Talk:Black Panther (film)

Toys R Us

This link from Toys R Us contains bios for various Black Panther characters, including Killmonger's real name (Erik Stevens). Is Toys R Us a reliable source? - Richiekim (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

For what we'd want to use it for, no it wouldn't be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

But a third party source citing Toys R Us such as ComingSoon.net would be okay. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Marketing section

This sections seems overly long, I know we have to take an analytical approach here but is there anyway we can trim it down? Perhaps paraphrase some of the quotes.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree Triiiple. I know we want to be comprehensive and focus on the analysis and commentary, but that was just too much. There isn't anything about this film's marketing to justify that section frankly. I have given it a big cut down and c/e. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead section review

The lead section needs to be rewritten to move away from the mediocre approach that has been standardized across numerous comic book film articles. The more important information needs to be put upfront. These are the issues with the section:

• The actor who plays the titular character is not identified until after less important details about the corporate entities involved and what number the film is.
• The corporate entities being so upfront brushes against WP:PROMO #5, especially with the fact that this is being repeated ad nauseum across similar film articles like press releases instead of encyclopedic articles. Marvel Studios has a proper place in the production-related paragraph, and Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures can be mentioned in the release-related paragraph, due to expand shortly.
• Screenplay credits can be relegated to the production-related paragraph as well. No offense to Joe Robert Cole, but there is not as much emphasis about his involvement as with other elements. This is a general problem with film articles anyway, where editors feel compelled to put screenwriters, regardless of emphasis in reliable sourcing, so upfront in the lead section, even ahead of more noteworthy elements and figures. (The directing credit can be kept upfront, based on the relative emphasis placed on Coogler's role.)
• Identifying this as "the eighteenth film" is borderline meaningless. It should instead mention that it comes after Thor: Ragnarok (both in terms of story and release) and that it is the second appearance of Black Panther following his first appearance in Captain America: Civil War. (Yes, this is mentioned later, but it is too buried in production details when it needs to be background for the stand-alone film.)

I know that Deathawk has their own qualms about the production-related paragraph in the lead section. Generally speaking, I don't mind the stating of years to show how long it took for this film to finally be produced. There are a lot of ways one can summarize the production, and we do need to emphasize the more important aspects of it. I do agree that specifying "additional cast members" coming on board is unnecessary. In addition, a couple of unnecessary or inconclusive details may be the mention of Paramount and Mark Bailey, neither who are involved with the final product. There is no indication of switching from them to the new distributor and screenwriters, respectively. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Erik, that may be your opinion, but we don't edit based on opinions. You have just listed information that you personally don't think is as important as it is being presented, but we need to be objective here. The most important players in a film are the director, writers, and producer, not the actors, even if they tend to be the widely popular ones. And it is just a fact with these films that their connection to the MCU is one of the most significant aspects of them as far as sources and the public are concerned, and these films being made by Marvel Studios is more widely notable than who is writing or directing them. I do not advocate this structure for all articles, but it is entirely appropriate for these ones. Also, we should not be mentioning other films like Ragnarok in the first paragraph of the lead, as if they are one of the most important parts of the article, when they have nothing to do with this specific film. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not see much of an issue with the first paragraph. I agree with Adamstorm that calling it "the eighteenth film" in the series is important, just as we would do for any entry in a long running series.

Where I have a problem though is in the second paragraph, where like many other Marvel films, the details of the production sections are inappropriately parroted into the lead. While it's true that key points should be summarized there, what's going on here isn't a traditional summary at all. Listing out when the film was announced, when writers were hired, when the leads were hired and when other actors were announced to of joined, is not summary material. Instead the summary should lay out a general time frame of when things started to happen, but leave the more specific elements for the production section. --Deathawk (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Specifics can and should be given in a summary. The point is that we are only giving key specifics, plus some less specific info to tie it together, giving us a short paragraph that covers the majority of the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The thing is that this is contray to how most articles are worded in the lead, while they do give some specifics, they only give the most basic, the problem with the majority of these MCU articles is that the lead condenses down all the info, inappropriately. Look at Forrest Gump and Toy Story for example the leades properly summarize the most important aspect of the production but do not list every milestone like the MCU ones do. --Deathawk (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I see no problem here. The only difference is that the production sections of the article's that you listed are far less comprehensive than this one and MCU articles in general and in turn the lead sections are less informative as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I am also in agreement with Adam and Triiiple. I also don't see the point that this lead is "too specific". We are giving the general stepping stones following the development process of the film. I agree with Triiiple regarding using Forrest Gump and Toy Story to compare against these leads. It's apples to oranges. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I just don't think the material is summarized properly. Now when I say that I do not mean that everything there isn't in summary form, but I feel like an excessive number of details are summarized. It feels like someone went through the article and took all the production developments, wrote a summary for each of them and then placed all those summaries in the opening paragraph, when what we should be doing is scanning the article for the most important details and then putting those elements in the lead.. For instance there isn't really a reason why we need to know that casting for other roles started in May 2016. Readers understand that casting most likely happened between the casting of the main character and filming starting, where if they want further details they can go to the production section. --Deathawk (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Can the editors who work very closely to these topics and are deeply familiar with it please step back for a moment? We have to remember to write Wikipedia articles so that a reader not familiar with this film can be properly introduced to the topic, on each page. For example, this identifies who is playing Black Panther right away. We also need to indicate that it is Marvel's first black superhero film since that is a first that has been stated by sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I don't have a problem with placing Boseman in the opening sentence or mentioning this is BP's first standalone film. But we don't need to call out his second MCU appearance, especially since his first is already mentioned in the second paragraph. Also we don't need to call out the films directly preceding and following it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Erik: I'm going to have to agree with you on this one. Not even specifically with your proposed lead changes (though I tend to agree with those too), but with the irritating adherence to a consistency across all of these articles with no wiggle room. As a small test to see the reaction, I removed the ampersand between McFeely and Markus on here on the Production of Avengers: Infinity War and the untitled Avengers sequel article. I was reverted as, per Adamstom.97, "& means something specific in terms of writing credits." I know this, as I'm sure many of us in the film project do. However, the people who don't know this information are pretty much everyone who reads these articles. No one knows that an ampersand indicates direct collaboration, while "and" indicates separate work. If someone were to see "Ant-Man is written by Edgar Wright & Joe Cornish and Adam McKay & Paul Rudd" they'd think we've lost our minds. It's not currently written that way, but it has been, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it return to that. Yet since, at some point, someone(s) involved with MCU films decided that ampersands should be used for "clarity", I can't make an edit that adheres to basic grammar without being reverted within hours. I hate to bring up WP:OWN, but I'm going to. I think this enforcement of uniformity is kissing the edge of it, and gets considerably closer to fully crossing that line with every discussion about these films. This isn't a personal thing, I like all of you folk, but it is an editorial issue that I don't think has been addressed directly enough. Sock (tock talk) 20:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I know you mean well Sock, but it is very unfair to accuse us of WP:OWN for doing something that has been discussed previously and agreed upon through consensus. You thinking that you should be able to make "an edit that adheres to basic grammar without being reverted" even though it goes against established consensus that you are aware of is closer to OWNy behaviour than me reverting an edit because it had already been discussed. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I need to take some steps back, I'm sorry. I've been getting unnecessarily riled over things lately and I'm not sure why. I take back the OWN comment completely. I should also note that I was not aware that the "&" writing was established consensus (edit: there's a chance I did at a time, but I've been pretty inactive for awhile now and many of the discussions here from the last few years have mushed together), that was me making a safe assumption after the edit was swiftly reverted that I must have poked something I didn't know about. Again, I sincerely apologize for the tone I keep taking, it's not in line with my usual behaviour on here at all. I stick by the fact that there's a noticeable disconnect between those actively involved with this project (yourself, Favre, TriiipleThreat, etc) and those more separated from it (myself, Erik, Deathawk, etc). I don't mean to break us into opposing teams or anything, this obviously isn't a fight over "who's right", just seems worth noting. I feel like we need to broaden this discussion a bit more, since most of us here seem to be stuck in our respective opinions.

Also I really can't apologize for that OWN comment enough, that was out of line. Sock (tock talk) 14:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

While I personally do not agree with Sock, it should be noted that this marks the third distinct complaint about the lead. Realisticly that should not happen, at least not in the succession order that it does. I'm not saying that any side is right, but there appears to be a distinct disagreement going on here about MCU lead sections. --Deathawk (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I will attempt to explain my revert of Erik's changes and I am trying my very best to view this as someone removed from large contributions to this and the other MCU articles. Looking at Erik's edit, I will say I am not completely against noting Boseman in the opening sentence, though I don't see the need when we will need to mention it again one-two sentences (depending on ultimate structure/formatting) later. I also do not see the benefit to removing the Marvel Studios and Walt Disney Pictures info from the opening line and moving it to the locations Erik did. After that, I agree with Triiiple that the other stats Erik added regarding the number film in the MCU series are either excessive (the placement with films before and after it) or covered later in the lead info (second appearance of the character). Yes this is part of a larger MCU narrative, but Black Panther is not necessarily connected to Thor: Ragnarok or Infinity War so why make the mention? To some other points, specifically those from Sock. I do agree with you regarding the '&' removal, and as of late, wording updates have been done to better convey when writers are a team (see the lead of Spider-Man: Homecoming). Also, a reminder that these articles are all part of a Good Topic. And per WP:GT? "Recommendations" bullet #2, The structure of the articles is similar, with the same section titles and order where possible. I feel that, while yes there has been a desire to keep lead information and formatting similar, it has been crafted in a way thus far that allows wiggle room across each article, but the same underlying structure. I welcome the discussion to see how we can improve the leads for these articles, if we are inherently misleading, confusing, or not getting info accurately and concisely to readers, or a slight rearrangement of info, but I feel that is currently being done accurately. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I also agree that we try to have wiggle room, but a lot of these changes are not necessarily for the best. I know it may seem like there is some stuff that should be the most important information, but not everything can be. For instance, I am on the same page as Favre when it comes to Boseman. Ignoring the fact that he just isn't the most important thing about this film, it doesn't make sense to mention him multiple times in the lead when we don't have to since we are trying to write a concise summary of the article. That is why we try to have logical groupings of things together.

As is made very clear by the majority response to these films in the public, the most significant thing about MCU films is the fact that they are in the MCU, and that is why mention of Marvel Studios and the MCU is given priority. If it was just a footnote ('oh hey, this also happens to be set in the same universe as the Avengers!') then placing this info further down would be fine, but that is just not the case. Still, that doesn't mean we should be mentioning other MCU films in the lead just for the sake of it. The most logical film to mention is Civil War, since that is where Boseman was introduced, and we do that, but if fans wan't to know where this film comes in the order of the MCU then they can just follow the link to the list of films. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Include Black Panther Challenge in article?

Should the Black Panther Challenge be added in the release section of this article? Seems to have gotten a lot of media attention [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] . - Brojam (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it can be added. I'll try looking over the sources tomorrow to write something up if no one else gets to it first. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

On set reports

Looks like the press embargo is over and on set articles are up. They have some new info on characters like Shuri, Nakia and Ross. This article from Collider is a good place to start. - Richiekim (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Black Panther now projected to open at $133M (all-time February opening weekend record)

Box Office Pro now predicts Black Panther to open to $133M in its 3-day opening weekend and $371M final domestic cume: http://pro.boxoffice.com/long-range-forecast-pacific-rim-uprising-sherlock-gnomes-midnight-sun/