Talk:Cloak & Dagger (TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


It seems noteworthy that both the primary and secondary sources use an ampersand instead of the word "and" in the title, as in "Marvel's Cloak & Dagger". See Marvel's series announcement, Marvel's casting announcement, Deadline, Entertainment Weekly, LA Times, Collider, etc. - DinoSlider (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The original announcement from Variety and the press info at The Futon Critic both used 'and'. But it does seem, from Marvel's original announcement and the sources used to discuss the casting that '&' might be the correct one to use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Freeform's site uses both, as does the official twitter, but it looks like it was originally "and" (original announcement, Futon, Twitter handle, etc.) and has been changed to "&" (new releases and reports). - adamstom97 (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Ampersands are not allowed in a twitter handle, so that was never an option. Likely the original comic, which used the word "and", added to the confusion. At the very least, it is something to watch for. - DinoSlider (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
As more news and press releases come out, we can see if it is definitely the ampersand, and we can make the move if necessary, either before or after it gets in the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

February 13, 2017 Filming Date[edit]

According to My Entertainment World, Marvel's Cloak and Dagger (working title: Shadows) has a shoot date on February 13, 2017. --FBISD (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Good to know, but I don't believe that site is a reliable one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
According to this, "Gov. John Bel Edwards and Louisiana Economic Development announced today that Marvel has begun production on a new television series – Marvel’s Cloak & Dagger – in Louisiana for the Freeform network." - DinoSlider (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Cool. I'm going to move it into the mainspace then. Will also be bold and move it to "Cloak & Dagger (TV series)" since that seems to be what the title is through all the recent release announcements. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The request to move has been made, as the ampersand title already existed in the mainspace and needs to be deleted to make way for the draft. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Resume Filming?[edit]

Does anyone have any information regarding when they plan to resume filming the show that we can add to the article? -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Nothing has come out. But we also don't really need anything else (except maybe a full wrap source), because as it stands now, the series began filming on February 8, the pilot wrapped on February 24, and the series then continued filming (and would then, today, presumably still be filming). And be careful with post like this, as it is close to being forum-y. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Our existing source(s) state an 86 day local shoot, but as soon as the pilot finished shooting, Olivia Holt has been on a cross-county promotional tour for her music. As you said we probably don't need to add anything more regardless, but of course it wouldn't hurt to have some more up to date info if it existed. I'll keep an eye out too. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Many new shows, even with full season commitments, fully finish the pilot and solicit opinions before continuing with the production of the season. Much of that was due to the network timetable, which may not apply in this case. However, the Freeform upfront is about a week away (April 19), so they may present the pilot there and we may get more info then. If nothing else, that is a day to keep an eye out for. - DinoSlider (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

First Trailer[edit]

FYI: The first trailer for the show has been released. Is that worth mentioning in the article? Also there is a new logo at the end that the article should probably be updated with. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the TV section has a policy, but using WP:FILMMARKETING as a guide, we usually wait for some commentary about the trailer. - DinoSlider (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
The TV project doesn't have a policy, but we can be slightly looser in following WP:FILMMARKETING. Given it was released at the Upfront presentation, that is a good start. Commentary is a plus, since most of the time, TV series do not have commentary for their trailers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Starring cast[edit]

Based on the sources, it looks like James Saito may not be in a starring role. In the Marvel source where he was announced, the phrasing was "Freeform and Marvel today announced six new series regulars for its highly anticipated series ..." In the new Deadline source that says "In addition to Holt and Joseph, Marvel’s Cloak & Dagger stars ...", he is not listed, but Emma Lahana and Jaime Zevallos are. This case looks similar to the Inhumans where Sonya Balmores and Mike Moh were announced in the initial casting announcement, but were ultimately not in the starring cast. - DinoSlider (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that could be the case. I'm going to move Saito to "Guest" heading for the time being. Obviously this will potentially all change again when the opening credits are seen. But for now, we should go with the most recent source, which is the Deadline one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Episodes titles 1-4[edit]

I think we could add titles [1]? Mike210381 (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- AlexTW 22:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Showing in canada ![edit]

ABC Spark/showcase, Show Times --Brownshoes22 (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you telling us, or asking a question? If you are telling us then we know - it is already in the article. If you are asking for "Show Times", then WP:NOTFORUM. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Cast order for the leads[edit]

Wanted to discuss who is credited first: Joseph or Holt? Both are shown on the screen at the same time, with Holt on the bottom left, and Joseph on the top right. Given the other locations for credits, I found it could go either way. Do we look left to right, making Holt first? Or do we look top to bottom, making Joseph first? All previous material had Holt credited first, for context. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

In the past, with other shows, I believe this is either handled "left-to-right" or alphabetically. This has definitely come up before – e.g. I believe both Best Friends Whenever and Bizaardvark have the same "co-leads credits" issue. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Left-to-right makes sense for me, and lines up with our pre-release sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Cool. Just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page. Maybe as we progress in the season, depending on what the image is when the credits starts, they may adjust it and swap the vertical positions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Guest cast section[edit]

As this will be in flux throughout the season, we should limit who is included to the following: Guest-credited actors appearing in 2-3 episodes, noteworthy cameo appearances, and noteworthy co-starring credited actors. This will help keep the section manageable as each episode is released and we can evaluate again once the season has completed. You are also welcome to follow along with who has been credited in which episode, as I will be updating such credits in my sandbox, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


"still alive and with some kind of new abilities and glowing green eyes." - the next season is advertised as "Mayhem", which is a nickname for Brigid O'Reilly on the Marvel Comics universe- and between all these I think we have a strong hint that Detective O'Reilly is set to become the "Mayhem" of the MCU. (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Rands and Starks, not Tony or Danny[edit]

In episode 10, Roxxon executive Scarborough mentions the search for more power and describes it as Keeping up with the Joneses, and the Starks and the Rands. 

In the context of the episode it is clear he is comparing Roxxon to Stark Industries and Rand Industries. The reference is indirect does not have anything specifically to do with the characters Tony Stark or Danny Rand, and it is misleading to present it that way. (Stark Industries is a lot more more than Tony Stark, and Rand Industries has very little to do with Danny Rand.) I've made good faith efforts suggesting alternative wordings to improve the misleading text but other editors aren't accepting any of the alternatives I've tried to present. Perhaps other editors haven't seen the episode and are working purely based on the interview but in the show itself Scarborough only makes indirect references to Starks and Rands, and does not mention Tony or Danny and it is misleading to take a one line references and make it seem like far more than it is. Maybe you don't see it as a problem but I do and I had hoped my changes would be seen as good faith effort to improve the article and that there would at least be some rephrasing. It doesn't have to be any of the specific rephrasings I suggested but please at least try a different wording. -- (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The wording in the episode is vague, and only "clear" to you because of personal interpretation. The interview is actually clear. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The wording of the episode is indirect, the interview is even more indirect, and even less representative of what actually is shown. You admit vagueness in the episode but that's not an excuse for an encyclopedia to not try harder and be as clear as possible. I understand the tendency of Wikipedia to follow wikitruth and repeat the sources even if they are vague and unreliable but the episode is the newer better source and there is no need to mislead readers even if the showrunner was vague and trying to avoid spoilers before the episode was aired. Ultimately this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and we can do better and use the episode the best source. -- (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Did you read the same interview as me? The one cited in the article is very clear, and is not trying to be vague to avoid spoilers. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Romantic relationship?[edit]

First line of second paragraph of the introduction reads "...two teenagers who acquire superpowers and form a romantic relationship", but at least on the TV series, up until now, they don't form any type of a romantic relationship, Tyrone even has a girlfriend up until the end. Varum1 (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It’s sourced in the body of the article. Also the series isn’t completed yet. At this point they’re still just getting to know each other and their powers.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


Hi, TriiipleThreat. You do know that there is no romantic relationship at all? They even never saw each other in that way, any of them. Did you see the series? Thank you. IKhitron (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, forget it. I wanted to use this article in Translation Tool, saw a mistake and wanted to fix. Now I see, unfortunately, that at least a half of the article has no connection to the series. I'll use the Russion version, it hasn't such problems. Thank you. IKhitron (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
@IKhitron: Again, the information is sourced in the article and the show is not yet completed. The showrunner has stated the he did not want to rush the romance in the first season and hopes to develop it as the series progresses. This is elaborated further at Cloak & Dagger (season 1).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Do you mean it is not a description of the actual series, but of what the series can be? IKhitron (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
That's just the nature of episodic storytelling, there's more to come. It would be like cutting off a movie after the first act.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
It was a yes or a no? IKhitron (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Are you asking a question? As has already been pointed out, the showrunner intends to develop the relationship over the course of the whole series not just the part that you have seen. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
This is not what I asked. IKhitron (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Well why don't try asking again with a little less attitude? - adamstom97 (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
What attitude??? I asked "Do you mean it is not a description of the actual series, but of what the series can be?" IKhitron (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
The showrunner intends to develop the relationship over the course of the whole series not just the part that you have seen. That's the answer. If the series was not renewed, "romantic relationship" would not be correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Once again, it's not a question I asked. Not even close. My question did not talk about romantic relationship or this article at all. IKhitron (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Then I don't know what you're asking. I'm reading all of your questions in relation to your very first You do know that there is no romantic relationship at all? and all of our responses have been in relation to that question. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
It's because I've got very bad English. My question does not continue my previous words you cited and is not related to them. It's exactly what it sais, as a straight responce to TriiipleThreat's answer. I'll try to rephrase, maybe it will be better, and from both you could understand. Does a typical article about TV series in enwiki describe (1) a plot of this series as it happens on the screen; or (2) a plot of this series as it happens on the screen and a possible plot that can happen somewhen in this series, continuing the current one? IKhitron (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying your meaning. I understand now. Yes, on the English Wikipedia, editors are encouraged to describe the plot elements of each episode as they air/are released. In a situation like this, where the series has been renewed (so we know more episodes are coming), the small statement included in the lead can be forward looking to potential events ie the romantic relationship. That wording was included in the source giving us the synopsis for the first season, so editors aren't using wishful thinking, but the info directly sourced from the synopsis. I hope that has answered your question. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────It is. Thank you. Second question: Can I see this synopsis, please? IKhitron (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The first ref in the article, and the tag used to source the entire text in the "Premise" section. This. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Third question. Is it possible that the writers' plans were changed in the two years until the series started, and it can be proved by the fact that Tyron has another girlfriend? IKhitron (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Possibly, but as we've all been stated, this is looking at the whole series and what it can lead to. Plus, the last episode goes a long way to forging the romance, and the showrunner has stated that is ultimately the end goal, with the first season establishing each individually and bringing them together to forge the relationship in season 2. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Very well. Thank you. Question #4. Is there another place in this article, were I can find an actual plot? IKhitron (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Pokaski latest comments on the issue were from July 2018 just before the end of season one.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I did not say I do not believe it will happen. I asked if there is a plot from the screen. IKhitron (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
A more in-depth summary of the plot can be found at the first season-specific article, Cloak & Dagger (season 1). - adamstom97 (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I can't found it there. Only summaries for every episode. So it is too long for anyone that wants to know what the series is about, and fool of spoilers. IKhitron (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
For a shorter overview of the whole series, see the premise section here. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
(-: Reminder: The premise section exceeds the plot of what happens on the screen, so it does not help, just confusing the readers. But I get an answer, there is no series plot in any place. So, question #5: can you, please, add just after the romantic relationship something like "(did not happened until now)", so the reader could recognize the very actual plot? Thank you. IKhitron (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
It is the actual plot, because the series is not finished yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
And to be serious? IKhitron (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────I'm not sure what you mean by that. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

It was a cynical answer of yours. Now I asked for the real one. Thank you. IKhitron (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
This is just going in circles now. You have been told what the situation is and being obstinate isn't going to change it. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, if instead of answers, I get insaults, it can't be a cultural discussion. It was exactly the thing I was affraid of - enwiki as editor oriented wiki, in place of reader oriented. Does not matter that the reader can't find such important information. Thank you very much for the time you spent on my questions. IKhitron (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

MCU tie-ins[edit]

Favre1fan93 Why do you have a problem with this section? are the refs incorrect? Is the info incorrect? why cut this down? The edit 'reason' you gave is frankly cryptic and nonsensical.

Dava4444 (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

If you are referring to this edit then Favre's reasoning was quite clear. You (I assume) tried to duplicate content from the season article to this one, but the whole point of making the season article was to give the season-specific content its own article. We therefore should not duplicate it back here unless we actually need to. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Buried in the season 1 description, where I would never think to look for it, oh I found it now. Then shouldn't it be more prominent? It makes more sense for it to be part of the main MCU page. I tried to duplicate nothing, read my edit here afaik i was the first to add these ref and text, if someone had done this before I was unaware. Dava4444 (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, you were talking about a separate issue. But my response is the same: that is season one info, and it is detailed at the season one page. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Summary tables[edit]

@YoungForever: Can you please discuss here why you want to change the established summary table format? This format has stood as the consensus version since this page (in its current form) was put together, and is based on the format used in the wider topic of the Marvel Cinematic Universe so is also well established in a large number of other similar articles. That does not mean that there are not improvements to be made, but they should be discussed and agreed upon first. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I saw this little issue on the page history, and in fairness combined Nielsen/Critic tables are rarely used on television pages so its an easy mistake for anyone to make. It's a little unreasonable to expect someone to also know that this format is used on other Marvel movie pages, as some of us are television exclusive editors. Esuka (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Esuka: I am only talking about television articles here. This format has nothing to do with movies. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Adamstom.97: I was not aware that the combined Nielsen/Critic tables format is exclusively use in Marvel Cinematic Universe TV series articles in which you claimed it to be. For most TV series that have the tables (only ones that have the tables), they are separate from another for accessibility and not to confused the readers. I checked the Marvel Cinematic Universe, most are not in the combined format. In fact, most keep a separate Critics table from joining a different table or don't even have a table. — YoungForever(talk) 18:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Exactly, I'm only aware of two television pages that use the combined Nielsen/Critic format, the other being Legion (TV series). Esuka (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
This format is used in a few articles, including Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Agent Carter (TV series). The idea behind it is to summarise the entire Release and Reception sections in simple tables with easy links to those sections at the season articles, as it helps the readers find all the information they need from this overview-style article to the more detailed season articles. The format is technically used in all the Marvel-Netflix series, such as Daredevil (TV series), but looks a little different there since there is no ratings information to include in the table. But since there is here, there is no need to make this change. If there is a change that you think should be made, for instance a column that you think should be removed or some available data that could be added, then I am happy to discuss those suggestions with you here. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Adamstom.97: The Rank should be remove because there is no info (as in reliable sources) on TV series with under a million viewers (editors can't really rank themselves as there is no guidelines for this). — YoungForever(talk) 20:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
That makes sense, there is no point having empty columns in the table permanently (that is why the format was altered for the Netflix shows, since they were always going to have empty spots for the ratings info so we had to cut that all out). Even without those columns, there is still plenty of information to justify having the full summary table as it is I think. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Adamstom.97:The rank has been removed by another editor already. — YoungForever(talk) 21:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
So, are you happy with the data presented currently or is there more to discuss? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Adamstom.97: The DVD and Blu-ray release dates table is pretty empty I suggest that it should be hidden until at least until a region have a DVD/Blu-ray release date. — YoungForever(talk) 22:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)