Talk:Thor: The Dark World/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

While Loki has a part, "...there will be a different villain, another big villain

Does Loki try to remove the red ink from his ledger?108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC).

Zachary Levi as Fandral

Zachary Levi announced on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno on July 10th that he will be Fandral in the movie. I don't have a link of the clip, but him confirming it on television should be enough to confirm that he is in the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.169.105 (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Cites by actor's names

Could we move all the references by the actor's names to a different location? I think it looks tacky with them all referenced like that, plus you hardly see that on other pages for the cast. Just wondering. Xpinkxcasualtyx (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No. People like to think they are clever or funny by adding incorrect information about a film in production where things are less easily verified, sourcing that information directly helps stop that and/or make it quickly verifiable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
You could incorporate the base descriptions of the characters from the Thor article to space them out from the references, but it's not uncommon for this to be the case. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Why Make the Girl Second

Why are you people always make the female character second? Don't you think it's time to stop? What is making you people do that?Mark (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Misogyny aside, credits are per order by the filmmakers. In this case since the credits have not been released yet, we are mirroring the order of the first film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well don't! It is time trhat the order should at least be different than the first.Mark (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

That is easily the worst argument I've ever heard for anything ever. Knock off your POV reorganising of cast lists. You know absolutely nothing about the brand new character that was announced just yesterday so placing him number 2? Pass. Its the 3rd time now, Triplethreat has undone it, I've undone it. Do it again and you'll be violating 3RR and it should probably be considered vandalism since you're doing it against all established guidelines with an established personal bent. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The Dark World

What is The Dark World?

173.57.39.131 (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Anonymous

Considering the villain will be a dark elf, it's probably Svartalfheim (literally "black elf home/world"). --46.9.14.252 (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Tadanobu Asano

i recognize that we don't have any interviews with him specifically saying he is back. However, at comic-con, Kevin Feige said "The entire cast is returning... we have one new cast member joining us, that we've announced, Zach Levi's taking over the role of Fandral" and Asano just tweeted a picture of himself at Shepperton Studios, where the movie is gearing up to film. Is it reasonable to add him to the cast list? -Fandraltastic (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

We can wait. Though it seems obvious that he is back it needs to be explicitly verified. Feige's comments are too broad and Levi's tweet could theoretically mean anything. I have no doubt this will be confirmed, until then we just have to be patient.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
This article from the Los Angeles Times states that he is returning.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Its been several weeks with no contest, so I went ahead and added it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Bourne Wood

BabelStone made a great contribution to the article, referencing a production notice. Darkwarriorblake and I, previously saw this and decided to wait for more explicit verification stating "Thursday Morning" is Thor 2, despite the obvious similarities, before adding it to the article. However is this a case where it might be better to invoke WP:IAR?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If it helps, this source just flat out makes that assertion and gives research reasons for why its the case, such as Thursday being apparently named for Thor. Link Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I think intuition and especially the CBR article's assertions make it reasonable to add the info back. However that image is way too big, haha. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
If everyone is okay with it, I don't have a problem with re-adding it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove "(formerly titled Thor 2)"

Hi. I think that the "(formerly titled Thor 2)" part of the first paragraph of the lead section should be removed since Thor 2 was the film's working title. Does anyone agree? Hadger 02:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, its still regularly called that in the media. Maybe change it to "also known as".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with removing it. Some media outlets might still use the name, but only informally. Thor 2 redirecting here is surely enough. It was never an official title, but having it in the opening inaccurately implies it is. For comparison Untitled Star Trek sequel does not use Star Trek 2 anywhere on the page despite being called that more often than not in the media. ---DocNox (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Formely titled, might be outdated but as I said "also know as" fits because it is still used in the article and more importantly is still commonly used in the vernacular.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The media often uses shortened informal titles when writing headlines, but we usually don't add them in article openings unless the film's marketing uses the name as well. And sometimes not even then. I just think this is setting a bad precedent. Redirects can take care of all the alternate or working titles, while the article's opening should reflect only what's official. And Thor 2 is only used in the article body at times when the official title wasn't known. Most of them could probably be changed to "the Thor sequel" when not direct quotes. --DocNox (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The use of official names, is actually frowned upon, when it is not also the common name. And seeing how Thor 2 is still so commonly used in the media and in passing, it should at least be noted in the lead. Keeping in mind, readers first so they know what the sources are talking about.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Except Thor: The Dark World surely is the more common name at this point. I did a google search and it got almost twice as many hits as Thor 2. Thor 2 might be used often in media headlines, but I doubt it's ever used in the body of those articles. And really the only reason Thor 2 is used so often in this article is because the page was created long before the title was announced, long before filming started (has it even started yet?), and just long before it should have actually existed. Again, I think Thor 2 being a redirect is enough. Anyone searching for it will find this page no problem. Or will we start adding every common alternate title to film page openings? Again, I think bad precedent. --DocNox (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Searching is one thing but when a filmmaker, actor or other reliable source directly refer to it as Thor 2, I feel it's our responsibility to let make the sure the readers know what they are talking about. Also I'm not concerned about precedent, as we should not worry about other stuff and judge everything on a case by case basis. But if others agree, so be it.--01:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we have to worry about people understanding what they're talking about. Everyone understands that a 2 means sequel in this context and we already say the film is the sequel in the lead. I just don't feel like essentially restating that is necessary, but I've already made my case. How do you feel about changing Thor 2 in the body of the article? --DocNox (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not in direct quotes but I also feel using the full official name in every instance can become clumsy.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually I don't think we should used the official name before it is introduced, or that might also be confusing and make that statement less significant.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No, not in direct quotes. But I think "the Thor sequel", "the sequel", and even just "the film" could be used in most of the cases. Also if we're not going to remove it, I do agree that "also known as" is better than what's used now. --DocNox (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead changed it to "also known as", you can change the "Thor 2" wording as you see fit per this discussion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Cast puffery

I edited the "cast" section to cut out the press release waffle, but as I should have expected, it was reverted immediately. If anyone thinks that stuff like "I still felt very privileged to play him. It felt quite groundbreaking to be a part of that" is worth space in anything except some fan magazine, I give up. Barsoomian (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the reverter and none of which was removed was from a press release. Per WP:FILMCAST, "background information about the cast and crew should be provided... to describe the casting and staffing decisions made, as well as discussing the reasons behind some of the cast decisions, the thoughts of the actors themselves about their roles, and some brief explorations of their careers before and after the film, e.g.". What you describe relates directly to Elba's career before the film and his decision to return to the sequel.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't matter if it was sourced from a press release or not. The point is that it's just the usual upbeat waffle that people associated with a movie always say to promote an upcoming movie. Give me a break. Elba is a serious actor, he's had some acclaimed roles, he was Stringer Bell for God's sake, and he feels "privileged" to play a cartoon doorman? He feels "privileged" to earn a few million dollars, and spouting this crap is one way he earns it. Wikipedia shouldn't be part of the publicity machine and publish this fake news that tells us nothing about the film or the actor. Barsoomian (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
No but Wikipedia does have actual policy against interjecting your own personal point of view about his opinion, the film or the role, we can only take him at his word. Besides this being a sequel, his thoughts on the first film and transition to this one is 1000x more relevant than any other role unless he makes the connection himself.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
You could fill up every film article with similar "sincere" quotes from actors and production staff telling you how wonderful their next film is. It tells me nothing about the movie or the actor. It's just trying to make it sound wonderful without giving any facts. And I did not "interject" anything at all in the article, so what the hell are you accusing me of? Using my editorial judgement in a way that conflicts with your own point of view?Barsoomian (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
The "privileged" comment was apart of a much larger quote about how this role is different from his role in the first film, which is very relevant. Perhaps the last bit could have been trimmed but your first reaction was to throw the baby out with the bathwater out of some sense of WP:I don't like it as evident by you choosing to disparage the role as a "cartoon doorman".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section has this big paragraph in it:

"Development of Thor: The Dark World began in April 2011 before the release of Thor, after producer Kevin Feige announced plans for a sequel following the crossover film The Avengers. In July 2011, Kenneth Branagh, the director of Thor, withdrew from the project. Brian Kirk and Patty Jenkins were considered to direct the film before Taylor was hired in January 2012. The supporting cast was filled out in August 2012, with the hiring of Eccleston, Dennings and Akinnuoye-Agbaje. Principal photography began in September 2012 in Surrey, England with filming continuing in London, Stonehenge and Iceland. Thor: The Dark World is scheduled to be released on November 8, 2013."

is this whole thing necessary for a lead? i know the lead is supposed to summarize what all is in the article but if by not removing it, could we at least shorten it considerably? Lady Lotus (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Filming wrap

Alexander only said that her part was done on December 14, not that the entire film had wrapped. Hemsworth said that they had six weeks left as of late November. Do we have a better source for the wrap date? Thanks. -Fandraltastic (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If you find one sure, but to be clear Alexander didn't say it was just her part either.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Despite Paramount ending their deal with Disney/Marvel after Iron Man 3 for having the Paramount logo instead of any Disney logo in the film, the films' promotions and marketing. The Marvel Studios logo appears in the poster Thor: The Dark World instead of any Disney logo. Should we put a footnote explaining that like in The Avengers and Iron Man 3? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.153.156 (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Not unless the explanation comes from a reliable source.--14:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Even with a source it's a bunch of minutia and not necessary to include it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
True, the exclusion of a logo is different from the inclusion of logo that doesn't belong.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the previous three editors. Apparently, this is just how Disney will market Marvel Studios' films from now on. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I expected at least a "Distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" like the Touchstone/DreamWorks movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.121.161 (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

At above user: it will most likely have that. Just like The Avengers, it's still a Disney release. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Cast

In the cast section, next to the actors names and characters name, I'm all for having a brief snippet of the character but could we move the personal quotes and stuff said by the actors (Elba, Russo, etc) to the production section or something? I think it clutters up the cast section and it doesn't really belong there anyway? Lady Lotus (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The cast section is for giving insight into how the actor(s) approached their role(s), why they were cast in the role, what they hope to bring to the character, how they prepared for the role, etc. The production section is for outlining the history of the film's development process, from initial concept to release. It really doesn't make sense to put the character-specific info in the production section, beyond basic notes of their casting. See the good articles Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America: The First Avenger for examples. Every major character should hopefully have a few bits, eventually. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
LL, each article can be approached on a case by case basis, such information could go in a casting section for instance, but the Marvle Universe articles have all taken a similar approach to here so for consistency it works, and IMO I think its good for people who want to know information about a particular character rather than scanning a block of prose in a casting section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Fandraltastic and Darkwarriorblake, the section is perfectly inline with WP:FILMCAST.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The Cast should be done with the first four members like this on the wikipedia article:

See the note that has been placed in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Cobie Smulders NOT in Thor: The Dark World

The Cobie Smulders article on MSN misattributed a quote to her. It's actually from Kat Dennings. Here's the original article: http://www.craveonline.com/film/articles/543877-exclusive-kat-dennings-and-cobie-smulders-drop-marvel-hints Richiekim (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I knew something was off.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I literally was just about to do this. Thanks Richie! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The user modified the quote as well to read How I met Your Mother instead of Broke Girls. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
No. The MSN source did that originally. The user just copied the quote as MSN had it. http://tv.uk.msn.com/news/smulders-shield-show-is-amazing-2 - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I followed the Crave quote above so didn't notice. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
No worries. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

BOR, Odin's Father (actor)

The Actor who will be portraying Odin's father is Scottish actor Tony Curran

Source: https://twitter.com/TonyCurran69/statuses/388822767618899969 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.30.146 (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

We cannot use unverified twitter accounts as reliable sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Eh, nevermind it is verified.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Please No Spoilers or Premise updates until after November 8th

Because of how the spoilers in Iron Man 3 were ratted out in a bad way, we do Not want anyone spoiling the movie. So please if anyone is in London, please don't update what you saw until after November 8th76.180.221.95 (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:SPOILER, they are free to update and edit, even as soon as they are done watching the film if they chose. If you don't want to know, then steer clear of the page. I myself will stop visiting the page shortly as I don't want it spoiled, and I know editors have free reign and the right to update it. I would though, off of your request, ask that any edit requests to the page, done on the talk, try to keep any spoiler info in the headings to a minimum. That would be appreciated. But again, WP:SPOILER. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
They can edit the article, it's the people who blatantly discuss plot while arguing with others in the edit summary who should be banned. You shouldn't have to be afraid of contributing to the other sections outside of the plot of an article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

So does anyone know why the Rotten Tomatoes script in the Critical reception is not working properly? And is there anything that can be done to fix it? Richiekim (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It just takes time to get going. See Template talk:Rotten Tomatoes score.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Fiege and Alan Taylor Confirm Mid-Credits scene Directed by James Gunn

Kevin Fiege and Alan Taylor have confirmed that the Mid-Credits scene was directed by James Gunn and will feature a blonde-haired Benicio Del Toro's Collector in that scene.

Source: http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/10/22/kevin-feige-and-alan-taylor-talk-to-me-about-thor-the-dark-worlds-big-mid-credits-tease/

user: TriiipleThreat, I guess this obvious confirmation isn't enough to be added to the article? Confused.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npabebangin (talk • contribs) 20:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, having attended a press screening, a blonde-haired Benicio Del Toro's Collector is indeed in the mid-credits scene that appears in the final print (for professional reasons I can't give spoilers as to who else is in it), and there is a second, post-credits scene.
Also, as long as I'm here: This is OR, obviously, and we'd need independent citing, but just so we're aware and looking for it: Malekith is not called Malekith the Accursed in the movie, and the Kurse character, Algrim, is never called Kurse onscreen — he's referred to there ony as "the last of the Kursed." He's referred to as Algrim/Kurse in the press notes, but that's not the manifest movie contest itself. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about, no one said anything about the two main villains in any capacity. I think from the mouth of the director, and the president of production is noteworthy of inclusion on this site. I'm going to go ahead and add this as official confirmation that he is indeed in the film, and get rid of the Clive Russell mention. I wasn't asking for you to give me a full description of the mid-credits scene what so ever. I know who else is in the mid-credits scene as it's already been revealed on the internet.
Several longtime Wikipedia Comics Project editors, with whom I've worked on numerous Marvel movie articles, have shown they want a head's up of things they might want to look for. If you don't want to work with the information, that's fine — nobody's forcing you. Other editors find it useful, so show some civility. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Again, no one is talking about any Comics Project editors, not once was it discussed in this section about the main villains, in any capacity. The information doesn't pertain to the mid-credits scene what so ever. I am being civil in showing my point that this particular section had nothing to do with the main villain of the film. I was speaking of the post-credits scene only. I see the inclusion was added, so I thank whoever posted it. - N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.4.229 (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
And again, I wasn't talking to you. We're allowed to discuss other pertinent things within a section. This talk page does not revolve around you personally. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I never said it did, sir. But you could make a new section, and discuss it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.19.201 (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Wow, this really bothers you inordinately, doesn't it? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Plot

Now that the film has opened in England, I've supplied a plot, though since I saw the film a while ago, some details may be fuzzy. Also, It's 774 words, so it needs to be trimmed. I'll give it a try now. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You should let someone who has recently seen the film give the plot away. The last sentence about the collector needs to be changed, the "object" is the "aether", and should be a bit more detailed.... just a suggestion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.110.5 (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Character Identification

Is there a reason why we're not identifying the alien in the mid-credits scene as The Collector? We have credible sources available to confirm this. I notice that the article for The Avengers film does something similar, by not identifying Thanos even though we have sources plainly confirming that character's identity. Moreover, our article for The Collector even states that that character appears in Thor: The Dark World. Is there a policy I'm unaware of, as to why we're not just saying who these characters are? Thanks. Amateurmetheus (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No need to run around looking for sources on this one, he's actively called "Tanileer Tivan, the Collector" in dialogue. - Chris McFeely (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Can someone also please credit Ophelia Lovibond in her role? There are no specifics, but she's the one who presents Sif and Volstagg to Tanileer Tivan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.110.5 (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Page lock expired

Page lock expired. Please remove the lock, or switch from locked to flagged edits and at least allow limited open editing. -- 109.77.170.255 (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC) 109.77.170.255 (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The page protection is set to expire at the end of December. If you have a specific change you would like to make while the article is semi-protected, detail it here in a "please change X to Y" degree of detail and someone will make the edit for you if there is no problem. Be sure to include reliable sources for any factual changes. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Then why does the page start with:
{{pp-protected|reason=disruptive editing|expiry=28 October 2013|small=yes}}
??? -- 109.79.66.159 (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
You can see why in the edit history: the admin protected the page for one month on September 28th and added the template to the article which displays the lock. He evidently had a change of heart on September 30th and extended the protection to three months. I'll update the template to match the protection log. Regards, Celestra (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thor The Dark World

Running time for Thor The Dark World is 120 minutes, not 112 Minutes Mjdavis3297 (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the 112 minutes is cited to a highly reliable source and since 120 minutes sounds like an approximation, what's your sourcing for this? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Not done: a quick google search plus the source currently in the article show the correct figure to be 112. NiciVampireHeart 20:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Here are the official actor credits

Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje is listed as "Algrim/Kurse" here, but is never called Kurse in the movie. Since the plot contains only what's on the screen, we might want to add a note in his cast listing that both character names do appear in the end-credits.

Interestingly, Stan Lee is credited as himself ... not as the character in a mental ward but, presumably, his real-life self in a mental ward!   : )

  • Thor : CHRIS HEMSWORTH
  • Jane Foster  : NATALIE PORTMAN
  • Loki  : TOM HIDDLESTON
  • Odin : ANTHONY HOPKINS
  • Malekith : CHRISTOPHER ECCLESTON
  • Sif : JAIMIE ALEXANDER
  • Fandral : ZACHARY LEVI
  • Volstagg : RAY STEVENSON
  • Hogun : TADANOBU ASANO
  • Heimdall : IDRIS ELBA
  • Frigga : RENE RUSSO
  • Algrim/Kurse : ADEWALE AKINNUOYE-AGBAJE
  • Darcy Lewis : KAT DENNINGS
  • Erik Selvig  : STELLAN SKARSGÅRD
  • Eir : ALICE KRIGE
  • Tyr : CLIVE RUSSELL
  • Ian Boothby  : JONATHAN HOWARD
  • John : RAMONE MORGAN
  • Navid : OBADA ALASSADI
  • Maddie : IMAAN CHENTOUF
  • Volstagg’s Wife : CLAIRE BROWN
  • Volstagg’s Child #1 : HENRY CALCUTT
  • Volstagg’s Child #2 : AVA CATON
  • Volstagg’s Child #3 : ABBIE MCCANN
  • Desk Officer  : THOMAS ARNOLD
  • Stonehenge TV News Reporter : SAM SWAINSBURY
  • Sad Child : CONNOR DONAGHEY
  • Student : ROYCE PIERRESON
  • Woman On Platform : ANNABEL NORBURY
  • Wench #1 : SOPHIE COSSON
  • Richard : CHRIS O’DOWD
  • Police Officer #1 : JUSTIN EDWARDS
  • Police Officer #2 : GRUFFUDD GLYN
  • Einherjar Lieutenant  : RICHARD BRAKE
  • Himself : STAN LEE
  • Himself : STEVE SCOTT
  • Einherjar Guard : BRETT TUCKER
  • Nurse : TALULAH RILEY
  • Asylum Patient : RICHARD WHARTON

--Tenebrae (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

positive?

I disagree that "positive" is the consensus. According to Metacritic it is mixed and now in Rotten Tomatoes it is just fresh (not certified fresh). Jhenderson 777 20:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

We don't (or shouldn't) add a consensus at all, especially by interpreting figures from two sites with concealed and often questionable weighting methods. Any opinion should be sourced and/or based on the actual content of reviews, not the arbitrary score that MC or RT has applied to them. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree so I boldly removed it. Jhenderson 777 23:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I also agree, so with that in mind, I'm reverting the anon IP who doesn't seem to understand we discuss these things on talk pages.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Plot summary

Now that the movie's been released, the obligatory 'everyone adding everything to the plot' phase has begun. Time for consensus!

The movie's got a typical three-act structure. This is how I'm laying it out:

Main details: this is the stuff that is central to the plot. E.g. who Malekith is.
Secondary details: less-central, but still somewhat important. E.g. who Algrim/Kurse is.
Tertiary details: unnecessary for anything but an expanded plot; something we shouldn't be including. E.g. who the guy Jane's been seeing is.

Act 0.: technically part of the first act - condensed prologue telling the viewer who Malekith is and what he wants.

Main details: Malekith's Dark Elf forces, who want to use the Aether to destroy the universe, are destroyed on Svartalfheim by Odin's father, Bor. Malekith, his lieutenant Algrim and a few of his forces escape and go into hiding, but the Aether is lost to them.

Secondary details: none, really.
Tertiary details: the Kursed. They're shown here to foreshadow Algrim's transformation later in the movie, but I don't think it's necessary to mention them specifically in this section.

Act 1.: exposition & backstory: we establish what's happened between the last Thor/The Avengers and this movie.

Main details: Thor's been away fighting. Loki's behind bars. Jane is still working on ways to find her demigod boyfriend. She finds an inter-dimensional portal and unwillingly takes in the Aether.

Secondary details: the factory where Darcy takes Jane is experiencing wonky physics. Darcy has an intern. The Convergence is the alignment of the worlds.
Tertiary details: Jane's been trying random dates. Erik's gone insane - this can be covered later. Loki has only been visited by his mother.

Act 2.: rising action, the build-up.

Main details: Jane's been infected with a mysterious and deadly energy force that predates the universe. Thor takes her to Asgard. The Dark Elves awaken and invade. Thor's mother is killed in the process. Thor and Loki swear vengeance on Malekith, and decide to take the Aether to Svartalfheim in defiance of Odin's orders. Their plot to deceive Malekith fails when he takes the Aether and goes to Earth, leaving Loki dead on the ground. (Note: I'd prefer to say that Loki dies, as that's what it looks like to the viewer. Then after, we can mention that he's not actually dead.)

Secondary details: Jane's going to die from the Aether infection. Algrim turns into a Kursed. Frigga dies protecting The Warriors Three help Thor and Loki escape.
Tertiary details: Heimdall commits treason. Loki uses a secret portal to get to Svartalfheim. Loki's dying words. Thor and Jane use a secret portal to leave.

Act 3.: climax, resolution of plot points.

Main details: Malekith invades Earth with the Aether. Foster, Thor, Erik, Darcy and Ian deduce that the alignment of the Nine Realms will be in Greenwich. Malekith battles Thor while Foster and her companions attempt to use Erik's devices to assist Thor. Malekith gains the upper hand and begins to unleash the Aether, but is stopped by Thor, Jane, and Erik. Thor goes back to Asgard and denies Odin's offer to rule. Odin is revealed to be Loki.

Secondary details: Thor and Malekith's battle takes them across multiple dimensions and separates them, which is why Malekith has a window of time to begin his act of destruction.
Tertiary details: There's a Frost monster on Earth, Thor's trip on the subway, how Malekith dies, Darcy and Ian's spontaneous hook-up.

Mid-/Post-credits:

Main details: The Collector gets the Aether from Sif and Volstagg, and is implied to be working for Thanos. Jane and Thor reunite on Earth.

Secondary details: There's a Frost monster on Earth.
Tertiary details: None, short scenes.

@Tenebrae: How does this look to you? It's mostly in line with the current section, though I'd prefer to trim it a bit of unnecessary details. Anyone else is welcome to weigh in. m.o.p 19:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, m.o.p. Well, if you're asking me, and I'm hardly an official arbiter but just giving my opinion, I'm not sure the complete overhaul being suggested here is really necessary — though heaven knows, this a very astute analysis and plot breakdown.
Certainly, if a pertinent plot point is missing in what's now, I think a 685-word synopsis, we should find a way to add it, and certainly, we should make tweaks where necessary. But a complete overhaul? I dunno. This seems a very solidly written plot, and I'm saying that as someone who saw his own first-draft version changed and condensed significantly in what seem like sensible ways. Still, no question that your suggestions are well-thought-out. What does everyone else think the state of the synopsis? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. I'm trying to establish a 'good' version of the summary, so that we can point people to established consensus if they try to add excess detail (which often happens with movies). In that regard, while your opinion is valued, I'd like a few more voices so that we can establish what to keep and what to trim. m.o.p 23:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I agree. As I said: "What does everyone else think the state of the synopsis?" I think we might have a reasonable, respectful difference of opinion on the assumption that the current synopsis isn't "good" — my opinion is that it's very good — but fortunately we're part of a community that after eight of these movies plus the Fox films is actually getting pretty good at these things!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I would just mention that I don't see how we can talk about Algrim's transformation to one of the Kursed without explaining beforehand what the Kursed are. Otherwise, it seems like a deus ex machina pulled out of a hat, if I may mix metaphors shamelessly. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we should be worrying about whether or not a plot detail seems strange; the only way to capture the plot and all of its context would be to have it written down word for word. Since we can't do that, it's OK to have sections which glaze over some details. Personally, the Kursed aren't that big of a detail to cover - I think a wikilink is sufficient enough to cover it. Alternately, we could mention Algrim's transformation, but it should only be in passing - it isn't a central detail. m.o.p 23:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Good job the plot guys. One thing though, WP:FILMPLOT says "avoid minutiae like dialogue". So can we remove the actual quoted dialogue and still convey the same message.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

+ source

"The Crocodile Dundee II of superhero films—in a good way! ... is quicker, sillier, and more violent than its predecessor. ... [Taylor] set out to make the Thor-iverse “richer and edgier,” and he succeeds, at the expense of a plot that makes sense when you write it down. ... Thor followed the Crocodile Dundee paradigm, the tough guy dazzling people in a new land with his rough manners and strange vest. TTDW is Crocodile Dundee II, which put the fish back in his familiar waters, dragging his New York girlfriend to the Outback. Jane is brought along to Asgard and Svartalfheim, awkwardly meeting Thor’s parents and learning to wear medieval gowns. "

"Infinity Stones"

I can't remember exactly, but could someone, when they next see the film, check whether the mid-credits scene actually uses the phrase "Infinity Stones"? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

In the mid-credits scene, they do mention that they are "Infinity Stones" in the phrase It is not wise to keep two infinity stones so close together. 71.188.17.75 (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
It's coming back to be now. I think you're right. Thanks for the followup! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I saw it last night Tenebrae, and I do believe they said Infinity Stones. However, in sources I have seen transcribing/talking about the scene, all are saying Infinity Stones. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Ending credit scene

Correct me if I'm wrong but in the ending credit scene, they give him another Infinity Stone saying having two together would be dangerous. The plot that is currently written says "Volstagg and Sif visit the Collector and entrust the Aether to his care" but the aether was destroyed? Lady Lotus (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The Aether was not destroyed. Odin even mention that it could not be destroyed. The Aether, like the Tesseract, is referred to as an "Infinity Stone". I believe there might be some secondary sources to support this as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It aaaaall makes sense now! :) Lady Lotus (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, heres a secondary source BTW:
Bibbiani, William (November 8, 2013). "Exclusive Interview: Kevin Feige on Thor and Marvel's Future". CraveOnline. Archived from the original on November 10, 2013. Retrieved November 10, 2013. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice! Thanks T Lady Lotus (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Dark Kingdom

Should it be mentioned in the lead or the release section at all that the film was released under the title Thor: The Dark Kingdom in Germany? Haven't been able to find a reliable source yet to source, but it is known as this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

As this is English language Wikipedia it is probably not WP:NOTABLE enough to mention details such as how the name was translated into non-English languages. You might be able to find one or two Wikipedia articles where the translated names get a mention (because English language reviewers though to mention them as amusing or unusual). In this case I don't think anyone is going to find it particularly notable, also if you can believe Wikipedia* 'Reich' can be also be back-translated as "realm" and "Thor: Dark Realm" does seem like an entirely appropriate translation of the title for a fantasy film like this. [* I'm not going to search further for a better dictionary, back-translation is hard.] -- 109.77.153.40 (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Alice Krige source

Would either this source or this source be acceptable to cite Krige's part in the film? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I think either would be acceptable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I'll go with the Screen Rant one, as no other casting cites are needed that the NY Times source could have added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, she's in the onscreen credits. See a little further up on this talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

add

Jonathan Howard plays Ian Boothby, is he add-able? Lady Lotus (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Yea, it's on the IMDb page but also there's a source on his article page that says he's in the new Thor. Lady Lotus (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I feel bad telling you this because I see you contributing all over and getting undone, but IMDb is not considered a reliable source and can't be used on Wikipedia, and we can't reference Wikipedia itself either.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Lol why do you feel bad? That's why I asked instead of just putting him in there, there is this [1], it lists him in the credits at the bottom. When I said 'source on his article page', I meant there's a link to a source on his article page telling he's in there, I know we can't source wiki itself lol :P Lady Lotus (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Would anyone have any objections if I added details about how Algrim and Malekith die? Older drafts of the article had those details, but they were later removed, probably because the article was becoming too wordy. If I can slip in the info very succinctly, would anyone have a problem with that? At the moment the descriptions seem overly vague. Amateurmetheus (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you make your suggestion here first?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Sure. Actually, I thought more about it and honestly I don't think it matters that much.Amateurmetheus (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

GA?

All right. With the release of the film a few weeks ago, I think it's time to get this article up to GA status. Thoughts or suggestions are welcome here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It's too soon. The film is still in theatres so it's missing vital box office information. There's no accolades yet. After the home video release is when it's usually considered complete as that's when we receive last bit of production information, deleted scenes, BTS info, commentary, etc.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

it havent been released in norway yet

it is therefore incorrect so say that it was released world wide. it should be changed to america.84.208.77.64 (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Where exactly are you seeing this, because I don't believe it says that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thor 3 gets writers in Craig Kyle and Chris Yost

Here's the official source. 71.188.16.34 (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This was added a couple of hours ago, and it doesn't greatly differ from the news sources already there. If you are going to suggest something, see if it is already on the page. Just a helpful tip for the future. As well, if the page isn't semi-protected, you can add this information yourself (or create an account). You don't have to rely on other editors to do it for you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thor:_The_Dark_World/Archive_1&oldid=1144522275"