Talk:Captain America: The First Avenger

Captain America 2

I suggest that Captain America 2 be given its own page because it's a new movie.

173.57.39.183 (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Anonymous

It does not meet WP:NFF because it has not yet begun filming and currently there are not enough sources too meet WP:GNG.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that its sequel title is Captain America: Winter Soldier. I've included this on this article and the MCU page. Charlr6 (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Incubator for Captain America: The Winter Soldier

This is just a notice that an article for Captain America: The Winter Soldier is being incubated at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Captain America: The Winter Soldier until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thats good. If I find anything in the future I'll add those in, unless added in already. Charlr6 (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Rosie the Riveter

User:TriiipleThreat reverted my edit correcting the closing credits image from Rosie the Riveter to "We Can Do It!" because the source calls it Rosie. Although I appreciate the desire to reflect the source material, this just doesn't make sense. Let's assume that the same source misidentified James Montgomery Flagg as someone else (BTW, his poster comes from WWI, not WWII). Would we insist that the paragraph say "...such as Joe Bloggs’s Uncle Sam recruitment poster..." because the source says so? No, of course not. So why do we insist on saying that the poster shows Rosie, when it doesn't? Yes, it is often misidentified as Rosie, but as an encyclopedia, we have a duty to dispel falsehoods. (Note: I was the one who originally had File:We Can Do It!.jpg moved from File:Rosie the Riveter.jpg because it was misnamed.) —howcheng {chat} 18:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat is one of the more conscientious WikiProject: Comics editors, and I completely see where he was coming from. In this case, I would say that while the source material's text says Rosie the Riveter that the image shown on the same page is clearly that of "We Can Do It", word-balloon identifier and all. And as the "We Can Do It" article notes, that image is often informally called "Rosie the Riveter."

(I'd be curious to see the table of contents of the Smithsonian issue of which this was the cover, to see if "We Can Do It" is actually the title given there; text in a painting isn't necessarily the painting's title.)

Given this information, why not say, "and J. Howard Miller's "We Can Do It!" (a.k.a. "Rosie the Riveter") poster from World War II." ? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That works for me. In terms of the name of the poster, a quick search of Google Books shows that "We Can Do It" is indeed the commonly accepted name of the poster. —howcheng {chat} 20:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Pinewood Studios

Any reason why there is no mention of this film being shot here. As confirmed by:

• Pinewood Group
• Total Film
• Movie Locations.com
• Captain America Movie Site

So surely this would make it a joint venture between UK/US? If not, why not? MisterShiney ✉ 22:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If it isn't mentioned that it shot at Pinewood that needs rectifying, but if its a UK/US production? The rules are weird and arbitrary. Dredd is a British/South African production according to its own credits (it'd be nice if other films followed their example) because its a film based on a british comic with a british writer/director/producers, but was made in South Africa with a South African crew. According to the BFI, its USA only, but sometimes BFI does make mistakes. Have you looked at the credits? Normally near the end. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Now that seems like a perfectly legitimate reason to watch this this afternoon lol. MisterShiney ✉ 09:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you know when filming took place there? It could help us place it the most appropriate location.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The total film article was written in September 2010, as was the Captain America Movie Article. So I am guessing around then. The Film Locations site seems to say that it was almost entirely filmed in the UK. MisterShiney ✉ 18:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

As the number and length of Wikipedia's policy, guideline and manual of style pages expand, I'm having trouble finding the guidance on this. I seem to recall it involving what nation's company primarily financed the film and the nationality of the producers, studio and distributor, but wherever that was / is, I can't find it. Maybe someone else knows where it might be? The information at the page on film infoboxes quotes some outside reference source saying, essentially, that a film's nationality isn't always easy to pin down, but nothing there explicitly states a Wikipedia guideline or style. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Though if it's any help, many U.S. shows are shot in Vancouver, Canada, yet they're still considered American TV shows, e.g. The X-Files, Battlestar Galactica (2004), Smallville, etc. etc. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the majority of the film was shot in the UK and it states as much in the article, but that on its own doesn't necessarily make it a UK production. Tenebrae is right, it has more to do with where the film's financing originated. The Pinewood Studios info is still relevant, I just wish we had more info so we can place it better in the article. Just because the article was written in September doesn't mean that filming took place in September. According to the article, production was taking place in Caerwent that month (though filming at Pinewood could have been taking place simultaneously). And again, the time frame is not a prerequisite for inclusion, it just helps with better placement.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah I know, I am just opening it up to discussion. I am not like some editors... MisterShiney ✉ 16:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's true: This bunch of us in this discussion are calm, reasonable, talk-it-out veteran editors, and I wish all of Wikipedia could be like that. I mean this more as a compliment to my colleagues than any back-patting of myself. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Teaser

See also: Talk:Captain_America:_The_First_Avenger/Archive_1 § Post-credits_scene

Why should teaser of the next film be described as a post-credits scene? As seen in The Avengers teaser, the scene isn't part of the Captain America Gevorg89 (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

At what point did you take the link to the last discussion and the link to WP: BRD as an invitation to edit yet again over the same thing without discussing it or apparently reading the other discussion? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Why should that scene be mentioned as part of this film while it's a teaser? In Iron Man 2, Agent Coulson ending scene was both end-credits scene of Iron Man 2 and part of Thor while here we're dealing with the teaser (or teaser-trailer) clip of the next film. Gevorg89 (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence, beyond I mean your own OR, POV and personal belief that it is exclusively a teaser? No? Then you can feel free to knock it off at any time. It was the last film out before the Avengers so they threw an Avengers advert onto it, how you can deny that the scene feeds directly from the film is mind boggling, but regardless it has been discussed and your continued disruption over it without any kind of sourcing or consensus in your favour will not be tolerated. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Did not see this discussion or previous one in the archive, but read it over and agree with what has been said (my previous edit was out of my own thinking that it was actually a teaser). I remember now that it was Cap-specific, thus making it a post credit scene, which happened to be followed by The Avengers tease (not necessarily a teaser trailer in the conventional sense). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If you watched linked videos, you'd see that it wasn't post-credits scene but The Avengers teaser, because in some theaters, teaser was shown and only after that Cap waking up in present day, thus proving there's no post-credits scene. That scene isn't even fully shown - just see it in The Avengers. Teaser and real post-credits scene. Your misunderstanding comes from Iron Man 2 post-credits scene, which was also part of Thor and making you believe Avengers teaser's first scene being post-credits scene. So either write there's future film's teaser-trailer after the end credits, or write full recap of it instead of only first scene.Gevorg89 (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

In some theaters, like ALL the theaters not in America, the Shwarma scene from the Avengers wasn't there. Should that be excluded from that article's plot? I'm sorry but your 'theory' on the outlier of cinema chains showing a scene post credits determining it's inclusion in the plot is not a valid one. Your misunderstanding comes from you still not understanding that you saying things does not make them true, and post-credit scenes appearing in other films does not, not make them post-credit scenes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't say that if a post-credits scene is also in other movie, it doesn't belong to that movie. I don't say Iron Man 2 scene should be excluded from plot recap because it reappears in Thor. Shawarma scene isn't a teaser/trailer/teaser-trailer from another movie, it's a final scene. And your misunderstanding comes from the fact that you don't understand that if you say smth., it doesn't make them true either. I say your "scene" was followed by other scenes also, which altogether created Avengers teaser, so why don't you recap everything from there? They were also shown after the end credits. I repeat - there's not only Fury ad Cap scene after the end credits. You just need to see that it was just part of the teaser, its beginning. If that was a real ending scene, distributors wouldn't allow cinemas show it earlier. It was Avengers teaser shown in the end, which was later proved my releasing that teaser to the web Gevorg89 (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

What about such consensus: "After the end credits teaser for The Avengers (next Marvel Cinematic Universe film) is shown, in the first scene of which Fury approaches Rogers with a mission to save the world" (worldwide ramification doesn't exactly show what Fury said and meant). As a result, the scene both is mentioned as part of the teaser, and its plot is written. I think it's an acceptable solution. Gevorg89 (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

First thank you for inviting me here, instead of edit-warring. However, I feel the sentence was poorly worded. A good plot summary does not provide narration, it simply summarizes the narrative. But to the main point, being a teaser or a coda is not mutually exclusive. It can be both.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Gevorg, move on, no one responding to the end of the conversation was not them conceding, it was them growing tired of the discussion. It's been had twice, you've lost both times, let it go. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake, talk pages are for talking and finding decision that is good for both parts and not ignoring just because of having different opinion. Talk, offer your solutions that will both recap the beginning of the teaser and mention it as a teaser. E. g. just changing the first part to "In the beginning of "The Avengers" teaser", keeping the rest. And once again - "mission with worldwide ramification" and "mission to save the world" (what Fury said and meant) are very different things. Gevorg89 (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

We had the talk, we decided against your proposal. The talk page is not for you to keep talking and enacting changes when people stop responding to your repeated talking points regarding the same subject over and over. The scene immediately follows the credits, relates directly to the character of Captain America and follows on directly from the pre-credits ending. That other stuff is attached to promote another film does not change that fact and I'm exhausted with how obsessed you are over this or why it is such a problem for you. The wording as is, is fine, it is not misrepresenting the situation, and worldwide ramifications and a necessity to save the world mean the same thing. Discussion. End. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with DWB, there is a difference between discussion and WP:FILIBUSTER.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking about this, and thought of a possible solution. Would it be acceptable to mention in the "Release" section, that attached to the film, was a teaser for The Avengers? And then leave everything in the plot as is? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that, its already mentioned in the Marketing section of The Avengers (2012 film).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I can agree that a teaser can be considered as a post-credits scene, so what if leave the sentence as it is, just add: "In the post-credits scene (part of The Avengers teaser), ..."? Also - "worldwide ramifications" doesn't say what kind of ramifications it is, doesn't tell the meaning of the original sentence. It means that something will have effect on the whole world, not exactly meaning saving it. Gevorg89 (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Mention of the teaser should not be in the plot. If anything, as noted, it should be in the "Release" section, which actually is a good place for it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You can add the teaser scene's recap in the Release section, or mention about the last sentence being from teaser in that section. That could be an acceptable solution. Gevorg89 (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Hopefully that settles things and we can move on.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you - this is good solution as no one wanted to mention about it in the "Plot" section. Gevorg89 (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding with that list of "Starring"?

The list goes like 8 deep and includes Derek Luke, a not that famous actor who is hardly in the film at all. Yet you managed to omit the female lead.