on stupid little technicalities then I just don't care anymore. I was just trying to contribute simple logic (something you apparently lack) to try to add information to Wiki. Oh well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.27.17 (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Your good intentions are indeed appreciated. Your insulting and uncivil language is not, and has no place in Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, let me rephrase what I said: I was trying to add information that was backed up with logic, and I do not appreciate your use of technicalities to strike it down. Better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.27.17 (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Logical or not, original research is disallowed on Wikipedia for solid and sound reasons. It's one of the core principles of Wikipedia, so I wouldn't call it "a technicality." --Tenebrae (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Constructive Criticism

It is cliché to say "at the end of the day," please leave it out. Now your article is "good," but can be inproved in many ways; I felt this was one of them. Constructive criticism is what truly creative people thrive upon, but ignorant fools who continue to carry on with the "status quo" are going nowhere. Implying someone to be a "threat" is childish and proves one not to be a friend to the artistic community. If you're not familiar with "constructive crisicism," please read up on it; there are even classes on it in college if you ever purport to go there one day other than Podonk U from where you appear to have graduated.

As for any financial contributions Mr. Wales, I will say this: your page here has become nothing more than a carefree lounge for "bashers" and "dissers" (to use their terminology), and I can only hope that one day in the free world the disease you are breeding will utterly be stamped out.

IE: if you're going to continue to encourage, and even promote, such individuals inside your completely charitably based company, I can't see anything but fools who would contribute to it (or possibly arch-enemies of our free thinking world).

You want my money when it is obvious you couldn't care less who sends it to you? And to boot: over the years of observing your page I find those who shell out the most get the highest rankings and/or complete, unquestioned respect.

You certainly are no friend to the free thinking world, sir; you are a friend to those who would snuff it out!

Yes, I've informed the FBI about you guys several times; it's as they say though: the wheels of justice grind ever so slowly.

Your time is coming too Mr. Wales; mark my words. You will not snuff out freedom of speach under the guise of being its friend.