| Revision as of 14:08, 11 February 2015 editZzaxx1 (talk | contribs)635 edits →Protected edit request on 11 February 2015: new section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:13, 18 November 2024 edit undoQingy2019 (talk | contribs)2 edits →Edit request to fix small typo on the MCU films page.: ReplyTag: Reply |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{GTCmain|Marvel Cinematic Universe films|1}} |
|
|
|
{{skiptotalk}} |
|
|
{{notice|heading=Draft articles|] for all upcoming future MCU films can be found at ]}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
{{Article history |
|
{{Article history |
|
|action1=FLC |
|
|action1=FLC |
| Line 6: |
Line 9: |
|
|action1result=promoted |
|
|action1result=promoted |
|
|action1oldid=610162380 |
|
|action1oldid=610162380 |
|
|currentstatus=FL |
|
|
|maindate=1 August 2014}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Film |class=FL|Comics=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Comics |class=FL|importance=low |Film=yes |Marvel=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=GTC |
|
== Header dates == |
|
|
|
|action2date=07:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured topic candidates/Marvel Cinematic Universe films/archive1 |
|
|
|action2result=promoted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=GTR |
|
Do we really need to put the year in both the level-2 and level-3 headers. It seems the year in the level-3 headers would be sufficient. Also though its widely known, The phases are currently unreferenced.--] (]) 19:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action3date=12:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
:I agree that I think the dates in the level 2 headers is a bit much. If we need to source the phases, I think the lead of the cast page has the sources. - ] (]) 20:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured topic removal candidates/Marvel Cinematic Universe films/archive1 |
|
|
|action3result=kept |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=GTR |
|
== The cast table == |
|
|
|
|action4date=02:07, 9 April 2018 |
|
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured topic removal candidates/Marvel Cinematic Universe films/archive2 |
|
|
|action4result=kept |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=GTR |
|
The cast table, which should be more of an overview, is starting to get a little long, with characters (such as the Collector's aide or Senator Stern) who aren't really recurring or important. Should we maybe add another stipulation? Say, the character must have appeared in the main cast of at least two films? We could use the same criteria we use for the film page infoboxes. -] (]) 18:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action5date=02:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
:How about just add "...and must be in the billing block of at least one of the films in which they appear"? - ] (]) 18:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured topic removal candidates/Marvel Cinematic Universe Films/archive1 |
|
::I would prefer two films, as that helps us limit it to characters who are actually major recurring presences, rather than characters who have one major appearance and then a bunch of cameos. But I suppose I'd be okay with one, too. -] (]) 19:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action5result=Demoted |
|
:::If we did two, that would eliminate (beyond the two you mentioned above) Coulson, Jarvis, Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Sitwell, Howard Stark, and The Collector. While Coulson and Sitwell were more recurring than starring, I think both deserve a spot here, partially due to their appearance in the One Shots and SHIELD (even though I know this tables does not cover that). So I guess that brings up another question, should the table currently here be mimicked at all on Marvel Cinematic Universe to cover recurring characters across the three mediums: films, One-Shots and TV? - ] (]) 19:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Well this page is focused on the films, so their appearances in the other media shouldn't have an effect on the table here. And I'm not sure about another table on the main page, it seems that that information is handled in the prose there, for the most part. -] (]) 19:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Alright, so back to the task at hand: one or two billings. I think one is fine and two might cut too much imo. - ] (]) 20:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Okay, then let's try one for now and we can reassess later as needed. -] (]) 20:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::That sounds good. - ] (]) 20:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Coulson is often referred to as "the glue" in the MCU, so if he is cut from the table, the table seems almost pointless. One works well. --] (]) 21:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FL |
|
===Redundancy and usefulness=== |
|
|
|
|maindate=1 August 2014}} |
|
I started this conversation over at the ] page, but it really should be discussed here. Basically, I feel that this table is not serving the use it was intended to as well as could be. Yes, it is a nifty way to see which characters have shown up in different franchises, but it is made redundant by the actual list, where the recurring nature both through individual films and across phases is emphasised. I believe that prose can much more accurately represent the recurring nature of cast and characters throughout the films, just as is done at ], where a table like this could be easily set up to show which characters have appeared in which mediums, but ultimately it is unnecessary, and it would prevent the section from including such important information as the multiple actors who portray Howard Stark, etc. This is a similar situation, and if we had prose instead of this table, we would be able to identify not just recurring characters and cast members, but significant characters and cast members who perhaps do not fit into the current parametres of the table. It should also be noted that as more films are released, the parametres of the table must tighten, and even more characters will be cut out, increasing the redundancy of the table. I think this is an issue that really needs to be dealt with, so please carry on this discussion if you have any thoughts. - ] (]) 13:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Fl| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Comics|importance=low |Film=yes |Marvel=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Disney|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Film|Comics=yes|American-task-force=yes|mcu=yes|mcu-importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Lists|class=FL |
|
|
|importance=low |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Media franchises|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low |USfilm=yes|USfilm-importance=low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Copied |from= Marvel Cinematic Universe |from_oldid=598937178 |to= List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films |to_oldid=598973398 |date = March 10, 2014 }} |
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
is what I have in mind. - ] (]) 10:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
:Compared to the current table, that is worse. That prose is not really recurring information, rather commentary on the leads of each franchise, a select few characters that have reappeared, and recasting info. - ] (]) 19:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100k |
|
::I admit that the table was a nifty idea, as it is cool to see which characters have recurred throughout the films, but it has gotten to the point where important characters do not fit within the parametres, and more will have to be omitted in the near future as more films are released. I do understand the desire to have this, but as you said when I tried to turn the cast section of the MCU page into a table of cast and characters who have recurred across mediums, not everything needs to be in a table, and not having that table has turned out really well, as we have been able to fit important information there that we otherwise couldn't have. If somebody is reading about the MCU films, yes its cool to see that The Collector has appeared in both the Thor and Guardians franchises in table form, but we already know that from further up the page - that sort of info easily fits, as it already does, in the continuity/MCU connections sections for each film. With this prose, we are explaining why there is no normal cast table on the page - there is no main cast, as there are multiple lead actors. We do give the recurring characters info anyway, and other important casting issues (recastings). And if anyone wants to see this information, and more, in table form, then they simply have to click on the link to the actual page. Having a really good cast table, and then another much less useful one on this page is pretty much the definition of redundant. If you think the prose needs to be rewritten somewhat to be more about the recurring side, then that can be done, but I don't think you should push this away so offhandedly. - ] (]) 20:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|counter = 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
:: focuses more on the recurring side, but is still not constricted like the table. - ] (]) 22:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
::{{ping|Favre1fan93}} Has this new version changed your mind? I believe I have addressed your complaints. - ] (]) 01:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films/Archive %(counter)d |
|
:::The section is 'Recurring cast and characters'. As of yet, Pratt, Douglas and Rudd are neither of these. Hence, the table, with the rules from the FAQ is still a better alternative to state this. - ] (]) 05:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
::::That statement has nothing to do with what we are talking about. If you can't be bothered or don't really care, than just let the change be made. - ] (]) 06:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
:::::Sorry. Had a cache issue regarding the updated look. I don't know. I don't really see the usefulness of replacing the table with text saying the same thing. See if someone else can offer an opinion before attempting anything. If no ones responds, will examine this again I guess. - ] (]) 18:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{All time pageviews|83}} |
|
::::::Although the table is a bit cumbersome, I think it's much more useful than chunks of prose that just list appearances. I think if you were to list appearances, you would want to go about it in a very easy-to-read manner, with headers dividing things, etc. But that's probably not something that belongs here. Maybe it's an alternative to the gigantic tables at ]. --] (]) 23:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Annual report|], ], ], ], and ]}} |
|
:::::::I still think the table needs to be changed to prose, but I can accept that this might not be the right time. At such a point as the prose becomes more manageable/easier to read then the table, the change should be made (I think this might happen after a few more characters are added to the table). - ] (]) 05:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|May 8 2016 (12th)|Nov 26 2017 (20th)|Mar 11 2018 (21st)|Mar 18 2018 (12th)|Mar 25 2018 (21st)|Apr 15 2018 (23rd)|Apr 22 2018 (7th)|Apr 29 2018 (3rd)|May 6 2018 (4th)|May 13 2018 (17th)|Mar 10 2019 (14th)|Mar 17 2019 (15th)|Mar 24 2019 (21st)|Mar 31 2019 (20th)|Apr 7 2019 (16th)|Apr 14 2019 (17th)|Apr 21 2019 (2nd)|Apr 28 2019 (2nd)|May 5 2019 (6th)|May 12 2019 (15th)|Jul 21 2019 (8th)|Jul 28 2019 (18th)|Dec 19 2021|Jan 16 2022|Jul 24 2022}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
===Revisit=== |
|
|
|
}} |
|
{{ping|Favre1fan93|ProfessorKilroy}} What do you guys think about the table now that it has become so big? I think we at least need to tighten our criteria for inclusion in the table. - ] (]) 21:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:I still think the table is the best way to go about this, but I do see the size becoming the issue. I was just thinking, of say, only actors that appear mainly in Avenger films and other, but that only removes like 3 rows. Possible idea that might work: remove the table and just leave the "main" template. Use a prose that say, "In the films multiple characters have recurred. They include: A as Y; B and C as D;" etc. But the key is NOT to use refs or all the film appearances. I don't know if that would be okay to do, essentially saying "find all refs at the main page. here's just a sampling." I feel as though there is a policy/guideline saying that if the info is sourced somewhere on a related topic page, it is okay not to be sourced. I could just be crazy though about that. - ] (]) 05:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::That could be good, as basically a bit of a summary to help with this page, with more info there. I think anyway of getting the table to pretty much fit on one screen would be good though, as, I don't know about you, but I have to scroll down to the bottom of the table, then across, and then back up, to see which characters in the top few rows are in some of the later films. - ] (]) 07:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{ping|TriiipleThreat}} Do you have any insight into my idea? Would that work / have you ever seen this policy/guideline I seem to be thinking of? - ] (]) 17:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Technically, we are not supposed to reference other Misplaced Pages articles, which is essentially what you are proposing. If the table gets to size that hinders more than it helps, then we should remove the table and leave the link to main list.--] (]) 18:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:I guess one idea for tightening the criteria would be to increase it from two franchises to three. But that cuts out a lot. It brings the number of rows from 20 down to 8 (featuring the Banner, Carter, Coulson, Fury, Rogers, Romanoff and both Starks). That's pretty drastic, but since it'll get bigger over time, that might not be an issue. Or maybe this is something for later down the track. --] (]) 00:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think at this point it might be beneficial to convert it to prose, if it's still a sticking point. It does break up the flow of the page with the unwieldy table and having to scroll so far for the information is probably not all the helpful for readers. -] (]) 19:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Cap 2 RT score == |
|
|
|
|
|
Can someone fix it? I can't figure out what's wrong with it. ] (]) 19:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have been in contact on the template page. Still trying to get it resolved. In the mean time, the info can be added as a field, to bypass the error message until the bot comes to it. - ] (]) 01:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== A crew table == |
|
|
|
|
|
Why this page don't have a crew table like other like Star Wars or X-Men? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:It does not need one, as we have this info readily available on each of the individual film pages. - ] (]) 16:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Draft for Doctor Strange (film) == |
|
|
<!-- ] 16:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC) --> |
|
|
|
|
|
This is just a notice that there is a ] for ''Doctor Strange'' at ] until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the ]. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - ] (]) 05:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Draft for Black Panther (film) == |
|
|
<!-- ] 16:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC) --> |
|
|
|
|
|
This is just a notice that there is a ] for ''Black Panther'' at ] until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the ]. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - ] (]) 05:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Draft for Captain America: Civil War == |
|
|
<!-- ] 16:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC) --> |
|
|
|
|
|
This is just a notice that there is a ] for ''Captain America: Civil War'' film at ] until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the ]. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - ] (]) 05:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Draft for Thor: Ragnarok == |
|
|
<!-- ] 16:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC) --> |
|
|
|
|
|
This is just a notice that there is a ] for ''Thor: Ragnarok'' at ] until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the ]. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - ] (]) 05:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Draft for Black Widow (film) == |
|
|
<!-- ] 16:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC) --> |
|
|
|
|
|
This is just a notice that there is a ] for ''Black Widow'' at ] until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the ]. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - ] (]) 15:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Draft for Inhumans (film) == |
|
|
<!-- ] 16:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC) --> |
|
|
|
|
|
This is just a notice that there is a ] for ''Inhumans'' at ] until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the ]. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - ] (]) 15:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Draft for Guardians of the Galaxy 2 == |
|
|
<!-- ] 16:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC) --> |
|
|
|
|
|
This is just a notice that there is a ] for ''Guardians of the Galaxy 2'' at ] until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the ]. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - ] (]) 03:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Draft for Captain Marvel (film) == |
|
|
<!-- ] 16:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC) --> |
|
|
|
|
|
This is just a notice that there is a ] for ''Captain Marvel'' at ] until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the ]. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - ] (]) 20:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Draft for Avengers: Infinity War Part 1 == |
|
|
<!-- ] 16:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC) --> |
|
|
|
|
|
This is just a notice that there is a ] for ''Avengers: Infinity War Part 1'' at ] until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the ]. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - ] (]) 01:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Shouldn't Downey be added to the cast since he's <i>technically</i> contracted for The Avengers 3, which would be this? ] (]) 21:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Also, shouldn't Josh Brolin be on there as Thanos since he was seen as the teaser for Infinity War? Also, he's referenced here as having a part in . ] (]) 21:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Potential trademark filings == |
|
|
|
|
|
So I came across this article that said Marvel had filed some trademarks which relate to films that have come out or will be. Yet, I went to the US trademark filings and found a few (, and ), and they all say the filing is for "Downloadable electronic publications in the nature of comic books, comic magazines and stories in illustrated form." Compare that to filing, which says "Audio and visual recordings featuring live-action entertainment; musical recordings; video game software; cases for cellular telephones." Just want to make sure I am reading this correct that these are in fact NOT for films, but possibly upcoming comic titles/series. - ] (]) 23:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Phase One/Two == |
|
|
|
|
|
What does it mean? Is it a fan insider? --] (]) 21:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:The phases are a group of films that Marvel has tied together. Phases (so far) have been capped off by ''Avengers'' films. So all of the Phase One films, while individual in nature, all lead up to '']''. All of the Phase Two films will lead up to '']'' and presumably, all of the Phase Three films will lead to ''Avengers 3''. Sources for the phases are provided in the article lead. - ] (]) 21:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Kevin Feige explained it recently as being a simplification for discussing movies. He referred to all the movies leading up to and including The Avengers as "the first phase" at a convention once and it caught on, so Marvel made it an official system for clumping movies together. There is no real regularity or patterns in these things, it is just a way of breaking up the movies into more manageable groups (which also means other things connected to the MCU like TV shows are not included in the phase system). ] (]) 22:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Spider-Man == |
|
|
|
|
|
Why aren't the latest Spider-Man films included? Isn't Spider-Man a Marvel character? ] (]) 17:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Please read the FAQ at the top of the talk page. The rights are at separate film companies. - ] (]) 18:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's all down to the film rights, the Amazing Spider-Man films and its upcoming spin-offs are in a separate universe, the X-Men and Deadpool franchises make up another universe, and the upcoming Fantastic Four reboot will be in yet another universe (additionally a lot of older films are in their own universe). Everything else that will be released in future is in the MCU (plus the films listed in the article that have already been released). ] (]) 22:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::But I don't get it why isn't Spider-Man on this page? Both Marvel and Sony have both confirmed that Spider-Man is in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. That Marvel will produce the film's but Sony will distribute them like what Marvel and Universal did with Hulk. Why can't we add Spider-Man too this page? ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned"> — Preceding ] comment added 17:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:::], please go ], there is currently a debate going on discussing this. You'll probably take the other side but they haven't actually confirmed it yet unfourtunatly.--18:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Film table == |
|
|
|
|
|
The comics, One-Shots, and TV pages all have a or several tables which are transcluded to the main MCU page. Should we look at doing that here or is there no point? - ] (]) 06:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Connections with other Marvel film franchises section == |
|
:I don't have a problem with summarizing the list with a table, especially as the list of films keeps growing.--] (]) 12:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think we should do a table per phase. So all phase 1 films would have one table (similarly to on the main page) under the section, before the Iron Man subsection, and then the phase 2 section would just have its films, etc. I think that would be the best imo versus one large table, given how we have the page formatted now. See my ]. - ] (]) 01:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That looks pretty good, and what I would expect to see. If anyone wants to see all of the films in one table, then they can see that at the main MCU page. - ] (]) 09:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It is a different style of page where it would not really fit or look good to have the table all together, like the One-shots or comics ones. And it would be very hard to split and transclude all three to how it is the main page, as I will be doing with the TV series' two tables, so I think this is the best option if we were to do it. Any thoughts on my mock up {{u|TriiipleThreat}}? - ] (]) 17:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As ] is trying to remove the ''X-Men'' franchise from this section - I've opened this discussion.<br/>User ping: ], ]. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#50B849;">'''''Vestrian24Bio'''''</span> (<small>]</small>) 18:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
:I attempted to clean up the Film Table, which was not only split into separate Phase One and Phase Two tables, but also featured the rest of Phase Two and all of Phase Three further down the page in the "Future" section. I managed to cleanly consolidate all film entries into one table with the correct Phase identified. However in doing so I seem to have created an issue with the citations and references. Any help or advice on correcting this would be greatly appreciated. I had no intention of deleting any content, just wanted to help reorganize it to make it more clean for the reader with a consistent format and minimal excess scrolling. ] (]) 15:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
: It was Favre1fan93 who removed it initially. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#50B849;">'''''Vestrian24Bio'''''</span> (<small>]</small>) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Until a few days ago this was a Spider-Man section only, so suggesting that we are "trying to remove the ''X-Men'' franchise from this section" is disingenuous. Favre pointed out that the Spider-Man crossovers are noteworthy in that it is between studios, while the X-Men rights are all at Marvel now so crossovers there are not the same thing. - ] (]) 22:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I stand by my revert reason: there's nothing to "cross-over" with since Marvel now has full control of the X-Men rights. They can do and reference whatever they want with them. With Sony/Spider-Man, it isn't that easy. The section's whole purpose is stemming from the first sentence in it about Feige's comments on the relationship between the MCU and SSU, and how the MCU navigates referencing Sony properties (and how Sony goes about trying to connect to the MCU). - ] (]) 19:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The ''DP&W'' film credits states "In Association with Century Fox" because the X-Men rights still belongs to Fox. Marvel has the right to create new films with X-Men but, the existing film series ia property of Fox and Marvel does not owns Fox; Disney does. Also, the film is listed as a "cross-over" film if you had seen the categories. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#50B849;">'''''Vestrian24Bio'''''</span> (<small>]</small>) 06:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Disney owns both Marvel and Fox. - ] (]) 09:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Yes, It's a crossover between two franchises owned by Disney. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#50B849;">'''''Vestrian24Bio'''''</span> (<small>]</small>) 09:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Exactly. Not the same as a crossover between franchises owned by Disney and a whole separate company. - ] (]) 09:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Agree that it shouldn't be within this section; but, it should be included (maybe in another section) as it is a continuation of events that occurred outside of MCU. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#50B849;">'''''Vestrian24Bio'''''</span> (<small>]</small>) 10:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Details on how the Fox properties have been integrated with the MCU are included at ] since they have been included in TV as well as films, does that cover what you are looking for? - ] (]) 11:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Yeah! <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#50B849;">'''''Vestrian24Bio'''''</span> (<small>]</small>) 12:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::But it’s also like, they showed footage from movies that were previously not owned by Marvel Studios that weren’t in the MCU. I get that Deadpool and Wolverine is a MCU movie but that footage wasn’t Marvel Studios. ] (]) 23:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::And? That is stock footage they had the legal rights to use. That is not an in-universe connection. It is also just one film (''Deadpool & Wolverine'') versus the 3 MCU ''Spider-Man'' films and ''Venom: Let There Be Carnage'', which were a coordination between the MCU and Sony's universe. The other Marvel characters have only been a one-way connection to their old ones only in the MCU, and that is not what the scope of this section is. ] (]) 01:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Those are all movies that Disney owns now, though. 20th Century Studios is in the small print of the marketing probably for some kind of contractual reason but they didn't have anything to do with the film, which was fully Marvel/Maximum Effort/21 Laps. It's a little like how Avengers 1 and a couple other films said Paramount all over the posters and in the credits but they were actually distributed by Disney at that point. ] (]) 21:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Except this section is dedicated for the Spider-Man films which Disney does not own, unlike the rest of these properties mentioned. That is why this has a devoted section. ] (]) 01:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:We should only include films that are produced by Marvel Studios and/or their story events taking place in Marvel Cinematic Universe. ] (]) 12:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2024 == |
|
== Stan Lee Confirming Black Panther == |
|
|
just wondering if the page should be updated to mention Stan Lee confirming Black Panther being in the MCU, its already updated on the Black Panther Page itself. maybe there should be part of the list or something where it has confirmed MCU films, but the ones that don't have official dates yet (like Thor 3 and Black Panther, both confirmed but don't have release dates yet, Thor has its director and stuff set though...)] (]) 01:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:All he said is that they are working on it, which we already know.--] (]) 01:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
I know that, what I was saying though is mention that its been confirmed by him that it will be in the MCU, I wasn't arguing about whether he said they were working on it or not. In other words have a line in there or something that says something to the effect of "in Late August/Early September 2014 (I don't remember the exact date) Stan Lee confirmed that a Black Panther Movie is in development and confirmed that it will be part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Lineup", would something like that be ok to add onto the page, since it is factual information confirmed by a reliable source?] (]) 04:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::This is all Lee actually said, "." Nothing in that sentence contains new information.--] (]) 10:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films|answered=yes}} |
|
== Future section == |
|
|
|
Box office for Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania change to: |
|
|
Domestic (45.1%) |
|
|
$214,504,909 |
|
|
International (54.9%) |
|
|
$261,566,271 |
|
|
Worldwide |
|
|
$476,071,180 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/releasegroup/gr1371492869/ |
|
Regarding today's announcement: we do not need a bazillion single sentence sub-sections. Many of these can still be folded into the "Other potential projects" section.--] (]) 20:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Agreed. Although, that should then be changed to "Other projects". --] (]) 20:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm fine with that.--] (]) 20:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Some have some more info. Sorry. Did a big edit before seeing this. I'd agree to this though. - ] (]) 20:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Box office for The Marvels change to: |
|
:When I cleaned up the Film tables I removed the redundant entries regarding Phases Two and Three. The 'Future' section should only include those film projects that were not part of the official Phase Three announcement made by Marvel and do not yet have a clear position in the franchise. ] (]) 15:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Domestic (41%) |
|
::There was nothing redundant before your edits. Also the future section is for films that are scheduled to be released in the future, hence the name.--] (]) 16:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
$84,500,223 |
|
:::The Future section is growing too long and appears inconsistent with the Phase Tables. The page as a whole feels disjointed. The structure of: Phase One table; Phase One synopses; Phase Two Table (only what's been released so far); Phase Two synopses; etc. requires excessive scrolling and does not feel concise from a readers' point of view. |
|
|
|
International (59%) |
|
::::I propose that the Future section focus on proposed films that are not included in the scope of any of the three Phases per Marvel's most recent announcement. Furthermore, I suggest one table for all Phases, with each Phase appropriately identified, followed by the plot synopses for each entry of the franchise in chronological order. I am developing a mock-up of this proposal (based in large part on my original bold edit) on my Talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mlcorcoran). Any suggestions, feedback, and input is greatly appreciated. ] (]) 17:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
$121,636,602 |
|
:::::So you want to remove all of the actual prose content that lays out the development of the franchise film-by-film in favor of the exact table that already exists on the main ] page? I could maybe see an argument for moving the Phase 3 items above the box office/recurring cast information but I have no idea why you would want to remove all of the content on the page. -] (]) 19:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Worldwide |
|
::::::This page is a List page. Some prose outlining the development of the franchise as a whole may be helpful, but the prose as it currently stands is excessive; it goes into detail about the plot synopsis and production history of each film, which is information best suited for the Wiki page of each film itself (each of which is linked in the list). By contrast, the table that exists on the main MCU page could be removed in favor of the link that points to this detailed List page. If consensus is that the prose as-is should not be removed, I would still recommend consolidating the Phase tables so that the Phase 3 information is not so far removed from the rest of the franchise information. ] (]) 20:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
$206,136,825 |
|
:::::::The prose contextualizes the film series with an overview of the development of each film, and information about crossovers. The only thing that makes this page a "detailed List" is the prose, the table is nice for a quick glance but as I said it fits quite nicely on the main page and a reader would likely want more, without having to read the even more in-depth information on each individual film page. Hence, this page. -] (]) 20:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I withdraw any objection to removing the prose :) My greater concern is the structure and organization of the content. My suggestions, as illustrated on my Talk page, are as follows: |
|
|
# Consolidate the Phase film list into one table. This keeps consistency with the Cast and Box Office tables further down the page. |
|
|
# Arrange all prose outlines for the film entries in chronological order, including Phase Three films that have not yet started production, and remove Phase Three entries from the "Future" section. Limit the "Future" section to the "other project" films that have been proposed but are not yet an official part of a franchise Phase. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/releasegroup/gr2275561989/ |
|
Please let me know if you find these suggestions agreeable and helpful to the page. Thank you for your feedback and guidance. ] (]) 20:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' as a good layout for this page is a breakdown by phase, the table as is should not be changed or combined. That's point 1. Point 2, all films not released are ''still'' future films, regardless of if they are in Phase 2, Phase 3, or not announced yet. Placing a future film with films already released would signify that they have been released, not that they have yet to. - ] (]) 21:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Box office for Deadpool and Wolverine change to: |
|
*'''Comment''' I honestly don't see any issues with the page myself, and to clarify, I moved the entire future section to the bottom of the page a while ago because, in every film article I have seen, the future section always comes after everything else, so that's why it appears to be "so far removed" from the rest of the films. - ] (]) 22:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Domestic (47.8%) |
|
|
$261,190,114 |
|
|
International (52.2%) |
|
|
$284,700,000 |
|
|
Worldwide |
|
|
$545,890,114 |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Request Withdrawn''' Duly noted. I withdraw any further requests to modify the page. Thank you for your feedback :) ] (]) 15:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
Source: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/releasegroup/gr1015239173/?ref_=bo_ydw_table_5 ] (]) 23:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:These have all been adjusted at the Phase Five article. - ] (]) 22:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Pascal Pictures == |
|
===Recent change=== |
|
|
I have just made a bold edit that goes against my statement above, as I have been thinking about this page, and I realized that the Phase 3 films aren't future films in the sense that futur films listed at the bottom of a film article are for separate articles, whereas these films belong collectively on this page. Also, we are including casting info for the Phase 3 films in the table, so they really should be listed before it. If you revert this edit, I would appreciate it being discussed here. - ] (]) 06:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:Regardless of which Phase the upcoming films are in, they are still "Future" films and have not released yet. The current distinction before your edit, clearly indicated which films had already released in the universe, and which had not. Your edit made it seem as though all of these films had released, even despite the use of release year in the headings. - ] (]) 06:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::But not only are there years in the headers, the tables state which films are released and which aren't, also, the prose in each section clearly identifies when films are being released, and the lead also explains which films have been released an which haven't. I think that's all we can do to try and get these facts across, because, as I said above, these films aren't "future" films in the sense that we would usually put them in a future section, and they are included in the cast table, which is a bit confusing/incorrect structurally. P.S. Thanks for discussing :) - ] (]) 06:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Maybe the heading doesn't have to be "Future", rather, "Unreleased films". - ] (]) 20:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should Pascal Pictures be added to the sidebar as a production company, in reference to the Spidey films? They were credited, after all, just like Maximum Effort and 21 Laps. ] (]) 21:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Timeline added == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I have added that mention as well as a couple other ones that were missing. ] (]) 01:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
I have created a timeline for the release schedule to this article. I'm writing this now to explain why it's there. For starters, having a graphical representation is a helpful way of assisting visual learners an easy view of the releases, and it also summarises well how the phases have been defined. This doesn't belong in a regular article, I agree, but in a list article, such as this, it's perfectly suited. --]] 03:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:This isn't necessary, as releases are perfectly listed vertically down the page. Releas for individual franchises do not need to be listed separately as well. If anyone wants that info, there are other pages that can provide it, like the sequel sections at the bottom of individual film pages. - ] (]) 03:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Agreed. Furthermore all the graph displays is the release year and erroneously displays it as continuous event throughout a given year rather than a single date. It's redundant, vague and more importantly flawed.--] (]) 04:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I couldn't disagree more. There are plenty of precedents for this, and there is nowhere in this article where it is "perfectly" laid out. As to it being released over a year, sure, there ar otherways in which this representation can be adjusted. I am going to place the list back in place, as the last reversion is a breach of ], and my reversion is of a remedial purpose. Until a clear consensus of can be reached (and 2 people against doesn't diminish the value of my initial argument) for or against, the section should remain. --]] 05:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Multiple people reverting your reverts is only a breach of ] on your part. The issue here is one person attempting to add something that no one else has supported, but several have opposed. Currently, the consensus, as in the general feeling of the discussion, is for this not to happen, or at least not to happen like this. If it is decided that this is a good addition to the page here, then it can be re-added, otherwise it should not. No further action concerning this should be taken in the article until this discussion has concluded. - ] (]) 05:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Provide a clear reason not to include it, and I'll understand. Your only definitions so far and preference based. And the initial reversion is the one which counts for ]. I've lodged this for review. I will once again, re-revert the article, as is policy, to the included version until consensus is reached. I should add that when you say "multiple people" are against it, I can only see two. --]] 05:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Two is more than one, i.e. "multiple". You added something that more than one editor disagrees with, and no other editor has shown support for. Because there are opposing views on the matter, the contentious material should be removed from the page, and its re-inclusion should be discussed at the talk page. If the consensus of the discussion is that the information was rightfully included, then it should be re-added. If not, then it should stay removed from the page. Constantly re-adding it, without actually discussing, is not the way. I say not actually discussing, because you are simply making a statement on the talk page, then re-adding the contentious material. That is, unfortunately, not a discussion. If you don't want to discuss this, then please stop causing trouble for everyone else. It is disruptive and frustrating. - ] (]) 05:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Actually, the status quo of this article is to not have the timeline. That's how it should stay until consensus changes. You've made your bold edit, so now it's time to step back and argue your point. |
|
|
:I'm against the table for reasons stated by others above, but mostly because it adds no new information, and provides no particularly new insight into the chronology - which is listed in phases here, and in full at ]. --] (]) 10:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2024 == |
|
==Public response== |
|
|
I'm planning to add ] for the titles, as in the reception section. Shall I do that?? I don't wanna go for ]. <span style="font-family:wide latin,mono-serif">]]</span> 16:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:CinemaScores are more useful to add to individual film articles, opposed to here. It would not fit in either table currently on the page, and a third one should not be created for this info. - ] (]) 04:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::I wanted it to add it into the critical section, which will make the section look like what's and . How about that ?? <span style="font-family:wide latin,mono-serif">]]</span> 08:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I personally don't see how this info should be seen as a comparison to critics' opinions. I'm pinging some other users to get their opinions too. {{ping|TriiipleThreat|Richiekim|Adamstom.97}} - ] (]) 19:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I was sure that we were trying to avoid this sort of thing. The box office gives a pretty good indication of audience response anyway. - ] (]) 20:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films|answered=yes}} |
|
== Spider-Man films == |
|
|
|
Avi Arad was the lead producer (credited above Kevin Feige) on multiple MCU films. He belongs in the Infobox list of producers. ] (]) 17:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{Not done}}: please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] | ] 17:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:He counts as one of the many other Marvel Studios executives to have been a producer, and was only credited for two early films. The note about the other Marvel Studios producers covers this scope, unless there is some more notable merit of including him specifically in the infobox. The rest of the producers are not Marvel Studios employees, hence why they are listed beyond the note. ] (]) 17:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::No he doesn’t. Arad left Marvel Studios in 2006 before the MCU entered production. |
|
|
::https://variety.com/2006/film/markets-festivals/marvel-s-x-man-makes-cushy-exit-1200335312/ |
|
|
::https://deadline.com/2019/03/avi-arad-marvel-blade-spider-man-morbius-toys-1202576569/ ] (]) 01:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::What point are you trying to make here? Arad left but was still credited on those first two films for his early work on their productions. That is noted in the table for the Phase One films, though not in the infobox or lead as it is covered by a note for all other Marvel Studios executives (current and former) who produced MCU films. ] (]) 01:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Avi Arad left Marvel Studios to focus on his work as an independent producer of films such as Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk. The point I’m trying to make is that it’s weird that he isn’t acknowledged at all in the infobox, when every other independent producer is listed and he is much more notable than multiple others who have been given that honour. He doesn’t even get a mention in the note, because again, he had already left Marvel Studios when he began his work producing those films. ] (]) 02:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::You make a good point on the notability of Arad when compared to the other producers and especially compared to the other Marvel Studios executives. I'll restore his mentions on the basis of the technicality and to retain transparency. ] (]) 03:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit request to fix small typo on the MCU films page. == |
|
This is a neutral notice that there is a discussion about whether or not future Spider-Man films are a part of the MCU at ]. All are welcome to input. Thank you.--] (]) 16:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films|answered=yes}} |
|
== Protected edit request on 11 February 2015 == |
|
|
|
In the Section "The Multiverse Saga", under "Phase Four", the film Eternals has a duplicate screenwriter (Chloé Zhao). So my edits would look like: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Chloé Zhao and Chloé Zhao & Patrick Burleigh and Ryan Firpo & Kaz Firpo" --> "Chloé Zhao & Patrick Burleigh and Ryan Firpo & Kaz Firpo" ] (]) 17:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{edit protected|List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films|answered=no}} |
|
|
|
:{{Not done}} - this is intentional, Zhao is officially credited twice for the film (once as an individual writer and then again as part of a team with Burleigh). - ] (]) 17:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
|
::My bad, thanks for clarifying! ] (]) 18:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
I would like to request to put Spider-Man (2017) in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It has been confirmed by many sources including Varity, Sony and even Marvel. I don't get why there had to be an unnecessary discussion about Spider-Man being in the Marvel Cinematic Universe which was started by ]. TriiipleTreat stated there are no sources confirming it while Marvel has confirmed that Spider-Man is in the MCU, but I don't think TriiipleTreat actually read the deal between Sony and Marvel. Anyway I would like to request to put Spider-Man (2017) and Columbia Pictures in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. - ] (]) 11, February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 14:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
Should Pascal Pictures be added to the sidebar as a production company, in reference to the Spidey films? They were credited, after all, just like Maximum Effort and 21 Laps. Aresef (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
In the Section "The Multiverse Saga", under "Phase Four", the film Eternals has a duplicate screenwriter (Chloé Zhao). So my edits would look like:
"Chloé Zhao and Chloé Zhao & Patrick Burleigh and Ryan Firpo & Kaz Firpo" --> "Chloé Zhao & Patrick Burleigh and Ryan Firpo & Kaz Firpo" Qingy2019 (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bowler the Carmine | talk 17:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)