Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film)

Two things

1. Why does this and other articles in this series open with who produced and distributed it? This isn't a particularly common thing in other articles and isn't a particularly important thing either, especially who distributes it which is possibly one of the least important facts about a film. Most articles tend to open with whoever wrote and directed it and stars featuring. Obviously we don't have those credits yet but it is an incubator so it doesn't matter all that much. I'd propose removing that here and in other MCU articles tbh. But that is a discussion that can be had in the respective things.
2. I'd also like to propose following long date format "January 1, 1970" and not "1970-01-01" as the latter means different things to different people depending on where they are from (obviously a bit more simple an example here) and is not as instantly recongizable and understandable as the former. I say this from personal experience dealing with the latter format, where you might have something like "2010-03-10" which can mean either "October 3, 2010" or "March 10, 2010" depending on which format you are accustomed to. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

At first I believe it was done because the films were being produced by an independent studio and various studios were buying the rights to distribute them, making the distributors an interesting newsworthy piece of info from movie to movie. At this point I believe it's mostly done for internal consistency among the franchise's articles. In regards to the date format change, I'm okay with that. The refs all need to be archived at some point, too. Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Cast section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Two things:

1. We do not know how similar the versions of Star-Lord and Drax that appear in the film will be to their comic book counterparts. All we know is that Star-Lord will be Peter Quill and that he is the leader of the film's version of the Guardians. Assuming any information about his parentage or Drax's origins is speculation.
2. Although there is concept art for the film depicting the characters of Gamora, Rocket Raccoon, and Groot, this is by no means a confirmation that the characters will appear in the film. Although (as of writing this) Zoe Saldana is in talks to portray Gamora, that is by no means confirmation that she will portray the character, or that she will appear in the film. Assuming any of these three characters will appear in the film until they are either cast or an official plot synopsis is released that features the character is speculation.

Any of the above information will be removed as speculation.
LoveWaffle (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

We do know, the descriptions come from reliable third-party sources, the same source referencing the casting.

The other characters are likewise sourced to be in film in the article body, besides they are currently hidden from view in the cast section.

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

For one, the descriptions are of the characters as they appear in the comics, not as they appear in the film. An important distinction.

Secondly, it doesn't matter if the characters are likely to appear in the film (which they are), what matters is if they are confirmed. They are not, so until they are, saying the characters will appear in the film is speculation. And if they're hidden from view, there's no reason for them to be listed anyway.

LoveWaffle (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No, they are not. Did you even the read the sources? The Pratt source says "The role is..." and the Bautista sources says "Drax is...", not Drax in the comics is. Also, they are not likely to appear, they are confirmed to appear. The hidden text is there to ease editing. Also I want to remind you that are now at WP:3rr.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I did read the source. They are talking about the characters as they appear in the comics, which does not mean this is how they will appear in the film. Nor are those other characters confirmed to appear, as they only appear in concept art. Characters have appeared in concept art in the past only to not make the final cut of the film. Until they are cast or an official plot synopsis is released that mentions them, it is entirely speculative that they will appear in the film. Speculation that is likely true, but speculation nonetheless.

Also, I am not at 3RR as I only reverted your edit once.

LoveWaffle (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No, they are specifically talking about parts in film (i. e. "roles", thats why the author used the term). Also read the article Kevin Feige confirmed these characters by name. All the contested information is verified by Wikipedia standards. Also you have reverted three times, at 19:59, 20:14 and 20:22.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The sources talk about the roles they will play, but the descriptions are of the characters from the comics (Earth-616) and not from the Marvel Cinematic Universe (Earth-199999). An important distinction. If this were either Chris Pratt or Dave Bautista talking about their roles in the film, this would be different, but Deadline and Hollywood Reporter do not have access to the film's script.

Furthermore, the characters have only appeared in the concept art that was drafted when the film was in the earliest stages of pre-production, which is hardly a confirmation that they will appear in the finished product. And if they're not going to appear on the page anyway, there's no reason for them to be listed. Simply add the sourced information when any character is confirmed to appear in the film.
Finally, the only time I actually reverted your edit was at 00:14, which is only how its read in the description. The edit also removed the inaccurate information added by another user that states Zoe Saldana had already been cast as Gamora when she is in fact only in talks to portray the character. The other times I manually removed the speculative information.
LoveWaffle (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You do not know what these journalists have access to or how they obtain their information. These are highly reliable sources with strict editorial oversight. No where do they say that this is speculation or a comic book discription of the character. Deadline made the definitive statement, "The role is Star-Lord, the Guardians leader who is the offspring of a human mother and an alien father." Again Feige confirmed these characters at Comic-Con. Also it doesnt matter if you manually removed the information or not, your next edit removing the same information will put you over 3rr. Besides you are not even guaranteed three reverts, it is just a bright line threshold.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

They are not talking about the characters as they appear in the film, but the characters as they exist in the comics. An important distinction. They can't talk about the characters as they appear in the film as it has not begun filming, ergo does not exist (and technically neither should the page via the site's notability standards). Furthermore, Kevin Feige's statement and the concept art were all made very early in pre-production, before the film began casting and before James Gunn rewrote the script. Similar information from other films has proven inaccurate before. Until the characters are cast or there is some official plot synopsis released that mentions them, any character's appearance in the film is purely speculative.

It should not be this difficult to have some patience for a film that isn't released for another 16 months.

LoveWaffle (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. The sources do not say they are talking about the characters as they appear in the comics. They are defining the "role". And yes, they can and do talk about film roles before filming begins. And like I said, these are highly reliable sources and are acceptable by Wikipedia standards unless contradicted by similar sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. The sources are talking about the characters, but are not talking about the characters as they appear in the film. They cannot do so as neither the film nor the characters yet exist. These sources are reliable for casting information, but that does not mean they know the exact details of the film's plot. Until someone involved in the film's production talks about these characters' roles in the film or official material is released that details this information, saying anything about how these characters will appear in the film is speculative.

LoveWaffle (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If they are reliable for one then they are reliable for the other. The information is from the same source. We do not differentiate unless the author's wording suggests otherwise. If we do, then we would be applying our own WP:POV. Also there is no guideline stating that we must wait until someone involved talks about it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not how reliability works. It's reliable as a casting announcement and nothing else. Besides, information in the article from Deadline that confirms Pratt's involvement is different from what's in the information concerning his character in the article from The Hollywood Reporter that confirms Bautista's involvement.
LoveWaffle (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Says who? Show me a guideline. WP:V is the overriding policy here. If it is a claim made by a reliable source then it is acceptable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I kinda fell into this discussion and - believe me - I have no dog in this race whatsoever. There is a Wall o' Text to sort through above, so i was wondering if you fine editors could help me out and summarize what your viewpoints and how they differ from one another? I'm pretty sure we can sort this all out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

What is being dispupted is the inclusion of the short discriptions of the roles. LoveWaffle removed them, claiming that they are speculation. I say they should be permitted as they are verified by reliable sources and by the terminology used there in.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't really have strong feelings on this matter, as TriiipleThreat is correct that the info is sourced, but LoveWaffle is correct that the writers are likely talking about the comic versions of the character. However, LoveWaffle, the characters from the concept art are 100% confirmed to be in the film. It is in no way speculation, we even have a quote from one of the producers talking about how the specific visual effects of those characters will be handled, from February, in this article. And the hidden text was a holdover from this article's time in the incubator, it's probably fair to remove it and just wait for the casting announcements. -Fandraltastic (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

When the author uses the term "role", then they are specifically referring to the part in the film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and it does seem to be OR to come to any sort of conclusion about whether or not these descriptions apply to the film versions of the characters. It's probably best to leave the descriptions, as that's the information we've been presented by reliable sources. -Fandraltastic (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The characters that appear in the concept art, other than the two who have already been cast, are not confirmed to appear in the film. A statement and concept art made over a year before the film begins shooting, several months before director James Gunn re-wrote the script, and several more months before any individual was cast in the film cannot be taken as confirmation of anything. Information such as this has proven inaccurate in the past. Saying that any character other than Peter Quill and Drax appears in the film is speculation. Speculation that will most likely turn out correct, but speculation nonetheless.
Furthermore, the articles used to confirm Pratt's and Bautista's involvement cannot be talking about characters that do not yet exist. The discussion really does not need to go any further than that. Any detail concerning the two characters other than Star-Lord's status as the team's leader is purely speculation.
If we wanted to take a really hardline stance here, the page should be up for deletion, as Wikipedia's notability guidelines for film clearly states that films should not get a page until they have started filming. For this film, that's at least two months in the future. Like what Fandraltastic says, it's fair to just remove the information and wait for a casting announcement. I can't see why anyone would have a problem with having some patience for a page that technically shouldn't exist yet.
LoveWaffle (talk) 06:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The info can be about film characters because the characters will have descriptions for auditions, and the film is 2 months away from a proposed filming date. They will have an idea where they are going with the character by that point or you just end up casting Gilbert Gottfried. Frankly I would think that you need a source saying that they AREN'T accurate, as your opinion that they aren't isn't quite how we normally source information. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, yes, the characters are confirmed to appear in the film. As I said above, this is from February, not a year ago, or months before Gunn joined the project. It is from a month and half ago, and the producer specifically talks about how they are handling the visual effects for Rocket Raccoon and Groot. So no, it is not speculation. Secondly, it is very possible for those reporting on the casting of actors to describe what their roles will be in the film, in general terms. Which is often the case. We cannot assume that these reliable sources are speculating, as this is POV editing. Third, there are cases, where coverage is consistent and broad, that WP:GNG overrides WP:NFF. Given the amount and persistence of coverage for this film in the media, and the amount of material in this article, this would seem to be one of those cases. It was developed in the incubater and only moved here after it had developed into the article it is. -Fandraltastic (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The source is from February, and the film is still months away from even starting filming. Plenty of time for those characters not to make the final cut of the film. Besides, an actor has not been cast for the characters in question, so there's no point in listing them under the section of the page for the cast. Where they are in the pre-production portion of the article is fine, but there's no reason to list uncast characters in the casting section of the page.

Secondly, I think Darkwarriorblake is slightly misinformed as to what information we're talking about concerning the Star-Lord and Drax characters. The information in question is specific details regarding their origins, namely Star-Lord's parentage and Drax's origins on Earth. We're not assuming the sources are speculating when they talk about this, because we know the articles are not talking about the versions of the characters that will appear in the film. These characters did not exist when the articles were published (and still don't as of writing this); therefore, the articles cannot by any means be talking about the characters as they appear in the film. Describing a character as it appears in the comics when one is cast for a film is standard procedure for these sources.

LoveWaffle (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Any detail concerning the two characters other than Star-Lord's status as the team's leader is purely speculation. How is being team leader not speculation but the other information is speculation? It's all very basic information, that whoever the author confirmed the casting information from, could have easily told him. It's not like he revealed that Darth Vader is Luke's father. But it doesn't matter, the articles are making definitive statements, WP:V is clear on this and concensus is building against you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to try and separate the comic book characters for a bit and just focus on those references that speak only to the movie? I mean, pretend its an art house movie, or a chick flick. Remove the pre-knowledge of the comics and evaluate whether the info survives without the pre-knowledge (that we as editors are not allowed to use). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No pre-knowledge was used. The descriptions were taken directly from the information published by the reliable source. If this were any other type of film, the descriptions would not be disputed. LoveWaffle is assuming that because were dealing with a comic book movie then the author must be referring to the comic book characters, despite the fact the author is specifically talking about a "role". Stating otherwise is WP:OR as this is not stated in the source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Prime example: yesterday THR reported 'Gossip Girl' Star Leighton Meester Joins Robert Downey Jr. in 'The Judge' and that "Meester will play a character with whom Downey has a one-night stand and whose later revelations cause quite a bit of headaches for the man". This description would be allowed by most editors even though filming has not begun or Meester didn't say it herself.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to point out that User:LoveWaffle, certainly in good faith, is making an assumption about what The Hollywood Reporter and Deadline.com, both well-regarded trade sources, are saying. All we can go by is what the sources say, and the sources refer to Pine's character as "the Guardians' leader" and Bautista's character as "Drax the Destroyer." That's all we can go by. Saying that the journalists are referring to the comics characters and not the movie characters is POV interpretation. One can argue for that interpretation, and perhaps that interpretation is correct, but it is still an interpretation. All we can say is what the sources themselves say.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Well-put, Tenebrae. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Since it seems we all are in consensus that LoveWaffle's edits constitutes POV, I am restoring the content.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I said no such thing, Triple, and would suggest waiting until LoveWaffle can respond to the claims made here. No sense rushing a single version into place until an actual agreement is established. For that reason, i am going to revert that edit and step back. I think if it gets reverted again, this whole matter will have to escalate. We are not in a hurry, and consensual agreement is the only way the article will stabilize. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. It seemed you were in agreement with Tenebrae.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I am in complete agreement with T's assessment of our policy and guidelines. I just think that LoveWaffle needs to be a part of that consensus-building - especially since he thinks he's looking out for the best interests of the encyclopedia as well.

It's an environment of community-based editing. If he doesn't learn from the process, how can he ever be expected to use the same process with the same courtesy that we all desire? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion

Actually in the interest of compromise with LoveWaffle, would it be fair if we qualified the descriptions by writing; "Deadline.com describes the role as 'the Guardians leader who is the offspring of a human mother and an alien father'." and "According to The Hollywood Reporter, 'Drax is a human resurrected as a green warrior with the sole purpose of killing Thanos.'"?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That seems fair and reasonable. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It would not be fair because the two sources are not talking about the characters as they appear in the film. I would, however, be in favor of something along the lines of something written in The Hollywood Reporter article:

Galaxy centers on Peter Quill/Star-Lord (Pratt), a U.S. pilot who ends up in space in the middle of a universal conflict and goes on the run with futuristic ex-cons who have something everyone wants, according to the plot description.

So, in the interest of compromise, something like that next to Star-Lord.

LoveWaffle (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

As stated above, saying that "the two sources are not talking about the characters as they appear in the film" is a POV interpretation and not supported by the sources. You have no proof to the contrary. If what you just suggested is valid information then what I suggested must also be valid. Infact the very next sentence after what you suggested in the article is what I suggested. You cannot selectively choose what information from the same source is acceptable without proof.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a POV interpretation. They do not speak to exactly how the character will appear in the film, nor do they intend to. To say otherwise is a fundamentally flawed misinterpretation of the source.

Furthermore, the information I suggest is valid because the source includes the qualifier "according to the plot description". No other claim concerning the plot in the article has this.

LoveWaffle (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Deadline source specifically says "The role is Star-Lord, the Guardians leader who is the offspring of a human mother and an alien father." The role in other words; the part in the film. It is absolutely referring to the film. Drax's description makes no other qualms, so we can only go by the exact wording used in the source. No interpretation, just the exact wording used in the source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the exact words that you're reading incorrectly. They are describing the character, not the character as it appears in the film. An important distinction. They do not intend to speak towards the film's plot. They never have.
Doing some extra research on the earlier quote, it doesn't actually originate from the Hollywood Reporter article. Here is an industry page that lists that as a very basic plot synopsis, and here is a source that dates it back to at least August of last year. So The Hollywood Reporter isn't even making that claim, they're just repeating what was already publicly available information.
LoveWaffle (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid LoveWaffle is still insisting that he's not interpreting. The articles do not say that the writers are talking about the comics character; that is that editor's assumption. I think the compromise version TriiipleThreat suggested is the most plain and factual representation of what the articles say, and much less wordy than LoveWaffle's version.

I'm also not sure what LoveWaffle is saying about The Hollywood Reporter, which says via its headline that it did its own reporting on this — THR regularly talks with agents and studio executives. There's nothing in the article remotely suggesting THR cribbed from ComicBookMovie.com, a site of user-supplied content that Wikipedia does not consider a reliable source. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I see the plot capsule from the website It's on the Grid, but I'm afraid LoveWaffle is making another assumption in saying THR cribbed from it. It's much more likely, if I may make an assumption, that this is the capsule description the studio has given casting directors and the trade press. Indeed, as ComicBookMovie.com even states, the capsule "has already surfaced via two industry sites, Production Weekly and It's On The Grid." Given the implausibility that each came up with the same wording independently, it seems virtually certain this is the studio logline. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

They also don't say they're talking about the film character. That's the editor's assumption. An assumption that ignores the article's purpose.

Given the implausibility that each came up with the same wording independently, it seems virtually certain this is the studio logline. I apologize my previous statement wasn't clear enough, since that's what I meant. The point is that The Hollywood Reporter did not come up with that line themselves, nor is it new information (the only reason I linked to the one site is because it was simply the oldest one I could find that speaks to it). The statement that the version of Drax that will appear in the film is a resurrected human being is not only unique to the article, but is not supported by the logline. Assuming that the statement is based on information provided to the source referring to the character as it appears in the film (particularly given that articles such as this have never done that) is entirely speculative. The same can be said for what Deadline says about Peter Quill.

Here's the compromise version I propose:

Chris Pratt as Peter Quill / Star-Lord: An American pilot who ends up in the middle of a universal conflict

Dave Bautista as Drax the Destroyer: A futuristic ex-con

The information there cannot be contested due to it being supported not only by the film's (current) logline, and is appropriately concise is not overly descriptive.

LoveWaffle (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Deadline article specifically says its talking about the film role. The THR doesn't specify but it doesn't has to as it made the blanket definitive statement "Drax is...". Assuming this is in reference to the comic book character and not the film character, when it doesn't say so is WP:OR. Also just because this information hasn't been mentioned previously doesn't make it invalid. Presenting new information to the public is the definition of journalism. As for your suggestion, the article does not say Drax is a futuristic ex-con but it does say "Drax is a human resurrected as a green warrior with the sole purpose of killing Thanos." However, I concede that you will not be convinced as several editors have already pointed this out to you. Fandraltastic and Tenebrae have already agreed to the first suggestion, so I'll wait to give others time to offer their opinions and we'll go from there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how this discussion is going on, unless the source says "In the comic [insert name] is a [insert description]", then it's being provided as the description of the film character. If LoveWaffle deems it inaccurate that is not enough to discard perfectly logically valid information, unless LoveWaffle can provide contesting evidence beyond opinion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not the convention of articles of this sort.
LoveWaffle (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what LoveWaffle is putting forward when he speaks of convention that several experienced editors are not seeing. But I will say this: No one is making an assumption that THR and Deadline are talking about the movie. They are film and TV industry trade publications. The articles are about a movie. These are facts, not assumptions. The only assumptions are 1) that an article in a movie trade publication about a movie is talking about anything other than a movie, and 2) that neither of these respected publications did any original reporting by contacting agents, studio personnel and other sources to independently confirm information. That's what responsible journalists do: Get independent confirmation. I'm not sure one can credibly say that THR and Deadline are behaving like bloggers and second-rate Web journalists and simply reprinting anything they see on the Internet and calling it fact.

Consensus does not mean that any single editor has veto power. And WP:VERIFY is clear that we can't determine "truth" but can only report what reliable sources say. THR and Deadline are reliable sources. I believe the majority of editors here are behaving properly by editing an article to say what two reliable sources say — no more and no less. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to draw this discussion to a close, as I was the neutral party stepping in over a week ago. It would appear that substantial discussion, compromise and a sincere willingness to understand the minority opinion offered by Lovewaffle has taken place in the interim. There appears to be a fairly solid consensus against LW's viewpoint at this time, and I think the matter is resolved.

This is not to say that this consensus is etched in stone - far from it. What this means is that we put the sticks down and leave the dead horse to the worms, at least for now. If new information in the form of explicit, reliable and verifiable citation appears that offers a new look into the subject, the matter can be revisited. I would suggest the form of that revisitation occur here in the article discussion page as opposed to the article, but that's just how I roll.
If Lovewaffle feels that the consensus is wrong, there are venues that editor can pursue to address them. At this time, however, the matter appears to have been decided by consensus. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adam Sandler and Jim Carrey inclusion to article

They're both said to be in talks with Marvel for unspecified roles as of January 2013.

Source: http://collider.com/jim-carrey-adam-sandler-guardians-of-the-galaxy/, http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/23/carrey-and-sandler-up-for-guardians-of-the-galaxy/, http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2013/01/adam-sandler-marvel-guardians-of-the-galaxy-rumor, http://www.thesuperficial.com/adam-sandler-rocket-raccoon-guardians-of-the-galaxy-01-2013, http://screenrant.com/guardians-of-the-galaxy-jim-carrey-adam-sandler/, http://www.ifc.com/fix/2013/01/jim-carrey-adam-sandler-guardians-of-the-galaxy, http://www.craveonline.com/film/articles/203617-marvel-wants-adam-sandler-in-the-guardians-of-the-galaxy, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/adam-sandler-jim-carrey-marvel-guardians-of-the-galaxy_n_2533810.html, http://movieline.com/2013/01/24/guardians-of-the-galaxy-movie-casting-rumors-jim-carrey-adam-sandler-groot-rocket-raccoon/