Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:37, 21 May 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Comics: Marvel / Films Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Related work groups: /  This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group. This article is supported by Comic book films work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: Comic book / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the Comic book films task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

A fact from Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 March 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, use of the alien race Sneepers was initially rejected by Marvel's legal department because it sounded too similar to snípur, the Icelandic word for clitoris? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2016/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.

This was the 4th most viewed article on Misplaced Pages for the week of April 30 to May 6, 2017, according to the Top 25 Report.

Number of end-credit scenes

At a press screening recently, I counted four end-credit scenes, but I recently saw an article claiming there are five. Once the film is out publicly, editors here might want to pay particular attention to the number since early reports aren't always accurate. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

By all accounts I have seen, there were indeed four end-credits scenes shown at the screenings. Knowledge of the existence of the fifth comes from James Gunn himself, implying that the last one was withheld from the screenings. I'd say Gunn is a pretty reliable source. - DinoSlider (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes Gunn was the one who stated there would be 5. As Dino said, I believe the fifth was withheld from the press screenings. In article, with the source we have, it stated four mid-credit ones, and then one (not seen) after the credits. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

He cleared it up in my interview, but in case I'm not able to fit it into my eventual article: There are indeed five scenes, he says, but concedes that some people indeed count four since the first one, which — NO SPOILER — involves one of the main characters getting hit with something in a slapsticky if painful way, at first glance looks to be part of the film proper.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Nathan Fillion as Wonder Man

There is new information regarding the actor's involvement in the film. The character which he plays is indeed Wonder Man, though it is not clear whether he will have his super-powers/-name in the film. The actor took to his Twitter account to show his character's look for the film, in one of his deleted scenes from the movie. Though it is not clear whether the scene is a 'meta'-scene of his character (seeing as the character will be an 'actor' in movies that take place within the fictional universe), or a scene which saw him as Wonder Man; his credit should be listed on the page's cast list. The reference can even mention that some of his scenes were deleted -- until it is clear whether his role will be entirely cut or not. I think we need to add his character to the credits.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and readded the information regarding Nathan Fillion's role in the movie, as director/writer James Gunn has now discussed the topic on his Twitter page. The role was confirmed, though the importance and depth of the role is not yet known, it is now common-knowledge that Simon Williams / Wonder Man is in the movie. That discussion can be viewed here.--71.35.227.6 (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)<--this was me, I didn't realize that I wasn't logged in before I submitted the edit.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

This has been deleted multiple times now, and yet I have sourced multiple references where Nathan Fillion was cast as Simon Williams / Wonder Man. Here again is the writer/director stating that Fillion was to portray the character though his cameo-scenes were deleted. He later states that the role may appear in a future film with Fillion in the role, as discussed here. Needs to be included on this page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact that it has been deleted multiple times by other editors and yet you keep reinserting it means you are edit-warring. First off: Your very own source says your claim is not true. I quote James Gunn in that article: “For the record, that was never a scene in the movie – that’s simply @NathanFillion clowning around on set." Second, as you've demonstrated before, you are unfamiliar with many Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines and practices. Per WP:BLP, the first time you were reverted you were supposed to come to the talk page and — and this is the important part — gain consensus with other editors. You have not gained consensus here.

If you revert again, you are disrupting Misplaced Pages and, as before, this will be brought to admins' attention. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

And the fact remains that you continue to violate the Misplaced Pages policies, by engaging in WP:BULLY, WP:CIVILITY, and most of all WP:HOUNDING. If you have a SPECIFIC issue with me -- you should take it to my talk-page which you have not done. Thereby if you do it again, "it will be brough to admins' attentions". --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

In what way has @Tenebrae: been bullying or hounding you? You're choosing to defy basic WP:3RR guidelines and edit war as opposed to discussing the information. Rusted AutoParts 03:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

In the way that they have referenced "as before" -- there's a history here which is all in direct correlation to WP:BULLY, WP:CIVILITY by WP:HOUNDING. All I said has no argumentative nature, simply stating the facts.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Nathan Fillion should be included in the paragraph as he WAS cast to portray the character in still-photo cameo; regardless of the fact that he was 'horsing around' on the set of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 and released his own photo on his Twitter account. Gunn HAS stated that he is a fan of the idea of Fillion as Wonder Man, and in a sly comment said "we shall see ;)". The guy has included Howard the Duck, and talked about the Spaceknights being in the MCU -- it's very clear what the plan is. Though we cannot state so until he explicitly states such, the fact remains that Fillion had cameo scenes which were removed from the final cut of the film. Simply stating such in the Cast paragraph is constructive in that it gives credit where there would have been, had the scenes remained. No need to be demeaning when stating your opinion Tenebrae.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

There is so much speculation and POV conclusion-drawing in that anon IP's post it's not worth responding to. Nathan Fillion does not appear in the movie. Whatever may or may not be included in home-media releases is for the home-media section whenever something concrete is announced. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Per James Gunn tweet "@NathanFillion was Simon Williams in some movie POSTERS in a scene cut from the movie." Fillion himself never cameos in the film. The couple of fannish cites cited in this removed content were giving purely speculative extrapolation of that. Lots and lots of stuff gets cut from a film during editing — the plot and cast section only includes what's in the actual film itself. Extraneous claims go in trivia section, or home-media section or some other section. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Though I can agree with you on this topic, User:Tenebrae, Gunn has now stated in the Facebook Live Q&A he did that: "...Nathan’s only cameo in the movie ever were these posters. I’ll post them all over the next few days. And, yes, I think we can consider them canon for the MCU, and I hold onto hope that Simon Williams will rise again!!" You can read the whole comment here in which the writer/director states that he purposefully casted Fillion as the character, but couldn't find an excuse to give him screentime. Sounds like the role will evolve into something more prominant though, from that direct quote. Just a thought.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

With the writer and director confirming the posters as canon to the MCU, and stating that the character will reappear in the franchise, shouldn't that be listed on the cast information paragraph. I mean it would make more sense to have something canon listed there, rather than the alternate take information regarding Stan Lee's outtake scenes which are currently there....--50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned in this discussion, the fact that he does not appear in the finished film seems more important than the canonicity. He is mentioned in the production prose, which seems sufficient. And for the record, Gunn said, "I hold onto hope that Simon Williams will rise again," which is not confirmation that he will reappear. - DinoSlider (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Concur with DinoSlider. First off, I'm glad DisneyMetalhead and I are speaking more collegially — I genuinely hoped we would, and I hope it continues. Secondly, neither Filion himself nor the posters are in the film. And aside from Gunn not being the final word about what's canon, it's hard to reconcile how something on the cutting-room floor could be canon. In past statements, Gunn has admitted to the Filion stuff as just him having fun on set with a friend. That really doesn't make it part of the movie.

However, I would say that since Gunn has made it public, this might be perfectly appropriate for Nathan Filion's own page. What do you think DisneyMetalhead?--Tenebrae (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a mention in the production section is good enough regarding the originally intended cameo. The director/writer clearly states that he resorted to a very cool photographic cameo because he didn't want to "limit" Fillion's abilities to come back in the future. That, in addition to saying that he hopes the character will "rise again" definitely merits a mention on the actor's page, as well as the Wonder Man page. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I genuinely agree with all that is being said right now, User:Tenebrae. Especially with 50.232.205.246, in saying - why on Earth are some of Stan Lee's outtakes mentioned in a section that isn't meant to be for 'movie trivia', nor what-if scenarios. Something 'canon' definitely outweighs an outtake.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Post-production seems a viable compromise. One thing, however: Whether Gunn considers it canon is irrelevant personal opinion. He's a hired-gun director, and other directors may not consider it canon. The only person who can call it canon is Marvel Studios chief Kevin Feige. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Plot

Just to confirm, a private premiere is not a commercial public release. The film is not being released theatrically until April 28 in the UK and Ireland. We cannot insert a plot before then. And for the record, the one that was here was overlong and sloppily written. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is this based on the UK/Irish release? It was released in New Zealand and Australia on 24 April 2017. El Dubs (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Just for my own education, is there guidance / policy that we should wait until a commercial public release? I've never heard one way or the other if private premiere are acceptable for adding a Plot section to a movie. jmcgowan2 (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Spoilers?!?

No warning? No anything? Just a big pile of spoilers giving away the plot to the entire movie? Entirely unprofessional. 221.147.22.94 (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:SPOILERS, not only should we not avoid spoilers, but they are not labeled as such either. If you visit a wikipedia page for a movie and see that there's a section labeled 'Plot', it will most likely contain the full plot, including spoilers. (Assuming it's verifiable, and not based excusively on a 'gossip/tabloid/spoilers' website or show) jmcgowan2 (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

But the movie isn't even kind of out yet! The Talk Page even says the plot shouldn't be on there. 221.147.22.94 (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

As of today its out in Australia, Belgium, Colombia, Finland, France, Indonesia, Italy, Norway, Philippines and Sweden, so yeah, it's "kind of out". Sorry, champ, maybe you shouldn't be reading things about the movie if you don't want to be spoiled. Rusted AutoParts 03:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggested changes to cast list

First, Nova Corps didn't appear in the film at all, not even Irani Rael, so Glenn Close should be removed from the list. And second, Stan Lee didn't portray Uatu the Watcher. He was an old astronaut who simply spoke with Watchers who weren't interested of his story. CAJH (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

In addition to this edits continue to rephrase the paragraph in a giant run-on sentence. I have corrected it several times as far as grammar goes, but editors are engaging in edit-warring. I will wait until that dies down before I correct the issues with the paragraph and clean it up.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, CAJH -- producer Kevin Feige has confirmed at least that Stan Lee is portraying the same character throughout the entire MCU. That can be read here.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The article was released after my comment. CAJH (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I am bringing a revert issue to this portion of the talk page. The paragraph under the primary cast list on this page has undergone various edits and many reverts. User:DisneyMetalhead has corrected oversized sentences to be more to-the-point. User:Rusted AutoParts in the reverts told DMetalhead that they need to come to the talk page to make those edits valid...? In my opinion, why is this even an issue? I took the issue to both of their pages as it has gone on a while now. Personally I think making the page more correct as far as the English language goes is a constructive edit. As far as Stallone's role in the film goes, the film's writer/director has called the character "Starhawk" so the reverts on that one are strange to me too (not in a good Doctor Strange way). Anyhow, I'm bringing this here as neither of the previously-stated editors have yet.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Because it was disputed content. DisneyMetalHead refused to discuss with the other reverting editors and continued adding it in. It's cute you think you have a grasp on the situation, but you clearly don't. Rusted AutoParts 20:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

If the filmmakers had wanted the character called Starhawk, they would have called the character Starhawk, either in onscreen or the onscreen credits. Having made the choice not to do so, any comments they make afterward are simply casual, shorthand colloquialisms. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Some of the editors on this site are completely and utterly arrogant. RAP -- you needn't degrade others when you respond to a clearly constructive comment made by Special:Contributions/50.232.205.246. Something I've found with Wikipedians is that they feel as though they need to tare others down, not too dissimilar to fanboys and bloggers on the internet. Misplaced Pages is not about WP:WINNING. You need to remember that. You are clearly creating friction as it was stated in your revert comment that I needed to come here. How and why I need to come to a talkpage in regards to correcting grammar and sentence structure, is completely ludicrous. The paragraph below the cast listing on the page is one HUGE run-on sentence and needs to be corrected. I have done so but you continue to revert my edits. What's your reasoning? As far as the whole Stallone is Starhawk thing -- the actor has signed on for multiple films. What MCU characters are called by their full name in any post-credits/cameo scenes??.... (i.e. in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Scarlett Witch and Quicksilver are not even named, but as common-knowledge we acknowlege their cameo and characters' names). Editing becomes so petty and completely miniscule when you search for the minutia to disagree with. Let's talk about something that's actually debatable!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

You're putting speculative content in by putting Starhawk. Was not once referred to as such in the film. You were reverted, you continued adding it back. I have no more patience for that anymore. Rusted AutoParts 00:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: I can remove comments on my own talk page if I choose to. And what you interpret as rudeness and incivility is frustration at seeing my watchlist bogged down with edits and reverts of specific issues made clear aren't notable or cited well enough to remain. So as opposed to try and say my behaviour needs to be discussed, discuss the content you persist in readding. Rusted AutoParts 00:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: the appropriate place for resolving an issue with an editor is their talk page, and the correct response is to hopefully resolve the issue. You admitting to a lack of patience^ is a step in the right direction. None of my edits are confrontational. All of them are constructive and done in good-faith. What about James Gunn calling Michelle Yeoh's character 'the FEMALE Starhawk' doesn't make sense to everyone? She's the female counterpart to Stallone. Stallone is a MALE. Oh, wait that makes him the MALE Starhawk. Simple. Basic. You telling me to come to the talkpage for corrections to grammar and run-on sentences makes absolutely zero sense.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

What you're doing is called WP:SYNTH. Again, if Gunn had wanted to call Stallone's character Starhawk in either dialog or end credits, he would have done so. He did not. Please respect the filmmaker's choices. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

And no one said to come and discuss "corrections to grammar and run-on sentences". It's pretty clear which one we're referring to. Rusted AutoParts 15:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

And yet User:Rusted AutoParts any of us that look at the history can see that you reverted the edits that corrected the run-on sentences. User:Tenebrae you need the character's name stated in the movie, and we credit Thanos in the first Avengers movie? Your reasoning is an enigma. The director called him Starhawk. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

He's not called Thanos in the plot section of The Avengers (2012) film. The cast section says that Feige confirmed the character is Thanos, with a footnote and Feige's exact quote. I'm not sure how that's a comparison with Fillion who, unlike Thanos, never appears in the movie. Fillion is indeed mention where he should be — in the post-production section. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay I'm sorry, but when I make constructive edits simply correcting grammar disfunction and overloaded run-on sentences and the edits are reversed I don't see the purpose of such a move from anyone.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Rusted AutoParts and other users appearing to be engaging in edit warring didn't mean to reverse those specific edits(?). Or at least that's what we would all hope. On the flip side if that is what they are doing, they need to own up to what they're doing, and stop in the process too.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

At what point did I edit war over this information? Rusted AutoParts 19:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts you seemingly did (along with other editors) when you continuously revert edits with the edit summary of "lol". Each and every time you have done so without stating your reasoning here first, you are likewise 'edit warring'. We can see that you first did so because of the Stallone "Starhawk" differences. User:DisneyMetalhead your edits of that discussion also included your paragraph revisions; but given that you have now done so separately editors should leave your paragraph edits alone as they are solely for the purposes of English grammar.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

...Seriously? Those were edits on my talk page, not this article. I am fully free to decide what can remain on my own talk page. I'm sorry but you really don't seem to understand the situation or what you're accusing me of. Rusted AutoParts 19:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I understand what's going on as anyone can follow the page's edit history. DisneyMetalhead started off revising the paragraph below the cast listing, while also changing Stallone's credit to Stakar / Starhawk. You reversed that because of the fact that Stallone isn't referenced as Starhawk in the film (even though that's who the character is). What I am saying is that you reversed the "Starhawk" edits, and in the process that also changed the paragraph layout. I just said that you weren't edit warring four bullet points previous to this one...I am following the discussion just fine.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Id have to beg to differ considering you didn't even know which edit summaries were from what edit. Please stop pinging me, this "issue" disinterests me. Rusted AutoParts 20:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Why be hostile, if you didn't do anything? The editors on this site, are frustrating elitest and it's revolting. Whoever is reverting my sentence corrections has an oversized ego. Not saying it's you, but whoever it is it's counterproductive.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You're wasting my time and accusing me of undoing edits I didn't undo. And this "editors are elitest" mentality isn't gonna gain you any allies. What you perceive as elitism is really much more seasoned editors keeping the article in compliance with the MOS implemented on all of these articles. Rusted AutoParts 00:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Once again being hostile and demeaning is far worse than me stating that there are a select few of editors on Misplaced Pages who have an elitist attitude towards other editors. I didn't call you one, nor did I state that the attitude is in regards to knowledgability towards the MOS. What I stated is that the "holier than thou", know-it-all attitude towards other editors is against Misplaced Pages policies and regulations. That's what I said. Change your tone to begin with, and you won't have to message me about being "disinterested" again.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I beg to differ, considering whether or not i'm being hostile is all up to how you interpret it. I'm not being hostile, i'm being blunt. You're wasting peoples time. Discuss the issue this thread was started for. Stop diverting to make a stand because you feel you're being attacked. Stop accusing editors of being elitist when they're not being elitist. Rusted AutoParts 03:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, whoever it is that keeps/kept reverting my English grammar adjustments to the paragraph, needs to explain why they would do it. You were however being demeaning, User:Rusted AutoParts. There's no need to be.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

And you're free to believe that, just as I'm free to believe that's it's a silly notion. Rusted AutoParts 00:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

A 'silly notion' to bring the topic to the talk page like you insisted on, User:Rusted AutoParts? I don't understand the logic here. You tell someone to come to the talk page, and then completely dismiss it - for what reason? User:DisneyMetalhead, I for one appreciated the work you put into making the page more summarized. As it is there is far too much wordage and repetition of ideas. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You still don't seem to fully understand what you're talking about. The "silly notion" I refer to is the concept I was being demeaning to DMH. It's all in interpretation of course, but from my end there was no aim to demean. Rusted AutoParts 17:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's just throw this one into the stack of misinterpreted threads, and go from there. The paragraph this section is intended to cover definitely needs some revisions.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Pending revisions

I was just curious, for anyone else working on this article who understands how this system works, what exactly is the criteria for getting edits automatically accepted? From what I have read, the pending revisions system is meant to avoid vandalism from IPs and new users (of which I am neither), so I'm just a little confused as to why my edits aren't showing up straight away (not to mention being rolled back with all the other vandal-type edits). - adamstom97 (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Adamstom.97 As the system is documented, your edits should be showing up straight away. By looking at the logs () you are an extended confirmed user which means your edits should be automatically excepted, but that isn't happening which is weird. I would reason it might be a bug, but I went ahead and confirmed your edits anyway. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Winner, I thought something weird was happening. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Watcher's Informant

Stan Lee's cameo should be specified as "The Watcher's Informant," as per the end credits, rather than merely "an astronaut." That implies he's simply a human character of no real significance. It is true that Lee isn't confirmed within the film as a Watcher himself, but he is at least relating information on the Avengers to the group. Not to mention his credit as "The Watcher's Informant" is the only place in the film where the beings' identities as Watchers is actually confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.193.25 (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that credit? I don't remember seeing it and the credits in the press kit from Disney don't include it. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, though the film credit isn't listed here], producer Kevin Feige states that Stan Lee's character is "doing work for the Watchers". That would back up the statement and argument above.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The press kits usually just list main cast, not specific cameos so they're more of a surprise for viewers. You'll notice Nathan Fillion, Seth Green, Miley Cyrus and others aren't credited in the kit either. And yeah, "The Watchers' Informant" was Lee's credit in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.193.13 (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I saw this as well. It's how he should be credited on the cast list, instead of being 'an astronaut'.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Production Cost?

Could someone please add the actual or estimated production cost? Thanks. N0w8st8s (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)n0w8st8s

Cast credits

These official cast credits, given to press, are incomplete. They don't include "Watcher informant ... Stan Lee," "Voice of Howard the Duck ... Seth Green", "Charlie-27 ... Ving Rhames" or others that appear in the onscreen credits, presumably excluded to avoid spoilers — which certainly doesn't do accuracy and posterity any good. Anyway, here's what Disney released.

CAST

• Peter Quill/Star-Lord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHRIS PRATT
• Gamora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ZOE SALDANA
• Drax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DAVE BAUTISTA
• Baby Groot (Voice) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIN DIESEL
• Rocket (Voice) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BRADLEY COOPER
• Yondu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .MICHAEL ROOKER
• Nebula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KAREN GILLAN
• Mantis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POM KLEMENTIEFF
• Stakar Ogord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SYLVESTER STALLONE
• Ego . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KURT RUSSELL
• Ayesha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ELIZABETH DEBICKI
• Taserface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHRIS SULLIVAN
• Kraglin/On-Set Rocket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SEAN GUNN
• Tullk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOMMY FLANAGAN
• Meredith Quill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LAURA HADDOCK
• Young Ego Facial Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AARON SCHWARTZ
• Sovereign Chambermaid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HANNAH GOTTESMAN
• Sovereign Pilot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HILTY BOWEN
• Sovereign Admiral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BEN BROWDER
• Zylak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ALEX KLEIN
• Zylak’s Frenemy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LUKE COOK
• Retch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EVAN JONES
• Oblo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JOE FRIA
• Narblik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TERENCE ROSEMORE
• Halfnut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JIMMY URINE
• Brahl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STEPHEN BLACKEHART
• Gef . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STEVE AGEE
• Huhtar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BLONDY BARUTI
• “Down There!” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RICHARD CHRISTY
• Unseen Ravager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ROB ZOMBIE
• Robot Courtesans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SIERRA LOVE, KENDRA STAUB, MILYNN SARLEY
• Sneeper Madame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RHODA GRIFFIS
• Officer Fitzgibbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .MAC WELLS
• Weird Old Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .JIM GUNN, SR.
• Weird Old Man’s Mistress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .LEOTA GUNN
• Easik Mother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ELIZABETH LUDLOW
• Young Peter Quill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WYATT OLEFF
• Grandpa Quill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GREGG HENRY
• Grandpa Quill’s Friend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DAMITA JANE HOWARD

--Tenebrae (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Can we reference this list? I ask because Evan Jones' character is listed on the page as "Wrench", which is clearly a typo since the cited source says "Wretch". However, this lists the spelling as "Retch". - DinoSlider (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

While incomplete, what's here reflects what's onscreen. Now that the movie has come out, we don't need cites for simple cast listings. I would go ahead and change it to Retch and remove the now-outdated cite.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 budget officially revealed

According to the LA Times, Guardians Vol. 2's budget is $200 million dollars: http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-movie-projector-guardians-of-the-galaxy-20170502-htmlstory.html. I hope we can add this onto the Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.22.19.82 (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Additional billed actors?

In the opening billing of the film, plus the production notes PDF, Tommy Flanagan and Laura Haddock are listed, between Sean Gunn and Sly Stallone. Should we replicate that here as well, or stick to the poster billing? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I would understand if we wanted to do this, but I don't feel their roles in the film really justify it. It's not quite the same as Falcon secretly having a pretty big role in Ant-Man, at least for me. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph layout

Someone on here keeps on reverting editors' constructive edits in regards to proper grammar. I bring this up because there have been several editors who have made the paragraph involving extra cast more to-the-point and in the same style as other pages. However, these edits keep on being reverted and without reason. I would like whoever keeps doing it to come to this section and 'own' their actions, and then tell the rest of us why they keep doing it? It's edit-warring and you have no reason to revert others' edits except to edit-war. It's frustrating as anything to watch such behavior occur on Misplaced Pages over and over and over. Particularly User:DisneyMetalhead has brought up those edits before on this talk page, just a couple of paragraphs above here, and no one had issues with those edits while the discussion occurred. Whoever is doing it needs to A) stop, or B) come here and explain what their reasoning is.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This user is referencing where I change the run-on sentences to read the actors listed first, and then who they all play second with the word 'respectively' afterward. For example: "Additionally, reprising their roles from the first film are ____. _____, ____. and _____, as _____, ____, ____, and ___ respectively." And then the paragraph continues to ramble on in a run-on sentence each time it lists the teams: Yondu's Ravagers, and Yondu and Stakar's Ravager Elders teams. Rather than following format, and proper English they say: "____ as ____, ____ as ____, ____ as ____....." which is poor English and a run-on sentence. Listing them as I had each and every edit, in the above example eliminates the over usage of "as" in what they are now, deletes excessive paragraph size, condenses information, and follows proper paragraph and sentence structures. Thanks 50.232.205.246 for picking up on that. Get's old making constructive edits only to have petty reversals done by multiple editors.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

That formatting is just unnecessarily difficult for people to read. With long lists of actors and their characters like that, it is best to make it clear to the reader who is playing whom (rather than readers having to count through the list to match up any specific one you want). There is no problem with saying "Here is a list of actors and their characters:" and then listing them in a simple way for people to read. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The issue with the way you keep reverting it to is that it's improper English. As Misplaced Pages is an online encyclopedia - grammar and structure should be important. The formatting I changed the paragraph to (multiple times now) is the correct way, and has been used on countless other pages.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the English, and I think writing in the clearest way for our readers is the way we want to go. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, which is why correct English should be used. Using a consistent format with the rest of similar listings elsewhere would make sense to me. I don't know how are why it is that you think your edit 'makes more sense'? Run-on sentences become very very messy.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Once again, if we are trying to convey a list of actors and their characters, the easiest way would be to put the actors with their respective characters. Anything else is just being unhelpful for irrelevant reasons, like thinking you are doing it the "proper" way. If readers can't get the information we are trying to give them simply because of you want to be "correct", then you might need to rethink your priorities. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The logic on this thread is hilarious. Literally, funny. What readers have said that they 'can't get the information we are trying to give them'?? Seriously funny argument to try and sway this topic in your favor. Regardless of your reasoning, Misplaced Pages should remain not just "correct" as you stated but proper in the American English language. That's the discussion here, not the plea that "readers aren't getting our information"! That's a poor argument, and needs to be prioritized itself, as it sounds like a unrelenting editor who does not want to be collaborative.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The use of "respectively" with long lists like these can often be cumbersome and hard to read. Perhaps there is a better option for the sentence structure. Just so I understand both sides, let's use the first sentence as an example: "Additionally, reprising their roles from the first film are Laura Haddock as Meredith Quill, Gregg Henry as her father, Seth Green as the voice of Howard the Duck, and canine actor Fred as Cosmo." What grammatical rule does this sentence violate to make it a run on sentence? - DinoSlider (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the following two sentences that are in the same layout go on, and on, and on. The concise and correct form of each of them should be the 'respectively' format I have edited it to several times. However, since this is a debate -- what alternative do you suggest, User:DinoSlider?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

So there is no actual rule being violated here? You just don't like it? Good to know. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Any English course will teach you to never use run-on sentences. It's that simple, User:Adamstom.97.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't currently have a suggestion, but I am always hopeful that a compromise exists. I saw phrases like "improper English" and "run-on sentences" being used and I wanted to find out the rationale was. Personally, I believe the existing sentences are properly structured, so I am genuinely interested to find out what might be wrong with them. Without knowing the root of the objection, it is difficult to propose a new suggestion. As for the use of "respectively", there are grammarians who advise restructuring sentences to avoid the usage since it can lead to confusion. Most instances use two or three items, but sentences like these would compound that issue. Run-on sentences, on the other hand, are multiple independent clauses without proper punctuation. That does not appear to be the case here. Sentences can be long-winded or monotonous without being a run-on. - DinoSlider (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: No. You are confusing modern (21st-century) American English writing style with "English". Please see this. I dislike the writing style in some of these terribly-written MCU Good Articles as much as the next guy (see here and here), but one must distinguish between one's own personal preferences and what is objectively more readable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:EGG links for post-credit info in plot?

W should not link to Adam Warlock, as his full name is never stated in the film (much like Thanos, Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Cosmo and Howard the Duck, appearing in various post-credit scenes of previous films). His should be this: Ayesha creates a new artificial being with whom she plans to destroy the Guardians, naming him "Adam".. I'm also torn on linking to Watchers (comics) for the same reason as them not being called that or mentioned in the film, although because Stan Lee's cameo is "Watcher informant", maybe that one is okay. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I felt that both were fine because the film essentially says Adam Warlock and the credits state Watcher, and we have plenty of sources throughout the article that explain both. I just thought we would have to clarify with those sources and the note formatting if anyone specifically had an issue with it (like how we only add refs to the lead when there is a dispute about something). - adamstom97 (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Stan Lee

The cast section mentions Lee's cameo in a hard to find section towards the end, but the reference to the scene is utterly meaningless in the plot summary if it doesn't mention that the guy is Stan Lee. The idea that we can never include cast information in the plot summary for any purpose is completely ridiculous. Why are we trying to make the article less useful to satisfy some arbitrary rule? john k (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The plot section is for the plot, and the cast section is for the cast. There is nothing "arbitrary" about that. Now, I suggest you put the article back how it was instead of edit warring with me without explanation. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

In this case, the "plot" such as it is, of that post-credit sequence, is basically "look, it's Stan Lee talking to the Watchers." The "plot" point is incomprehensible without mentioning Lee. You are so committed to some dumb rule that you're making the article less useful for everybody. Even assuming there were an actual rule against ever mentioning cast members in the plot section (there is not, it's just generally frowned on), this would be an obvious case to ignore that rule. john k (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

That's an argument to not include post-credit sequences because they don't add anything to the understanding of the plot. Anyway, there was a similar discussion at talk:The Dark Knight Rises (search the archives) about Blake's legal name being Robin and the consensus was that it didn't add anything to the plot summary so it was fine as-is in Cast. DonQuixote (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd be fine with taking the whole thing out of the plot section. john k (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Stan Lee

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the plot summary section mention that "the watchers' informant" is Stan Lee? One position holds that cast should only be mentioned in the cast section, which does mention Lee's cameo in a bit more detail. The other argues that this plot point is incomprehensible without knowing that it's the Lee cameo. Thoughts from others would be welcome. john k (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• How is that important to the plot? It should probably be mentioned in Cast or Production. DonQuixote (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

How is the cameo important to the plot at all? The only thing relevant about it is that it is a Stan Lee cameo. Mentioning it without explaining that it is Stan Lee does a disservice to readers. I'd be happy to remove it from the plot section entirely. john k (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Nope Plot is for the plot, cast section is for the cast and cameos. A reader can perfectly understand the scene in the plot section as is without there being a mention of it being Lee's cameo. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The only "plot" going on there is "Ha, ha, it's Stan Lee talking to the Watchers." That is literally all that is happening. john k (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• No - I don't think it should mention that clip (or the one with Kraglin) at all. It's entirely irrelevant to the plot and will not be significant in later films either. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd be happy with this solution. john k (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• No, and the only reason there is that one line about it in the plot is because we talk about the cameo quite a bit in the rest of the article so the line there just gives all that a bit of context. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it your assumption that people read Misplaced Pages articles in their entirety? john k (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Aside from specifying that it's a post-credit scene, I think the discussion under cast provides the same amount of context as the line in the plot. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• No since that's the actor's name, not the character's name. The character even says he was a FedEx employee, IIRC. Stan Lee was never a FedEx employee. It's an actor playing a character, and per the onscreen credits, the character designation is the Watchers' informant.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? Why does that matter? You're making a distinction with no explanation why that distinction should guide our content. john k (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• No. Real-world information doesn't belong in the plot section. Additionally, it is trivial and adds no value to the plot, so I would be okay with removing the scene entirely as Argento Surfer suggested. - DinoSlider (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Grandmaster

This interview is almost the source we need for an explantion here and at the list of actors page about the wee Grandmaster cameo. But, neither of them actually say who they are talking about in the video. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, got a better source here. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice job. Exactly what we needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Fan theory passage

With all due respect to my good colleague adamstom97, the cited source, ScreenRant, says the opposite of what the claim was. I removed a passage that read:

This was a nod to the popular fan theory that Lee may be portraying one of the Watchers himself in his various cameo appearances,

because the cited source says just the opposite:

The movie version of the all-seeing beings are very similar in design to their comic look, which does disprove Lee actually being one of them...

So I'm not sure how we can keep in a passage that says the exact opposite of what the cited source says.

The "popular fan theory" is not even about Stan being a Watcher. ScreenRant says, "...the popular fan theory that Stan Lee is playing the same character in all of his MCU roles." That's all. Not a Watcher. Also, as a secondary thing: "popular" is WP:PEACOCK. The term "popular" isn't particularly quantifiable, but I think the theory needs to be in more mainstream places than ScreenRant for "popular" to be accurate. There's nothing wrong with calling it "fan theory".--Tenebrae (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The line This was a nod to the popular fan theory that Lee may be portraying one of the Watchers himself in his various cameo appearances is referring to this material from the ScreenRant source (second paragraph): "Along the way, one popular fan theory that’s popped up is that Lee is in fact not playing dozens of different characters, but one single being traversing space and time, the most prominent suggestion being Uatu the Watcher." So yes, this sentence is correct, referring to this fan theory that Lee was in fact Uatu. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I was pretty sure I hadn't just made all that up myself. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So in essence this is what ScreenRant is saying, that we reflect here: Stan Lee appearing next to the Watchers (but not actually being one), was a fun nod to the fan theory in which fans felt Lee was Uatu the Watcher. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So the ScreenRant article is contradicting itself, in that there appear to be two "popular fan theories" — and the only one Feige endorses is that Stan appears to be the same character. Feige never once says Stan is a Watcher — so having the Feige quote immediately after the "Watcher" claim is misleading. Feige is not endorsing the notion that Stan is a Watcher ... and in fact the credits say "Watchers' informant." A cop would not be credited as "cops' informant." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

There is only one fan theory: that Lee is the same character and that that character is Uatu. Feige confirms part of it, that he is portraying the same character. But the reason he appears with the Watchers is because of the other part of the theory that he is Uatu. If the scene was just Lee talking to people in a park about all his adventures, it wouldn't really be the "nod" to the theory. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The article says, "the popular fan theory that Stan Lee is playing the same character in all of his MCU roles" and then goes on to say "the most prominent suggestion being Uatu the Watcher." I count that as two theories: one says Stan is the same character, the other says Stan is the Watcher." But for the sake of argument that, as you say, it's one theory, then the one theory is "that Stan Lee is playing the same character" and the Watcher idea is simply one of multiple suggestions based on that theory. (The phrase "most prominent" means there are at least three suggestions.) A theory and one suggestion of multiple suggestions about that theory are two different things.

Feige never mentions the Watcher in his quote. We can say that there are these theories, but we cannot juxtapose Feige's quote in a way that endorses the Watcher suggestion since neither Feige nor the article do that. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, the credit "Watchers' informant" may support the theory, but it does not support the Watcher suggestion. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

We're not trying to say that he is playing a Watcher himself, only that him being with them is a nod to the fact that some people thought he was. He probably isn't given how he is credited. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I'm glad we agree that Feige is not saying that Stan is playing a Watcher. But honestly, as a professional journalist and editor I can tell you that with the juxtaposition of that quote and the Watcher-theory comment, the article's phrasing absolutely is saying Feige supports the Stan-as-Watcher theory.

At the very least, assuming reasonable people can disagree, the passage certainly can be interpreted that way. I'm wondering if you and Favre1fan93 would consider a rewording simply to make the Feige context absolutely clear? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I've just ended up tweaking the wording a bit while adding some other content. Let me know if you still think it needs work, and we can discuss further re-wording. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort. I think that as long as something like "potentially a Watcher" precedes the Feige quote, it makes the Feige quote look like it support that speculation, when Feige is in fact saying nothing that supports Stan as Watcher. And as producer, Feige had final say over how Stan's character was listed in the end-credits, which indicate that Feige does not believe Stan is a Watcher.

How about something like this (which removes the causal "this was a nod to" also adds a needed comma before the quote itself):

Stan Lee appears as an informant to the Watchers, discussing previous adventures that include Lee's cameos in other MCU films. Feige explained that, "Stan Lee clearly exists, you know, above and apart from the reality of all the films. So the notion that he could be sitting there on a cosmic pit stop during the jump gate sequence in Guardians was something very fun—James had that idea and ... that really says, so wait a minute, he’s this same character who’s popped up in all these films?" A fan theory has suggested that Lee may be portraying the same character in his various cameo appearances. While one version of the theory suggests he may be a Watcher, the character's screen credits and the Watchers' physical appearance dispels that notion.

--Tenebrae (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we need to keep the "nod to" part (even if we come up with some other, more formal term to use) or it makes the fan theory bit seem really trivial. The only reason we are including it in the article is because it has been acknowledged as a bit of an influence on the film itself, so we should still make the connection. Here is a counter-proposal, that attempts to avoid the implication about the Watchers that you are worried about:

Stan Lee appears as an informant to the Watchers, discussing previous adventures that include Lee's cameos in other MCU films. This was a nod to the fan theory that Lee may be portraying the same character in his various cameo appearances (some thought he may be playing a Watcher himself, but his appearance in Vol. 2 does not support that). Feige explained that "Stan Lee clearly exists, you know, above and apart from the reality of all the films. So the notion that he could be sitting there on a cosmic pit stop during the jump gate sequence in Guardians was something very fun—James had that idea and ... that really says, so wait a minute, he’s this same character who’s popped up in all these films?"

- adamstom97 (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps or muddies the water, but here is a quote (source) from James Gunn:

One thing I found very funny and interesting is the fact that people thought Stan Lee is a Watcher and that all of these cameos are part of him being a Watcher. So, Stan Lee as---probably---a guy who is working for the Watchers was something that I thought was fun for the MCU. And yes, I know I made a mistake. I'll own up to my mistake because Guardians of the Galaxy 2 theoretically happens in 2014 which is before Infinity War. And Stan Lee in the movie says, 'That time I was the Fed Ex guy,' which is what he is in Civil War. I screwed up; I wasn't thinking, But I'm going to say that probably Stan Lee used the guise of a Fed Ex guy more than one time.

- DinoSlider (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Gunn's quote does seem to support "a nod to" (or perhaps "an acknowledgment of" is more formal language).

I'm not sure there's any need for the parenthetical phrase "(some thought he may be playing a Watcher himself, but his appearance in Vol. 2 does not support that)", since any fan can have any theory — but it's not notable until it has a tangible influence. The Feige quote doesn't have anything to do with the Watchers, so I'm not sure why we're mentioning it at all, since it's not the part of the theory that Feige is addressing. (And incidentally, Gunn in his quote also doesn't believe Stan is a Watcher ... so, again, why include it)? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I like the wording that is used currently (here), but what if we just reorder some things? That may be helpful. I'm thinking this:

Stan Lee appears as an informant to the Watchers, discussing previous adventures that include Lee's cameos in other MCU films. Feige explained that "Stan Lee clearly exists, you know, above and apart from the reality of all the films. So the notion that he could be sitting there on a cosmic pit stop during the jump gate sequence in Guardians was something very fun—James had that idea and ... that really says, so wait a minute, he’s this same character who’s popped up in all these films?" This was a nod to the fan theory that Lee may be portraying the same character in his various cameo appearances, with him appearing talking to the Watchers as an acknowledgement of "the most prominent" fan theory that suggests Lee is Uatu the Watcher.

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I just tweaked the wording again while adding the new info on the continuity error. I've just left talk of Lee being a Watcher in the fan theory to Gunn, so we aren't really discussing it ourselves. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy with your edit Adam. Though would it be beneficial in the added quote from Gunn to reformat in a way to link to the Uatu article? Not trying to harp on that, but that was specific to the theory, not that he was just "a Watcher", but specifically Uatu. That could be potentially helpful for readers to have that link here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Y'know ... that works for me. And I can't imagine a clearer example of how well various experienced editors can collaborate collegially, with one pointing out a syntactical issue, another making a tweak based on that and other discussion, yet another editor finding a relevant additional quote, and yet others synthesizing the various comments. I am so proud of my colleagues. WikiProject Comics consistently proves how mature editors working together can create a whole greater than the sum of its parts. As Stan would say, "Excelsior!" --Tenebrae (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Alternate posters

¿Why are there two alternate posters in the article? There's no reason for them to be there. --Facu-el Millo (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

yyyyyyyyyyyℂףפעסקש gear shift 173.218.164.252 (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done he request must be of the form "please change X to Y". DonQuixote (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Star Trek V references/accidental parallels?

Did anyone who liked this movie notice these? I did, but I'm not a reliable source. A quick googling showed up only this, which would probably not be enough to mention it in the article, even if he wasn't in the small minority who disliked the film and hadn't specifically used the Star Trek parallels to attack the film.

Please do not blank this under NOTFORUM. I am not interested in discussing Wikipedians' opinions of the film. I think that it's a near-certainty that even if few reliable sources currently discuss the parallels, some will almost certainly show up, and when they do it should almost certainly be mentioned in this article, similarly to how our Kuroneko article discusses the obvious Akutagawa reference in the film's title. Hopefully it won't take forty years with this film.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I personally have not seen Star Trek V, so I can't comment myself, but I also have not seen anything about this. If there are more reliable sources than just that one discussing, I think it could be something to consider though. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Third paragraph of plot summary is inaccurate

The first part takes Ego at his word, but it was pretty clear that he was lying. Forming a human guise, he traveled the universe to escape his loneliness and discover a purpose, eventually falling in love with Quill's mother Meredith. should be qualified somewhere with a "he says", since (1) he obviously wasn't genuinely lonely (his plan, the whole time, was to exterminate all life but himself) and (2) he tricked a lot of women into breeding with him and killed Peter's mother (and presumably all the others) so the unqualified claim that he did fall in love with her is dubious.

Also, the fact that Peter only turned on Ego when Ego admits to having murdered Peter's mother (which admission, admittedly, influences my interpretation that he was lying about having been in love with her) probably should be mentioned (on a quick scan, I couldn't find any mention to Peter's mother's death having been caused by Ego anywhere in the article).

EDIT: My mistake. I "Ctrl+F"ed the words "tumo(u)r" (the word used in the film) and "cancer" but what I should have searched was "death". I did read over it, but it appears to have been in the wrong place, which might have also contributed. Sorry if I am misremembering the order of events, but even if I am misremembering my own poor memory would be a valid excuse for having missed the reference, as it was out of order with how I thought the plot went. 12:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know we have word-count issues and plot summaries are allowed to be sourced directly to film itself (they shouldn't be, but at present they are), and some of the above is just my interpretation, but one has to understand that it is just someone else's interpretation that is currently in the article. This is why I think plot summaries should be based on reliable secondary sources as I outlined here. And no, I don't want to discuss interpretation of policy and guidelines on the article talk page. If others think that "he says" doesn't belong ... well, I will probably just agree to disagree.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we already cover both points: the paragraph does begin with "Ego explains"; and Meredith's death is mentioned twice in the paragraph, with the second time being "Quill fights back after Ego reveals that he deliberately caused Meredith's death". - adamstom97 (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Second point: Yeah, sorry I missed that. But the order was still messed up -- Quill attacked Ego when the latter suddenly revealed that he deliberately killed Meredith, and then Ego became forceful, saying that he had hoped Quill would work with him willingly. If I recall correctly. I'm gonna rewatch the film later in the week; I don't know how many times you or others have seen it, and I might well be wrong. As an aside, even in the bit of text that I missed, there was the separate problem that it claimed he killed her because his love for her was distracting, which I don't think was hinted at in the film, and I walked out with the impression that he killed her in order to facilitate his abduction of Peter. I can't help but feel that the same kind of hopeless romanticism that leads a lot naive A Song of Ice and Fire fans to think that Rhaegar and Lyanna were star-crossed lovers rather than the former being a manipulative twenty-something who kidnaps a pubescent child in order to breed with her because of her special genes has led some watchers of this film to take someone who is clearly lying between half the time and all the time at his word when it comes to him being in love with Meredith, and have interpreted other stuff in light of their taking him at his word on this point.

First point: "Ego explains" doesn't really address the problem; for one thing, it is attached to he is a god-like Celestial, an immortal consciousness that manipulated the matter around it to form the planet with itself at the core, which is not something that can't be taken at face value, as it is not later contradicted and is not self-serving; secondly, "explains" implies a degree of credulity. The second sentence in the paragraph would be better preceded by "Ego claims", or the neutral "Ego states" or "Ego says".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I think "explains" is the correct and most descriptive word. "To explain" is a neutral action having nothing to do with truth or falsehood. Scientists explain things; so does Donald Trump. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, (leaving Trump aside) scientists explain natural phenomena that can be observed and so in some manner elicit explanation. Ego gave two conflicting explanations as to why he traveled the universe (he is lonely so he will exterminate all life he encounters), and to what the purpose of his relationship with Meredith was (he was in love with her so he impregnated her, and countless other aliens across the universe at roughly the same time, before leaving, never to return, and then killed her), one being much more believable and in-line with what turned out (after a plot twist) to be "true". Yes, he says he was in love with Meredith, but he doesn't mention his dozens of other children (who must have all been conceived during roughly the same time as Peter, since Yondu, who is not implied to be immortal, collected them for him, and Mantis, observed what happened to them) until the audience and several of the Guardians have discovered that independently. You thanked me for this edit which removed one of the references to Ego being in love with Meredith, which implies you don't necessarily disagree with me here. But however one interprets the film itself, I don't read "Ego explains" as covering the following three sentences. That might just be me -- I'm pretty pedantic about relative pronouns and tense-shifts, and if I can't convince folks I'll agree to disagree. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

David Hasselhoff cameo digitally de-aged?

Was the Hoff de-aged as well? I'm not that familiar with him and so I didn't go into the film knowing what he looked like in the 1980s, let alone what he looks like now. I just assumed that since Peter wouldn't recognize modern Hasselhoff, his appearance would have been digitally de-aged to how he looked in the 1980s like Kurt Russell in the opening sequence. The cited source is a bit unclear about this, as it is more focused on the mid-credits song the Hoff sings. Has anyone seen any other sources discussing this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no, Hasselhoff appears as he is now (I guess he is still pretty recognizable though). - adamstom97 (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Cats not matching description in body of article?

A few of the categories (Films set in Missouri, Films set in 1980) are clearly accurate to the film itself, but those details are not mentioned anywhere in the article itself. I couldn't find anywhere in WP:CAT where this was covered, so I'm not sure if this is normal, but would it be better to sub-out set in the 1980s in the cast section in favour of set in Missouri in 1980? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I am also not sure about the exact details of how we deal with categories, but I think your suggestion sounds like a good idea. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Not advocating one way or another, but just throwing out there for consideration: At 670 words, we do have room to add something like "In 1980 Missouri, Meredith Quill marvels that she is in love with 'a spaceman.' " --Tenebrae (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Comics articles
• Low-importance Comics articles
• C-Class Comics articles of Low-importance
• C-Class Marvel Comics articles
• Marvel Comics work group articles
• C-Class comic book films articles
• Comic book films task force articles
• WikiProject Comics articles
• C-Class film articles
• C-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment