Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe

MCU Good Topic status

As of August 20, 2014

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Page	Class	Notes
Over arching Good Topic
Marvel Cinematic Universe	GA
Marvel One-Shots	GA
Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-in comics	B
Future included titles
Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe	NA	Working draft in a Favre1fan93 sandbox. All are welcome to contribute.

Page	Class	Notes
Film articles Good Topic
List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films	FL
List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors	FL
Iron Man	GA
The Incredible Hulk	GA
Iron Man 2	GA
Thor	GA
Captain America: The First Avenger	GA
Marvel's The Avengers	GA
Iron Man 3	GA
Thor: The Dark World	GA
Captain America: The Winter Soldier	B	Currently nominated to be a Good Article.
Guardians of the Galaxy	B
Future included titles
Avengers: Age of Ultron	C
Ant-Man	C

Page	Class	Notes
Potential television articles Good Topic
List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series	B
List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series actors	NA	Working draft in an adamstom97 sandbox. All are welcome to contribute.
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.	C
List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters	List
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1)	C
"Pilot"	Start
"0-8-4"	Start
Future included titles
Agent Carter	Start
Daredevil	Start

Page	Class	Notes
Potential included titles
Phil Coulson	Start
Erik Selvig	Start

Draft for Doctor Strange (film)

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Doctor Strange at Draft:Doctor Strange (film) 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) 15:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Draft for Black Panther (film)

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Black Panther at Draft:Black Panther (film) 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) 15:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, god, wow. I put together these print-only references ages ago: edit. Hope the content finally comes home to roost. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

So that was you, good job! Hope so too, Fiege said he planned to release the film sometime in Phase 3. I really like this new namespace BTW.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just poking around this newfangled "Draft" space. Looks like a simpler system! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for those initial edits Erik! Triiiple and I have already started clean up with the Doctor Strange draft, but got a little scared due to the "ancient" nature of the source. And I do like this new namespace as well. It takes away the issue we had with the Ant-Man page in the incubator. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Draft for third Captain America film

This is just a notice that there is a draft for the third Captain America film at Draft:Captain America 3 until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Draft for third Thor film

This is just a notice that there is a draft for the third Thor film at Draft:Thor 3 until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Draft for Black Widow (film)

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Black Widow at Draft:Black Widow (film) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft for Inhumans (film)

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Inhumans at Draft:Inhumans (film) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft for Guardians of the Galaxy sequel

This is just a notice that there is a draft for the sequel to Guardians of the Galaxy at Draft:Guardians of the Galaxy 2 until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft for Jessica Jones (TV series)

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Jessica Jones at Draft:Jessica Jones (TV series) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Good articles invite attacks and poor editing

This article has achieved Good Article status. Has it become a magnet for careless editing? People seem to think it's ok to just delete stuff without checking that what they have done has not caused a cite error. This kind of drive by editing does no service to Wikipedia or to those who do this kind of thing. Jodosma (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it actually does anything, it is just more noticeable than a "C-class" article being edited in the same way as the "C-class" article it can be explained as trying to improve it, on "GA-class" articles people just attempt edits that then end up making the page no "GA-class" so people revert/undo and moan saying it is GA and as such big edits that change the page need to be talked about and examples given in sandboxes. So no I don't think having an article grading system is bad and encouraging borderline stupid edits, I think it is just that tiny bit more noticable as big edits could easily demote the page.

On a side note, the grading system also tells the various projects which pages need working on the most out of all the page under said project--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The broken refs are there because someone transcluded a table but didn't add the refs. -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I have commented out that transclusion until the time that that table is ready to be transcluded (if at all). Now, it is back to how the page was before those edits. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Universal Monsters universe

Here's an article about Universal Studios' upcoming shared monster universe. Its not comic book related but the author makes a comparison to the MCU.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think if we decide to include this, we would have to make exceptions to the other shared universes users tried adding. I skimmed the article, so could we maybe include it in the general reception comments? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand, I just wanted to get some opinions about it. I'm not sure if should burden the article every time a studio sets up a new shared universe.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Well that's the issue I think. Do we just keep it to studios with comic book character rights, or include all studios that do a shared universe model? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Whatever decision is made, it should probably be defined in the FAQ for future reference. I think we should only add studios who state they are influenced by the Marvel model, or who clearly are. We can't really include every shared universe, as there will undoubtedly be many popping up in the future. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Strange Date

Despite what the cited Variety article states, the Doctor Strange movie has NOT been officially dated yet by Marvel. Variety is dating that movie on their own accord. Granted it's the most furthest along in production (which is why they are likely making that assumption), but even in interviews this week Kevin Feige has left the slate after Captain America 3 unannounced. Comic-Con starts tomorrow, so this will likely be a moot issue very soon, but for now that date is not officially accurate - AnonWikiEditor (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:V, we have a reliable source to cite the date. If it changes, we can change the source and the info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are two reliable sources that confirm no date yet [1][2] -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

But again. The Variety source is a reliable source (even stated again here) that, again per WP:V, will be used until a new or different reliable source comes around that says otherwise. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

But why? We have multiple reliable sources that can be used (and they have the added bonus of actually being right). I would think that two (different) reliable sources that say otherwise would trump a single source. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Another thing, look at the dates, the IGN source you provided is older than the Variety one so an announcement could of been made on the 22nd or 23rd, in between the two sources. And then the screenrant one doesn't seem like the most reliable source as it appears to just be a top 5 wanted movie list and not actually about the currently announced films (plus it says that it is likely for the 2016 July spot anyways). If you can find any sources that state that "Doctor Strange" is still undated from after the 23rd of July then please add them here and they can hold more wait.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 07:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The Variety source cited source in the article is older than the sources I provided. And as I previously stated, Doctor Strange is almost certainly going to get that July spot. However, it has not been given that date yet, so stating so is currently inaccurate. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

More than anything, the IGN article quotes Kevin Feige himself talking about how 2015 will have an existing franchise and a new franchise and how they "hope to maybe continue that model in the coming years." Kevin Feige's words should automatically trump anything. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean Variety dated the movie on their own accord. If they'd done that then they would have said something like "Doctor Strange seems likely to take the July 8 slot". Why on Earth would they suddenly decided to write it like this "Another possible franchise starter, “Doctor Strange,” is also dated for July 8, 2016." if it isn't officially confirmed?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 07:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It's well know that Doctor Strange is the furthest movie along in production in Marvel's queue. It is almost certainly going to be granted that July release when the announcements are made during Marvel Studio's Panel at Comic-Con. It's "all-but-confirmed" as the expression goes. That's why you see it in articles like Variety. But the key is that it's not confirmed yet and despite everyone's expectations, Marvel could announce that it is getting a later date -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so you agree that it is likely and "all-but-confirmed" so surely we can just leave it considering that it is Comic-con this weekend so any announcements will be made over the next few days. Since it is almost certain and it will likely just be re-added either today or tomorrow isn't it easier (less edits and less strain on the Wikipedia servers) to just leave it as it is and change it only if necessary.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 09:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

"Leave it because it will probably be right" qualifies as original research and is a violation of Wikipedia principles when there are more recent reliable sources available with quotes from the head guy that state the contrary. As a result the article will be changed. If, and when, (even if it's tomorrow) the actual date is announced, it can be changed back then with cited sources. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

We have a source with the date, it is likely to be that date, it is likely to be announced in more sources within the next couple of days. So lets leave with the source that states that it has the date, save the strain on the servers and save extra edits and time off of whoever edits that date. If you are that fussed about it, changed the source when it is annonaced soon. Otherwise don't change it as it is currently 2(maybe 3)-1 in-favour of keeping it the way it is--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

"Saving server strain" is a terrible excuse to cover this lazy attitude. We should be striving for articles built upon reliable sources to maintain accurate information. Quite frankly, your argument that it's a vote as to use the most accurate and citeable information in an article is non-sensible. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, one source gives the date that we have on the article so just leave it. And its not a lazy attitude, it just happens that we have a source that says the date in a way that says it like it is confirmed. And the IGN Source is from the 21st while the Variety source is from he 23rd. Saying that we should be striving to build articles from reliable sources while at the same time trying to combat a known reliable source just seems contradictory--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 08:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't gotten involved in this discussion so far, but frankly, it's getting ridiculous. The film has not been given an official date by Marvel, hence why every site except Variety says something along the lines of "it will most likely be released in 2016". AnonWikiEditor is correct when he says Variety dated the film of their own accord - out of nowhere they started using the 2016 date as if it was official, probably so that if it is announced for that date, they will be able to say that they called it. It is pretty obvious that this is exactly what happened, so I don't understand why everybody else is arguing against that point. However, I agree that there is no point changing it up now, considering the Marvel SDCC panel is tomorrow, and even if they don't have an actor signed to announce, I am sure they will give the film a date, so it should be fine to leave it for now and to sort it out after the panel. Seeing as this seems to be the consensus here, I think it should be pointed out to AnonWikiEditor that making a bold edit to an article before a discussion on the talk page reaches a consensus, especially if it clearly goes against the majority view, is not how Wikipedia operates, so you should seriously rethink the edits you just carried out in which you cited updated sources. Things like this indicate to me, and probably the other editors involved with this discussion, that you are just looking to make the changes you think are right, without heading to the majority views of the community, and are, in effect, looking to start an edit war. I would be interested to hear a response from you regarding this topic, as well as any other editor who may agree or disagree with the statements I have made here. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said before I made the changes because I don't believe article accuracy, when they are plenty of reliable cite able sources, is something that is something to be voted on. When something is wrong and there are plenty of sources stating it is wrong, it should be changed immediately. Otherwise you're changing the article from fact based to something resembling opinion based. And yes, "don't change it because it might be right later" IS a lazy attitude (and also acknowledges that the article is wrong). I'm saddened to know that fellow Wikipedia editors would rather argue for laziness than having the best and most accurate (with reliable sources) article possible. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

If someone comes to the article and wants a source that confirms the date then they have one, again general consensus of the people above have all agreed to leave it as it is for now.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Marvel Studios SDCC panel came and went without any mention of Doctor Strange. Are we still going keep the release date in the article despite all the sources that confirm the movie has not been given one? [3] [4][5][6][7] -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any further objection and the previous reasons for objection no longer apply now that Comic-Con has ended without any Doctor Strange announcement. The article will be changed shortly. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Well you only posted this yesterday. The date should not be removed. Once again, Variety is a reliable source, who's sources told them about the date. They have also not retracted their information. So per WP:V, we have a reliable source stating the date. If we get one saying the date is different, not that it is not that, then we can change it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Think of it also like this: In May we got reports that Brolin would be Thanos in Guardians. We got "official" confirmation of such at Comic-Con. So because it wasn't official (as you have said) we shouldn't have included it in the Guardian's article? No. We had a source stating this, and added it to the article. An even better example: Around the same time, we had a report that Thanos/Brolin would be in Avengers: AoU. However, Feige did an interview recently, saying that at the time being he is not in that film. So we removed the info. Wikipedia is a work in progress and is always changing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

We've been discussing this for a while. The objections previously stated were because it was likely to be announced Saturday night so it was argued there was no point in changing it. That didn't happen, meaning the objections presented are no longer valid. Another argument was that Variety was the most recent source (it's not). The movie not having a date is not opinion. It's fact. We have one source, Variety, that says the date. We have pretty much every other website out there that says no date. How does one source trump every other source? We even have Kevin Feige in one of the sources talking about how they're still discussing 2016 plans. Yet Variety tops Kevin Feige? This is absurd. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

In regards to your example it was not the same because every site reported that. You could find dozens of sources. It wasn't a situation where one website reported it and every other website reported that no one had been cast like this. You could even write it, that it has been reported Josh has been cast, but Marvel has not confirmed it - just like how I wrote that the movie was widely expected to be released in 2016, but Marvel has not confirmed it. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, the general consenes was that it would be left until after Comic-Con because it was likely (although it didn't happen) to be annonced then, as such AnonWikiEditor changing the page was by what was agreed upon here.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I must have fallen off at that point in the discussion or misinterpreted it. But I still believe the date should stay. And we should probably get more voices in this discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hasn't all of the regular editors to this page already stated their view. Either way, he is right he has more sources that verify that it has no date than we do that it has a date. The only reason I wanted it kept was because of how close comic-con was at the time he brought it up so it wouldn't make sense to remove it just to re add it if it were announced, but comic-con is over now. Also he's got a point of us trying to use variety over Kevin himself.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm pinging people who have not commented in the discussion yet that regularly edit. @TriiipleThreat and Richiekim: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Just so we all understand, what exactly are your arguments for keeping the date and that one source when we have a multitude of other sources that say otherwise including one with comments from Kevin Feige himself? -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I support keeping the date, since Variety is an industry trade publication and an extremely reliable source. Just because other publications have not reported on this doesn't contradict the source.-Richiekim (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, found another source for the July 8, 2016 release date. [8] however I also found another source from after Comic-con which kinda destroys Variety's Source in terms of date the source was released.[9]--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 12:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Those are both unreliable sources Ditto, so they could not subsequently be used. Users tried added the Kpop one I believe. And as I've been saying, and Richie added, just because others have not reported on the date, does not mean they are all right, and the lone extremely reliable source that is Variety is wrong. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I would think the fact that the article source states there is a date and 2 days later Kevin Feige talks about how 2016 is undecided would make the Variety source questionable (especially in conjunction with just about every other website. I don't see how you can reasonably say Variety is a more reliable than president of Marvel Studios himself. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

So we have Kevin Feige(!)[10], IGN[11][12], Entertainment Weekly[13], Screencrush[14], Screenrant[15][16], The Guardian[17], E![18], MTV[19] as well as the complete lack of any mention of Doctor Strange's release date or announcement on Marvel.com like they've had for every movie the past few years (Avengers: AoU[20], Ant-man[21], Cap3[22], GotG2[23]) ....and in the other corner we have Variety [24] and the fact that having significantly more and more recent reliable sources means nothing...for some reason -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

To be fair the Marvel website should be enough, especially if we have a page on there website for GotG2 which is to be released after (keyword) Doctor Strange. Anon is right here and the sources he supplied (mainly Kevin and the lack if a date on Marvel's site) shoule be enough for Variety to be disproven--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, none of these sources cited above contradict Variety's source, just that it hasn't been officially announced by Marvel. Unless a source explicitly states that Doctor Strange is NOT coming out on July 8, 2016, I don't see any reason we should remove the date.-Richiekim (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And back to the start of this discussion. Marvel have not confirmed it. Kevin has said himself that they are still planning what to put where for 2016. Even if it were leaked, surely it should not be on the article until Marvel themselves have confirmed it. Saying that because Variety says so does not make it true and all of the sources have stated that July 8, 2016 is currently undated or they say that it is likely We have more sources that state that is is either likely, or just flatly say that it is undated than the on variety source that we have stating that it has that date.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

So what if Marvel hasn't confirmed it? They are the king of all secrets and only let you know what they want you to know, when they want. If we went off of official confirmations for everything, half of the content on some of these upcoming film pages would not exist. This brings me back to my Thanos/Brolin answer. Heck, even Lilly and Stoll for Ant-Man! They were only "officially" confirmed as being cast Saturday, yet we had them as in the film on the Ant-Man film page for a good few months. And I once again concur with Richie's statement about a source saying it is NOT coming out on that date. None of those say it is NOT coming out on that date. So we should not remove it, because we have verifiable info for that date. If we had sources saying "our sources tell us Doctor Strange will not be the film released on July 8, 2016", that'd be a different story, because we'd have conflicting reports. But we don't have that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We have plenty of sources that say Doctor Strange has not been given that release date. In regards to your casting example you keep bringing up, I will once again bring up the fact that there were many sources available to cite that fact just like there are many to cite the fact that Doctor Strange does not have a release date yet. The fact of the matter is your one source does not take precedence over the multitude of other sources that are both more available in greater numbers and are more recent. Wikipedia is about what you can cite and we can more than cite that Doctor Strange does not have a release date. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The list article was (at one point after Comic-Con passed per the consensus before this discussion took a big turn) written something like "While Doctor Strange is widely expected to be released in 2016, no date has been officially announced". I propose that is how we change it back. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If we have one source confirming it, and no sources denying it, then we should keep the date until such a time as it is found to be wrong (which it most likely will not) - adamstom97 (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

We have many sources that confirm no release date yet. We have a source featuring Kevin Feige posted two days after the article's source that confirms no release date yet. If the movie doesn't have a release date, then that means it's release date is not July 8, 2016. If sources say the movie has no release date, then that source is saying the release date is not currently July 8, 2016. Whether it becomes that at a later point or not is irrelevant right now. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The one source does not even specify why they list that date. If they had a inside source from Marvel they would likely say so and other outlets would likely have the info as well but no other site is confirming it. They are likely assuming because it has a director attached it is next in line but since it is a new property pre-production will be a longer process for it than Thor 3 since the main roles need to be cast and contracts need to be signed. Also Thor 3's script was started long before Doctor Strange. If Kevin says they are still undecided it is because they are probably not sure they can launch a new property in under 2 years. Also the Variety article is not even about Doctor Strange but was an announcement for other dates and none of Variety's other articles on the film have mentioned the date. It should be removed until it is confirmed by Marvel or at least multiple sources.Lowriders95s10 (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

While obviously there exists a miniscule amount of doubt in the source, it is reliable and most certainly doesn't contradict any official information (of course if we just go by what Kevin Feige has said it could be in the May 2017 slot instead). The schedule certainly has been locked in now, and filming will begin next spring so the July 2016 date seems very sensible (just as a sanity check rather than any way of saying it is definitely yes or no). Ruffice98 (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You just provided an example of a contradiction in your explanation of how it doesn't create a contradiction... -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said there is nothing officially giving an exact date, and the official information only narrows it down to two dates (really it narrows it down to three, but the first date suggested has been taken by Captain America 3 now). There is no contradiction, what exists is a potential alternative and that's what causes the problem and the slight doubt I mentioned. Ruffice98 (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

New behind the scenes article on the MCU

I found this article from the Hollywood Reporter. I think it would be a good resource on the behind the scenes production of the MCU.Richiekim (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll give it a read to see if anything could be added, that you or anyone else has not already done. Thanks as always Richie. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2014

captain america 3 is no longer in development it's in pre-production, that needs to be changed. Thanks. Adamcawtonn (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a reliable source that verifies the claim. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Portal

Considering how big this is getting now, should we set up a Portal at Portal:Marvel Cinematic Universe to encompass all of the links that are now included? [25] --Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I've never dealt with Portals so if you want to investigate creating one Ditto51, I would not be opposed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Now that this has been set up, does it get added to all MCU pages? Or just this one? Also, The previously used 'portal bar' format below the navboxes worked a lot better than the current format, so even if you only want the MCU portal linked to, I think we should revert it back to the bar. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea. I think so. And I wasn't sure about the portal bar or not. I think all should get this and the film portal added to them. I'm pretty much done in the portal. Now it is just formatting/stylizing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that the portal is in the MCU navbox, so is it necessary to have the extra portal link? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Pages should be tagged with it too I believe. If the navboxes are collapsed, readers may not see that, but would see the portal bar. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Cool, will leave as is. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2014

Add the movies that have announced dates, but no titles or information. You already added one. I'd add it myself but Wikipedia won't fucking let me. Justletmehaveausername (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done That was only done to show that there is still a film in between Doctor Strange and GotG 2. We only add table rows once we have confirmed titles; this is an exception. As well, no need for the language. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Strange: In development / Pre-production

Doctor Strange is currently listed as in pre-production, but shouldn't it be listed as in development instead? Using the Filmmaking article as a guide, "in development" seems more accurate as the movie is uncast and currently unwritten[26][27] (or maybe in just early stages). Pre-production, to my understanding, is basicly the period just before filming starts where locations are chosen, sets are built, etc so that filming can start immediately once done. Last I heard was the filming was being discussed for spring of 2015.[28]. Just in general, it also seems strange (no pun intended) that the Doctor Strange movie is listed as being further along than the dated Captain America movie coming out some time before it (which I believe is correctly listed as being in development). The pre-production label makes sense for Ant-man as it is scheduled to start filming in August. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

We have a source stating it is already in pre. It actually is quite far along in pre to be honest. Whereas, we have confirmation from the Cap 3 writers that they are only still in the script drafting process. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, cool. Just wanted to check because I thought it seemed to fit the other definition better, but I don't have anything that actually says otherwise. I'll look around to see if I can find an update on Cap 3. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I've looked around the past few days with comic-con for an update to Cap 3, and there isn't one. Still in development. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Marvel Upcoming Movies

Can the editors help me confirm the news of these upcoming movies as of whether it is true or not. This link is from the magazine that posted all the upcoming movies up to 2019.

https://www.facebook.com/fhmmalaysia/photos/a.10151473475440535.531900.172564000534/10152568780735535/?type=1&fref=nf

In brief:

• Avengers: Age of Ultron (1 May 2015)
• Ant-Man (17 July 2015)
• Captain America: The Fallen Son (6 May 2016)
• Doctor Strange (8 July 2016)
• Thor: Ragnarok (5 May 2017)
• Guardian of The Galaxy: War Of Kings (28 July 2017)
• Black Panther (3 November 2017)
• Avengers: Civil War (6 July 2018)
• World War Hulk (2 November 2018)
• Inhuman (3 May 2019)

Kelvintjy (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

That's some nice photo shop skills there. Rumors and a very unreliable source at that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I know Marvel has three 2018 movies planned, the third of which was announced a couple days after the rest of the 2017-2019 dates. The fact that this list ignores that third 2018 movie suggest to me that this was made as someone's wish list in the days between those announcements and is not some sort of official leak. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

See also section

Froth had originally added a link to DC Cinematic Universe, which is currently a redirect. They then changed the link to be List of films based on DC Comics and added List of films based on Marvel Comics because "DC and Marvel are the major IPs. The list of DC movies and Marvel movies are twins." I came around and moved the Marvel link to the list of films page. Froth has now come back and readded both those previous links here, plus a link to the list of MCU films page. First, the list of MCU films page should not be in this section because it has its own section on the article (Marvel Cinematic Universe#Films) where it links to that. Second, since I did move the list of films based on Marvel over to the list of MCU films page, that is a better location, as that deals with the films of the universe. This is the overarching page for the universe, so those are not appropriate on this page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The MCU page is about the universe as a whole, so any links to pages about individual films etc. should be moved to the films page (which Favre already did). The list of DC films, however, has no place in these articles at all. The see also section of any page is about further information on a subject appearing within the article that is covered more extensively elsewhere. Any mention of DC stuff on these pages should be here, in the Reception section, but as pointed out previously, the DCCU does not currently have a page to link to. At such a time as there is a page for the DCCU (and that goes for fox and sony) then they can be linked to in the Reception section, otherwise, these pages should be about the MCU only. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I've just had a look over at the films page, and it already has the link to the list of films page, as well as links to all marvel comics films, in the form of the navbox at the bottom of the page. The see also section is unnecessary duplication of this info, so really, none of these edits needed to be made, or need to be kept. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Favre1fan93 and Adamstom.97, the information added is either redundant or unneeded. The DC film information, especially, has no place in this article at this time. Maybe when it has its own article, it can be added. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 18:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Recurring cast and characters

This section is about cast members and the characters they play appearing over multiple mediums. The Paul Bettany line feels out of place, because it concerns only the films, and would be more appropriate at the list of film actors page only. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I can see why you are saying that because of how the section is written. But the title of the section (perhaps that should be renamed?) doesn't necessitate that the section only be about actors who have played their roles in different mediums, just that section be about recurring cast members and/or recurring roles. I would say that it should stay, but spaced down a line into it's own little paragraph instead of added onto the end of the paragraph it currently is in. Bettany is a recurring cast member that has played a recurring role in multiple films and it is a notable fact that he will now be playing a second role. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

To adam, the "recurring" nature of Bettany, is that he has portrayed the two roles. Maybe it should be on the film page too, but I think it is worth noting here as well. Also, to Anon, we should avoid single paragraphs per the MOS, so that is why it is amended to the previous paragraph. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Favre, you always remove content from this page that concerns only the films, or only the tv shows, etc. and that is what this is. If you add this info here, you are stating that any notable fact about casting in any MCU product could go here, and i would argue that certain recastings are just as notable as this fact. I feel that we have to remain consistent with what info we put where, especially if we are going to deal with any others who add these things as they would. I think you should reconsider, and maybe get some other opinions, because, though I agree it is quite notable, it really, logically, cannot go on this page.

Also, I know the MOS suggests against having single sentence paragraphs, but it is not an outright rule, and proper English (and logic) dictates that a new subject requires a new paragraph. Tacking on to the end of the previous paragraph, which is in itself just an extension of the paragraph before it, doesn't make sense, adds confusion for the reader, and almost hides the information from anyone not interested in reading about every cast member/character who has crossed mediums, but still looking for info. If the MOS outright said that single sentence paragraphs were prohibited on Wikipedia, then what you have done would be fine, but it doesn't, and I'm sure at some point at school you have written something which has required paragraphing, and you would have started a new paragraph with a new subject. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I was looking at it from the fact that the actor was used recurringly, not just because they are only in the films (which happens to be the case). Recastings would not fit in this, because the actors have not been recurring. The intent of the section was to highlight the characters that have appeared across multiple film franchises as well as mediums. Until this point, these characters have all been portrayed by one actor or actress. I do feel it is notable to highlight the recurring nature, to state that Bettany has been multiple characters in the universe. That is using a recurring actor or the "cast" opposed to the recurring "character". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If we are going to keep it, it really should be its own paragraph, for all of the reasons I stated above. The MOS states "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text". The article is clearly of a high quality already, and does not contain many, if any, single sentence paragraphs, so adding one for the sake of good English and to improve the section, should be permitted. There is always the chance that it will be expanded or rewritten in some way further down the road anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I'm fine with that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I question your addition of Laura Haddock. I didn't want to remove it yet, but I feel that her role in Cap is insignificant and should not be mentioned. We should limit that info to any big character roles featuring a recurring actor. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of the new version of the paragraph? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should include it. Another way to look at it (at least I am), is her role in GotG is actually a character, while her Cap role wasn't. I know IMDB isn't reliable, but they list her as "Autograph Seeker" for Cap, which isn't really a "role" or "character" per se. So I don't feel it is notable enough to be mentioned here. It also has not got the notable coverage that Bettany has. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Do you think that this info should be in the lead of List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors as well? If so, should Haddock be mentioned there? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That lead is getting very big. I think we should start a discussion there about removing some from the lead, and making a section before the table. So I say for now, remove from here, and hold off on Haddock and Bettany both on the film actor page, per the outcome of said potential discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I recently added some info about characters appearing in comics to the recurring cast and characters section, but it was removed, with WP:WEIGHT cited. Previously it had been discussed giving comic-appearances the same weight as other appearances in the MCU, but ultimately consensus was against it. Therefore, I looked for alternative ways to present this info without giving it undue weight, and realised that a paragraph or two could be added here to indicate characters recurring in another medium (per the title of the section) which would pretty much negate the need to add the info anywhere else. It also ended up tidying up the page, as the comic book section was no longer divided from the other sections (which doesn't really make sense since it is grouped with them everywhere else on the page). If the consensus is that the paragraphs I added need to be re-written in order to remove any applied undue weight, then that would be fine, but I do think that the info should be here, and would like to know if anyone has any thoughts? - adamstom97 (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: What if we were to add the following paragraph?

Multiple characters appeared in official tie-in comics before being introduced in feature films: Steve Rogers / Captain America and many supporting characters from Captain America: The First Avenger were first introduced to the MCU in Captain America: First Vengeance. Likewise, the Guardians of the Galaxy and many supporting characters from Guardians of the Galaxy were first introduced to the MCU in Guardians of the Galaxy Infinite Comic and Guardians of the Galaxy Prelude.

The other paragraph I initially added could be saved for a potential character section on the actual comics page. This way we are acknowledging the fact that some of the characters first appeared in the MCU outside of the films, but we aren't really giving WP:Undue weight to the comics, which I know is what you are trying to avoid.

I would also suggest that maybe we mention that the characters already described as recurring in the first two paragraphs, who have also appeared in comics, did so also. I am thinking something like this:

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has seen multiple characters appear across the films, One-Shot short films and television series, with many of the actors reprising their roles. Clark Gregg, who portrays Phil Coulson, an original character to the MCU, has appeared the most in the franchise, appearing in Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, The Avengers, two One-Shots, and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Samuel L. Jackson has also appeared frequently, portraying Nick Fury in five films, with one planned, as well as appearances on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Hayley Atwell, who portrayed Peggy Carter in Captain America: The First Avenger and Captain America: The Winter Soldier, also appeared in the One-Shot Agent Carter, and will reprise her role in the television series Agent Carter and Avengers: Age of Ultron. All three characters have also been featured in at least one official tie-in comic.

This is a very small addition to the page, and by doing so, we are not listing the comics as other appearances by the actors or anything, but are simply reinforcing the recurring nature of the characters. I really see no reason why these two edits shouldn't be made, and they would, in my opinion, improve the article. I understand your stance on this and your not wanting to give undue weight, but I don't think that's what these edits would be doing, as the comics would still barely be mentioned in a substantial article. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The comics should not be mentioned, because as stated in our previous discussion (which I cannot seem to find), a character appearing in the comic, is not the same is it being portrayed by an actor, which is a real life aspect. While the comics are set in the MCU, I think it is incorrect to view it as, say, Chris Evans' Cap appearing, because Evans' is not make any such appearance. Or, take for example, Rocket and Groot in the GotG ones. Can we consider them the same as Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel's characters? I don't think so, because those actors have no attachment to the character's appearance. Because the original source for the MCU is the comics, Marvel Comics has the liberty to use such characters, as well as a bunch of others in the tie-in comics that may never make it to a visual motion medium. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand that the character is not the same as the actor, but the character is the same as the character - when a role is recast (i.e. Howard - Cheadle) the character remains the same, even if the portrayal changes. I do remember our previous discussion (I even referenced it above), and that is why no connections are made between the comic appearances by the characters, and the actors. What these edits would illustrate is simply the recurring nature of the characters, separate from the actors, just as the info on Bettany illustrates the recurring nature of an actor, separate from the characters. I really do understand your point of view, but the info here is not making the connections that you believe they are. If I was equating the appearances of, say, Coulson, in tie-in comics, to his portrayal by Gregg, then the tie-in comics he had appeared in would be listed as additional appearances following the list of other mediums (i.e. Clark Gregg, who portrays Phil Coulson, an original character to the MCU, has appeared the most in the franchise, appearing in Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, The Avengers, two One-Shots, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., and multiple tie-in comics). This is not the case. All that is stated is that the characters have also made appearances in the tie-in comics. Likewise, the paragraph on first appearances is not a complete list, like the first two paragraphs on recurring actors/characters, but a simple acknowledgement of the fact that the character initially appeared in an official MCU tie-in comic, before appearing in a film. Perhaps this could be illustrated more with a slight re-write:

Multiple characters were introduced in official tie-in comics before being portrayed in feature films: Steve Rogers / Captain America and many supporting characters from Captain America: The First Avenger were first introduced to the MCU in Captain America: First Vengeance. Likewise, the Guardians of the Galaxy and many supporting characters from Guardians of the Galaxy were first introduced to the MCU in Guardians of the Galaxy Infinite Comic and Guardians of the Galaxy Prelude.

It is never stated that, for instance, the Chris Evans version of Steve Rogers / Captain America appeared in tie-in comics. All that is stated is that the character of Steve Rogers / Capatin America was featured in a tie-in comic before his first live-action portrayal in the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Favre, the comics are not notable (for lack of a better word) here. What is notable are the performances. You mean to tell me that Captain America appears in Captain America: First Vengeance and Thor appears in Thor: The Dark World Prelude?!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That's just childish, and completely ignores everything I have been saying. All this info says is that Coulson, Fury and Carter all appeared in at least one tie-in comic on top of their film, one-shot and tv appearances, something that is not necessarily obvious if the comic isn't named after them. Also, we would be stating the the tie-ins for The First Avenger and Guardians were released before the films, so the characters were introduced to the MCU in comics rather than films. This is a very small amount of information compared to that on the portrayals, so we aren't giving undue weight or anything, but it is still notable and relevant to this section because it concerns the recurring nature of the characters throughout the universe. Again, you guys have yet to give me a good reason for us to not add this info. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

We have given you a good reason: it's that a character's appearance in a comic is not the same as an appearance in a visual motion medium. I can't explain this, but a character appearing in the comic is not the same character that is portraying on screen. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The characters are the same. All that has changed is their portrayal - in one case, they are being portrayed by an actor, in the other they are being drawn by an artist. Clearly one form of portrayal carries a lot more weight than the other, and yes they are clearly very different from one another, but they are still appearances by the same character, and deserve at least a minor mention in a section dedicated to the recurring nature of both cast members and characters across different mediums, within the MCU. All of the information I propose adding fits the criteria for the section, follows the Wiki rules by being a fair representation, whilst avoiding giving undue weight to an admittedly less significant area of the MCU. The only issue you seem to be having, is that you believe these facts are in fact not true. You think that a comic appearance doesn't count as an appearance by the character. You think we are making something too notable when it shouldn't be. A big deal is being made out of nothing here, and the end result of this discussion won't have much of an effect on the page as a whole. The reason I am pushing for this so hard is because without the info the page will be ignoring something that can be covered in a couple of sentences. It is a simple fix that has little effect on anything else you are doing - it doesn't compromise or contradict anything else that is already there, all it is is covering a subject that otherwise isn't. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If we are to add anything, then it should be: "Additionally, characters appearing in the filmx, One-shots and television series make appearances in the tie-in comics." or something of the like. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I was just tying the info into what was already there, rather than having a completely random sentence that was pretty much common sense. Most people can probably guess that there will be characters in the tie-in comics who first appeared in the films, etc., but they might not realise that some characters appeared in the comics first. Also, if you are listing the appearances of characters in the MCU (Coulson appeared in..., Fury appeared in...etc.) Why not state the tie-in comics as well. We don't need to list the individual tie-in comics alongside them, as one tie-in comic is clearly not the same as one film, but acknowledging that all of them have appeared in all mediums in the MCU just reinforces the recurring nature that the first paragraph is trying to convey. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, I realise we are in WP:NORUSH, but I don't feel like this is an argument that we need to keep dragging on. I believe that these are edits that need to be made in order to improve the coverage of the page and therefore the quality of it. So far no one has given me a logical reason to not make the changes (and no, saying "a character appearing in the comic is not the same character that is portraying on screen" doesn't count, because it doesn't make sense), but I don't want to start an edit war, so I would rather we come to an agreement here first. I have taken all of the good advice and reasoning you have given me, both during this discussion and in previous ones, and have come up with a compromise that should really please you as it does me, but I'm afraid that your continuous denial of these edits without reason is starting to look like WP:OWN. I don't think this is as big a deal as you are making it out to be, and you have shown willingness to at least make a brief acknowledgement of the comics in this section, so I hope we can just finish this discussion as soon as possible. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sticking by what I proposed. The section is "Recurring cast and character". It is meant to highlight actors appearing multiple places, and in H. Stark's case, multiple places and multiple actors. I'm still with my stance that the character's in the comics are not the same as on screen, because an actor's characterization is not the same as one by a comic writer. An appearance by Cap in the the comic is not considered the first appearance. It's Cap:TFA, based on Evans' portrayal and characterization. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You cannot take that stance because, by that logic, Edward Norton's Bruce Banner and Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner are different characters. They are not, because they are the same. Just because they are two different interpretations of a character does not make them different characters. When Cap appears in the comics, it is the writer(s) and artist(s) interpretations of him that we see. When he appears in the movies, it is the writer(s) and Chris Evans' interpretations of him that we see. They are both appearances by the same character, within the same universe, and though the comic appearances carry a lot less weight than the film appearances, they still deserve a mention in this section, as it is notable that the comic writer's and artist(s)' interpretation of the character was introduced to us before the film writers' and Evan's interpretation was. It belongs in this section, because it is called "Recurring cast and characters", so even though the focus is on the more significant, WP:Real world aspect, the cast, the characters are still a part of it. If you want to follow the logic in that comment, then this section, as well as all others like it, should be renamed simply "Recurring cast", and every time a character is recast (Banner, Rhodes, etc.) should be separated into the the individual characters who are actually not the same, even though everybody else, both in-universe and out, believes that they are. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking back over the discussion, I feel this suggestion of yours is acceptable.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has seen multiple characters appear across the films, One-Shot short films and television series, with many of the actors reprising their roles. Clark Gregg, who portrays Phil Coulson, an original character to the MCU, has appeared the most in the franchise, appearing in Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, The Avengers, two One-Shots, and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Samuel L. Jackson has also appeared frequently, portraying Nick Fury in five films, with one planned, as well as appearances on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Hayley Atwell, who portrayed Peggy Carter in Captain America: The First Avenger and Captain America: The Winter Soldier, also appeared in the One-Shot Agent Carter, and will reprise her role in the television series Agent Carter and Avengers: Age of Ultron. All three characters, as well as others, have also been featured in the official tie-in comics.

That bit at the end works for me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Way too much comma usage in that paragraph though. Ωphois 01:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Whedon quote

I just found this [29] and was wondering if we should use it somewhere in the development section? It may already be around here somewhere, so I thought I would come here first. The passage I was thinking of specifically was:

"I read all the scripts and I give notes on everything. I’ll look at cuts when they’re ready to show me. I’ll talk to directors if they want to. I try to make myself useful without being intrusive. I’ve gotten to be a part of all of them. That’s a dream job for a kid like me."

- adamstom97 (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That may be good. I don't know if we have that Whedon is a consultant there or not. Also, since you removed all the small paragraphs, we need to reformat the development section to include the other areas. I was thinking a single sentence for each. One about the announcement of the One-shots, the release of the comics, one for the intent to develop AoS, and one for the development of the Netflix series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I will try to add this in now since I reformatted the section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey @Favre1fan93: great recent edits! It hadn't crossed my mind to split the section up like that, but it was getting a bit long, and the addition of the one-shot/comic/tv stuff and the Whedon stuff would probably have been pushing it for a single block of text. Keep up the good work! - adamstom97 (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Home media section move

Thoughts on moving this section to the List of films page? I feel like it would be more appropriate there, either above or below the "Reception" section there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, as it really only pertains to the films. If there is a DVD/Blu-ray release that includes, for example, films and tv, then it should go here, but that is unlikely. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I'll give it a few days, see if anyone objects. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Television special

Right now, the placement of this section makes no sense whatsoever. We have a section on the films set in the MCU. We have a section on the short films set in the MCU. We even have a section on comic books set in the MCU. So why then have a combined section of television series set in the MCU, and a WP:Real world television special documenting the development of the MCU? The television special should either be a subsection of the development section (which would be fitting given the subject matter of the documentary) or should be its own section on the page. I feel that this is quite a pressing matter, and would like to discuss it with anyone who has any thoughts. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be moved to television series article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it should be moved to the series article, because it is not a series. It should stay on this page because it covers the whole franchise, but I believe it should stay under the "Television" section, because it is a television special. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

True, I see your point.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the series article is for series, so this would be inappropriate there, but by that logic I would argue that the series section on this page should remain a summary of the series article, making this inappropriate there as well. I stick by my previous proposal of either moving the subsection to the development section, or making it its own section, either just above or below the reception section. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The section here just says "Television" not "Television series".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

...hence why it should stay there. If we just limited it to be a section on "Television series", then we should have moved it. But it is just "Television" to be all encompassing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It only says "Television" because the special is also in the section. Just move the subsection and rename the section "Television series". It really shouldn't be all encompassing, especially now that we are defining the other sections as just being table summaries of the main articles. Yes, you can just omit the "series" from the title and then the subsection fits in nicely, but looking at the page as a whole, the logical move is to have a "Television series" section, and a separate "Marvel Studios: Assembling a Universe" section. And if, at any point, another documentary is released, be it TV special or theatrical, then the "Marvel Studios: Assembling a Universe" section would be renamed something like "Documentaries", and then "Marvel Studios: Assembling a Universe" would become a subsection of that, along with a subsection for the new documentary. I still don't see what the issue you guys are having with this is. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Where it is really is the best place for the info on the special. The special, while documenting the development of the MCU, has no actual bearing on the MCU's development. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I see your point about the development section, but I disagree that it is in the best place. It should have its own section, either above or below the eception section, because it is not a part of the MCU, but about it. Whether you look at it from an in-universe or real world point of view, it is clearly a completely separate thing from the television series, which deserve their own section, just as the films, short films, and comic books each have their own. There "really is" no logical reason to keep this here, it just doesn't make sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This one-time television special should be less prominent not more prominent by giving it it's section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that would be much of an issue if we just stick it at the bottom of the page, especially since it is such a small section and clearly doesn't have its own article. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It is less prominent where it is, especially since Triiiple removed the heading and used the ';' coding, and fits as a subsection there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

But I stand by my point that it shouldn't really be there. I know it is less prominent as a subsection without a heading, but that doesn't mean it is in the best place it should be. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

What if we moved it into the reception section? I am thinking this because the reception section is about how the shared universe model has been received, with a subsection on critical reception, and then subsections on companies attempting to replicate that success. The TV special is really Marvel's thoughts on their own success, analysing the development process, albeit in a self-congratulating way. With a slight re-write, the Reception section could begin with a paragrph on the TV special, as indication that Marvel is happy with how they have gone so far and see their current universe as a success, then a paragraph on critical analysis, which is somewhat less positive, and so we would be getting some different views on the subject, and then we would have the Impact subsections, detailing how other studios have attempted to or are attempting to create their own shared universes. This to me actually seems like the best move to make: giving the TV special its own section would make it more prominent then you would like, and I can see how that could be an issue; it doesn't quite fit into the development section, even if we tried to re-write it to emphasise the focus on development within the special; by tacking it onto the end of the television series section (and then renaming the section "Television") we are being inconsistent within the page and creating confusion through poor logic; by integrating the section into the Reception section, we are making everyone happy (not being made more prominent, not in an illogical place) and improving the flow of the article.

I'm thinking something like this, but others could probably help re-write it to make it more appropriate if they wanted.

Marvel Studios: Assembling a Universe

On March 18, 2014, ABC aired a one-hour television special titled Marvel Studios: Assembling a Universe, which documented the history of Marvel Studios and the development of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, serving as an acknowledgement and celebration of Marvel's success. The special included exclusive interviews and behind-the-scenes footage from all of the films, One-Shots and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., and sneak peeks of Avengers: Age of Ultron, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Guardians of the Galaxy, unaired episodes of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., and Ant-Man. Brian Lowry of Variety felt the special, "contains a pretty interesting business and creative story. While it might all make sense in hindsight, there was appreciable audacity in Marvel’s plan to release five loosely connected movies from the same hero-filled world, beginning with the cinematically unproven Iron Man and culminating with superhero team The Avengers. As such, this fast-moving hour qualifies as more than just a cut-and-paste job from electronic press kits, although there’s an element of that, certainly." The special will be released on September 9, 2014 on the home media for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 1.

Critical reaction

Jim Vorel of Herald & Review called the Marvel Cinematic Universe "complicated" and "impressive" but said, "As more and more heroes get their own film adaptations, the overall universe becomes increasingly confusing." Kofi Outlaw of Screen Rant, stated that while The Avengers was a success, "Marvel Studios still has room to improve their approach to building a shared movie universe". Some reviewers criticized the fact that the desire to create a shared universe led to films that did not hold as well on their own. In his review of Thor: The Dark World, Forbes critic Scott Mendelson likened the MCU to "a glorified television series", with The Dark World being a "‘stand-alone’ episode that contains little long-range mythology." Collider's Matt Goldberg considered that while Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger were quality productions, "they have never really been their own movies", feeling that the plot detours to S.H.I.E.L.D. or lead-ups to The Avengers dragged down the films' narratives.

Impact on other studios

I hope you guys can see this as a viable option. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Agents of SHIELD season 1 dvd release date is wrong.

on the "Marvel Cinematic Universe", and the "Universe television series" pages it says the Agents of SHIELD season 1 DVD and Blu ray release date is September 14th, but the linked article says it's September 9th, and other sources say it's September 9th. Also big named movies/seasons* don't get released on Sundays.

hope this gets fixed soon.

W3moneyw3 (talk) 07:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for that catch. Don't know how it was missed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)