Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Agents of Shield in cast table

Should Agents of Shield not have a section in the cast table, as it shows that Coulson and Maria Hill reoccur there. Frogkermit (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The list is for feature films, Agents of Shield is linked in the "Other media" section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Once Agents of Shield gets going, if there are people that crossover between the series and the films, it could be a useful addition. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Which is why we included the link in the "Other media" section. Also once the series gets going it might be more appropriate to create List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters as is common practice for television articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but an Agents of SHIELD column would be useful. The only characters to appear there would be ones that have appeared in one of the films. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The primary scope of this article are the feature films, we shouldn't stray from that.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe it would. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Triiiple. The cast table should stick with cast members in the films (for now), and then, as stated, link to a List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters page, if it comes to that. The producers have continually stated that they want this show to stand on its own, so if it comes to a point where those cast members make it over to the films, then it could possibly be considered. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not saying it needs to be a part of this page right now. The show hasn't started, and only two characters would appear in its column (who appear already). But later down the track, if characters cross between the show and some films, it's likely to be a useful addition to the table. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I still say we should leave it to just the features films. Bringing information from other medias will introduce scope creep. Also the serial on-going nature of the series will also bring technical problems as one of the major features of the table shows the chronological real-world introduction of each character.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

In light of the fact that the show is just two episodes in and already has had appearances by three of the cast members from the films (Gregg, Smulders, Jackson), tieing or surpassing the number of recurring characters who've appeared in Hulk and Captain America, it might be worth a second glance. -- 98.250.7.156 (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I still feel we should wait until we are more episodes in. In reality, it's only Coulson who is appearing in both, as Hill and Fury were just cameo roles, with no indication that they are slated to return frequently. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I tried to explain this better in the FAQ, it just doesn't jive with format of the table. I still say creating List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters would be the better solution, especially as the section in the main article becomes increasing bloated. Another solution might be to create a indicator for characters that appear in the television series instead of a full column.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I would be fine with an indicator. I was thinking of that myself, possibly one for television, and one for the one-shots. (So "T" and "O") - Favre1fan93 (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Indicator sounds like a good idea, but where does that put characters like Peggy Carter? She only appeared in the Captain America films and the One-Shots, so would she get a row, as she appears in both? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
This is why I think it might be best just to keep them in a separate article, readers would still have access to the information. This table was never meant to be a full list anyway.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The indicator for Peggy Carter would not appear on this page, but could possibly on the main list page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional Info to "Other Media: Television"....?

I understand this article focuses on the MCU and the continuation of the characters as a whole. But at least in my opinion, the additional exposure of the characters themselves should be owed to the series "Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes" as well. Could this series be mentioned in this section, or just be left out being that it is not part of the MCU as a whole? At least though, there should be a mention of the animated series that replaced Earth's Mightiest, which was Avengers Assembled. That show has the principle characters that were in the Avengers film, and also includes Falcon. I do not facilitate or monitor this article myself, so I do not want to add them or step on anyone's toes here. Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

That info would not fit in the "Other media: Television" section as that is for shows in the MCU (ie Agents of SHIELD), but possibly in one title "In popular culture" if a reliable source can connect what you are saying about those shows to the MCU. If that source does not exist, then we can't even take into consideration adding this info. As well some, of this info may be more appropriate on The Avengers film page (maybe). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Paramount/Disney distribution across related articles

So User:Luxoman237 modified a footnote on all the Marvel movie articles yesterday and it brought to my attention, why does the footnote about Disney buying distribution rights from Paramount appear on films that in some cases were out and fairly fully distributed about 7 years before the change? It is relevant to about two films and even then it is a minor note. The distributor is a nothing entity for any film, and post release distributors even more so. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion over on the Marvel Studios talk page (here) about this I believe. You can peruse that and see if that changes or supports your opinion, but I believe they were added to those pages due to the fact that any future releases in theaters, on home media or television, would be handled by a Disney-entity, not one associated with Paramount. It has been a bit since that discussion, but I believe that was the gist of it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
But the distributor is a non-entity, it is the least important part of the film, that's why it rarely ever appears in an article anywhere but the infobox. Who is released the film post its initial release is not important, it's relevant to like two films, Avengers and Iron Man 3, because Paramount got to siphon off a bunch of profits and Disney had its name on those films instead. The use in the other articles places an undue weight on a minor thing. It's bad enough the distributor is mentioned in the opening of every MCU article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of shared universe concept as business model

I was happy to see this go up for GA, but I'm not sure it's really complete yet. For all the detailed discussion of individual films, there's surprisingly little discussion of the innovation of the shared-universe concept itself, which is the main innovation here. Hundreds if not thousands of articles have been written about how the idea developed, the risk of this as a business strategy, its unexpected triumph, DC's failure to do anything similar, etc. It was surprising to me that the article has so much detail about, say, where principal photography occurred for Iron Man 2, but not discussion of the universe as a concept in itself; this approach seems a bit more like "List of Movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe". (Perhaps it might be retitled and sent to WP:FLC instead of GA?)

Thanks to everybody working on this one--I do hope it gets a promotion of some kind or other-- Khazar2 (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ, the first paragraph deals the creation of the MCU and the second paragraph of each film deals the connective tissue, which is what makes up the universe. This MCU is unique in the fact that it is both a film franchise and a shared universe, so we are treating it as such. However if you have additional information, why not add it?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
C'mon, Triiple, we've worked together enough at this point for you not to patronize me with BEBOLD; frankly, I thought I was doing you a favor by commenting here instead of going with my first instinct, which was to simply quickfail this article. It's a huge problem that only one paragraph of this entire article discusses the Marvel Cinematic Universe as a concept. You can BEBOLD me all you want, but I'm not going to write an entire article for you.
Hundreds of articles have been written about this unusual franchise, so it's not hard to find material. You can basically type "Marvel universe" into the search engine of any newspaper to find critical discussion of the universe project as a whole, like this one or this one, but the article fails to include even a single comment from a critic. Check out this quote from the Boston Globe, for example:
"You don’t hear “universe” much in the film industry. Here in the real world — or Hollywood, at any rate — the prospect of mingling franchise characters is dauntingly complicated. Sure, we get a novelty such as “Alien vs. Predator” here and there, but rarely. Different studios hold rights to characters. Actors’ contracts can be tricky to coordinate — and so can their egos, one imagines. A standard-length script can start to feel crowded with multiple headliners in the mix. All of which makes the superhero crossover vehicle “Marvel’s The Avengers” the unlikeliest event movie of the summer. Who’d have thought — the Marvel Universe, in all its colorful sprawl, making the jump from the comics page to multiplex screens?"
I'm not married to this particular quotation--you can probably do better if you spend more than the five minutes I did--but the current article doesn't even bother to point out that this was an unusual and innovative experiment, which is an obvious and important aspect. The article has almost no discussion of the origins of the MCU idea, even though this is equally important, and readily available (again, see the links above for starters). The article also doesn't discuss the unusual six- and nine-picture contracts Marvel is locking actors into to guarantee their availability for crossovers, and other arrangements Marvel took to make it all fit in a business sense. Unfortunately, the article has almost nothing to say about the franchise as a franchise; it's mostly just a very complete list of cameos. You should consider seriously expanding this one to discuss the central concept: its creators, its development, the business model it involves, and critical response to the shared universe idea.
Sorry if it seems like I'm giving you a hard time here--I really appreciate and respect all the hard work you've done on comic book film topics. It's not so much that I feel information should be cut here, just that the main topic needs some discussion as a topic. Having said my bit, though, I'll bow out for now and wish you luck with the nomination. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, one last obvious point before I forget, is the way the MCU has become a model for other properties. It spurred Warner Brothers to greenlight a Justice League movie to start a similar shared universe, and Fox to start building a shared universe for the comic book characters they control. Some of this may not come to fruition, of course, but it's still an indicator of the mark this franchise has made. Hope this helps--cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Khazar. I don't think this is something to just overlook. The article could still greatly improve by adding this information. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Another point for expansion--sorry that these are coming piecemeal, but the wheels keep turning as I do other things--is there doesn't seem to be any discussion of source material. The structure of the comic-book Marvel Universe is surely worth a few sentences here, as the inspiration for the MCU's shared-universe structure. You don't need to list every original creator, but Stan Lee at least should be mentioned as the creator/co-creator of both the Marvel Universe concept itself and the originals of most of the major characters of the MCU so far (Thor, Nick Fury, Iron Man, Hawkeye, Black Widow, Hulk, Loki, Pepper Potts, Happy Hogan, etc.) Even if you don't want to name Stan specifically for some reason, it seems like a huge omission not to generally discuss the source material of the franchise in the body of the article. Last comment for the day (hopefully for several days), I promise! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Khazar, I'm not patronizing you, but you obviously have a clear idea of what you're looking for. I'm just saying it would be more beneficial for you to actually contribute then leaving these lengthy messages on the talk page. Remember we're all volunteers but thank you for your input, it is something to look into.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for withdrawing the above comment, but I wanted to make it clear that I came to this page initially intending to be a GA reviewer for this article. Since it's not ready to pass, instead of quickfailing it, I thought I'd simply give you the comments that would have been my GA review. I disagree that this obligates me to undertake a large expansion myself. Unfortunately, I seem to have just muddied the waters by posting at the talk page first. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 15:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

First, let me apologize to everyone involved that I posted some of my comments to the talk page instead coming straight here with them. I wanted to give this one an extra chance, but instead I seem to have only muddied the waters--lesson learned. In any case, it's not fair for me to kick the can down the road to another reviewer when the article is significantly incomplete.

There are some things this article does excellently, such as detailing all the "easter eggs" and cross-references of the MCU, or reports of planned future films. But it contains surprisingly little discussion of the MCU as a whole, though hundreds of resources exist on this topic.

For example:

  • There is no discussion of the source material (the Marvel Universe) in the article's body. At a minimum, the body of the article needs to point out that this is based on comic books(!!!), but ideally, it would also discuss how Marvel popularized this shared universe structure and give some mention to Stan Lee for creating it as well as most major characters of the MCU.[1]
  • There's little discussion of why Marvel came to take a shared universe approach.[2]
  • There's no discussion of the fact--outside of the Feige quotation in a box--that having this many movies in a shared universe was something new,[3] or the way it's becoming a model for other studios.[4][5]
  • There's almost no discussion of the business practices that underpin the MCU project, like six- and nine-picture contracts for the lead actors, or Marvel's arrangements with directors. Small example: "When they hired Kenneth Branagh to direct “Thor” and Joe Johnston (”The Rocketeer”) to make “Captain America,” they made sure both filmmakers were open to the idea that they were playing in a shared sandbox, and would be receptive to tackling “Avengers” setup scenes."
  • There's no discussion of the plots of the movies, though their shooting locations are oddly detailed. A reader unfamiliar with the MCU would be utterly lost as to what it's even about; just adding a few sentences like "In Captain America, an experimental American super soldier battles a Nazi organization for control of a powerful artifact during World War II" would be very helpful.
  • There's no discussion of critical response to the shared universe project--in fact, not a single critic appears to be quoted in the article. But many critics have commented on the MCU project as a whole, and its reception shouldn't be discussed solely in metacritic scores for individual movies. Examples: [6][7]
    •  Done. Although more would be helpful, if they can be found. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not that I feel every one of these points is mandatory (though source material, brief plot summaries, and critical reception probably are), but the larger point is simply that though there are many sources discussing the MCU as a whole (I've provided just a few examples here), the article uses almost none of them. As such, it can't be considered to cover the main aspects of the topic, and will need significant expansion to qualify for GA.

I do really appreciate all the work that's been done on this on already, so please don't read any of the above as disrespect. As one of the most successful franchises in film history, it deserves a great article, and I hope work here will continue! And if you disagree with my review here, you can, of course, renominate this for GA at any time, including today. (You can also take it to GAR, though frankly a renomination at GA is probably faster the way GAR runs these days.) But I hope you'll consider revising to include at least some of the above, so this article can cover the MCU as a whole as well as its constituent parts. Best of luck to all those working on this one, and thanks for your efforts. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to suggest these additions to the page, many of which, now that you mention them, I can see trying to add. I was not online fast enough today to let you know that I would have withdrawn the GA nom until these were addressed, but nonetheless, they will still try to be added to the article. As you suggested them, any help you would like to give to adding this info on the page would be appreciated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Favrefan, I'm currently in the middle of research to bring United Nations to GA status, but I will try to pitch in here if I get done with that reasonably soon. Hopefully some of the sources I've named above will give you a start, and of course some of the basic stuff (Stan Lee created these characters, a one-sentence plot summary of each movie) should be readily available or not needing citation at all. Good luck! Again, I really appreciate everything y'all are doing here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes no worries. I believe myself and Triiiple at least to start, will get on starting this, so if you happen to see something we missed after we have started, by all means suggest it to me or add it. Or if you would chose to stay out, would that make you a better candidate to review it again? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
It's probably better that I not be a reviewer a second time, just so you can get a fresh set of eyes on it. But I will keep a watch on the page and chime in on revisions/review if there's any way I can help. I can't really think of anything else that's missing besides what's listed above, but I read a fair amount of movie news each week, so I'll try to link you guys anything useful I come across. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Great. Thank you very much. You can let me know either on my talk, or in my sandbox, where I've copied over what you said, just so we can mark it up as done or needs work, etc. anything you may find that you feel will add to the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm working on covering a few these points now, Favre1fan93 got most of the plot summaries. This should be completed soon if anybody wants to help out.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I just did a layout update (I hope) and added some more. I will need to clean up the ref additions I did, but then will try to find general critical reception to add. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Iron Fist and The Defenders TV Shows confirmed on Netflix

Source: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/disneys-marvel-and-netflix-join-forces-to-develop-historic-four-series-epic-plus-a-miniseries-event-based-on-renowned-marvel-characters-230981101.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.21.172 (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

We should be cagey about adding any of that info at this stage. The Netflix announcement is a big one, and the press release from Disney mentions the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but any claims about this Netflix project being a part of the universe are conspicuously absent. I think we need to wait to hear confirmation about that, since the Netflix universe may be envisioned as self-contained. Grandpallama (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I 100% agree with the above statement. JDDJS (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Info can be added and covered on the Marvel Television page until we get a clear indication either way. I agree that I initially thought it was part of the MCU, but as stated, no source has said that it definitely is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems like Marvel are intentionally making it difficult to make a comprehensive article about the MCU. Now the table that shows shared characters and the section that compares box office and critical ratings needs to not only cover movies, but shows too. It's kind of apples-and-oranges though, so I'm not sure how to go about it. For example, what "Phase" does Agents of SHIELD belong in, if any? Should it be counted as Phase Two, or should its FIRST SEASON be Phase Two, with any other seasons (if any) being Phase Three, Four, etc? --193.1.212.64 (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Please see the last question and answer in the FAQ at the top of this page to address your concerns regarding this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

New TV series

I know it has not been said if these shows are in the MCU, but should something be mentioned in the "Potential projects" section, specifically regarding Iron Fist and Luke Cage, as there were plans for films for them? I'm not saying to say that the film plans were scrapped, but to make mention that they will appear in these series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. Question answered here: "But if the characters prove popular on Netflix, “It’s quite possible that they could become feature films,” Iger added." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

There should be a letter "I" indicating that a character only appeared in a film as an illusion.

I'm just saying that Captain America only appeared in Thor: The Dark World as one of Loki's disguises, so it should count as both a cameo and an illusion.

A cameo is a cameo, regardless of how they are portrayed. More detail on the role is given in the Thor:TDW section on this page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Captain America's apparent cameo in Thor: The Dark World?

Users Carl Francis and FRibeiro66 have both added Captain America as appearing in Thor: The Dark World - however, there's no source to cover this. FRibeiro66 asserts that Steve Rogers had appeared for '3 seconds'. If he did appear, was he credited for his role or was it uncredited? || Tako (bother me) || 12:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he is there. He is in a scene after Thor releases Loki from prison and Loki uses his magic to assume the appearance of a guard and some characters. IMDB lists him in the film as well, as uncredited. (talk) || 13:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source, but it's okay, I found a source and took care of it. || Tako (bother me) || 13:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
However, it's not actually the character of Captain America, as it's Loki disguised as Captain America, and since it's a Recurring Characters section, we may want to look at that. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
So? The actor Chris Evans did appear in the film as Captain America, that's a fact. Evan's role in the film isn't explained there; if you feel like a note should be added regarding Chris Evan's appearance as Captain America, go ahead. || Tako (bother me) || 00:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, it means that Chris Evans appeared in the film as Loki, not as Captain America. So, yes I feel there should be a note. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
The nature of the cameo is expressed in the ThorTDW section on this page. For the purposes of the table, Chris Evans' name in the Cap spot with the 'C' will suffice. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Will it though? The table is sorted by characters, and the character of Captain America never appeared in the film. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. I understand what you are trying to say. I think it would be acceptable to do either of the following: leave it the way it is, but add (as Loki) next to Evans' name; or remove it, and below Hiddleston's name, place Evans', with some other modifier such as (illusion) or (transformation). Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Some note like (illusion) or something could be useful. To be honest, I'm not sure how it should be treated. I just thought it was an issue that should be discussed, rather than slipped by. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 04:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that a note that it is illusion is unnecessary, but I don't have a problem with it. However, to put Evans in the Loki category will be a major case of WP:UNDUE. --JDDJS (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I was originally in the mindset not to include something, but then, as ProfessorKilroy pointed out, it is not technically the Captain America character, only Loki "disguised" as him. I'm for it or without it, whatever is determined. If determined to include the note (which I'm looking to series that add (young) next to actors names) what should it be, because I'm not sure if "illusion" would be the best one. And as I can't seem to think a some other one, maybe that means it's best not to include one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not really Captain America just a disguise. Would be like including him on the list because a film contained a photo of him or archive footage from a previous film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
So we should put the note then. Do you have any other suggestions Dark besides (illusion)? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Ehhhh I'm not sure it should be mentioned at all, it's an easter egg for fans (and I assume uncredited appearance by Chris Evans). Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The Avengers as an anchor

With ThorTDW out, it was revealed that Thor took place two years before. And as ThorTDW was one year after the Avengers, it means that Thor was one year before the Avengers. (Here's the source for all of this.) I was hoping to use this info for the short summaries for the films before the Avengers, as I believe with the Iron Man 3 descriptions on, it is helpful with them starting with "Set x after the events of The Avengers". So my question is, with this /Film source, and the official timeline image, can we reliably say that Iron Man is approximately 18 months before Avengers and Hulk and Iron Man 2 are a year before as well? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. It gets a little complicated though, because the events of Iron Man take place over 9 months. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I do see your point. The same with Hulk, as that jumps around too. But I do think this would fit for Iron Man 2. And obviously Thor, because the source specifically mentions that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree, we should try to keep in-universe details to a minimum.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

In Phase 1, it's established that Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2 and Thor all take place simultaneously. It's the Phase 2 films that have the more staggered chronology (supposedly happening in real time). Better to just leave the relation to the Avengers to Phase 2.Richiekim (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Article scope

Is this article about the "film franchise" (the seven or so films), the "media franchise" (feature films, One-Shots, TV series, video games, soundtracks, tie-in comics, novelisations and merchandise) or the shared fictional universe in which this media is set? And what should it be about? FilmTVComicsNerd (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence states its about the "film franchise" and the "shared fictional universe" but the article is virtually all about the films, never really covers the fictional universe setting in any substantive way and then mentions the One-Shots, TV series, tie-in comics in an "Other media" section (and ignores the soundtracks and video games - which are in the main template). I think this article (or its editors) is/are confused about what the article is about. Could somebody please help me understand)? FilmTVComicsNerd (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
When I read mainstream media it usually refers to "Marvel Cinematic Universe" as a "media franchise" (like Friday the 13th (franchise) or Saw (franchise)) and so I believe the article should be changed such that the setting/universe is not be mentioned in the first sentence and that the "Other media" section should be split into "Television", "Literature", "Short films" and "Merchandise" level-1 sections and that most of the current sections ("Development," "Cast," "Home media," "Reception," "Future," etc) should become level-2 sections under the "Films" section. Please take a look at my sandbox if you don't understand what I'm suggesting. FilmTVComicsNerd (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Its about what it says; the "film franchise" and the "shared fictional universe" within. We cover the universe from a real world perspective per Wikipedia guidelines. As the films are the most notable aspects of the MCU, that is where the weight is given.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
No TriiipleThreat, if the article was about the "film franchise" and the "shared fictional universe" then that's all that would be covered in the article (the scope). I agree the films are the most important (primary scope). But currently the article is about more than the "film franchise" -- it has info about books, short films and television series -- so why does the article state in the lead (opening sentence) that it's about a "film franchise" and not a "media franchise"?? Help me out. FilmTVComicsNerd (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The scope of the article is as I described, but that does not mean that we cannot briefly discuss supplementary items as we are doing in the "Other media" section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it does. If the Marvel Cinematic Universe were a film franchise then the article would just cover films. But it's not. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is a media franchise and the opening sentence must be changed to say "Marvel Cinematic Universe is a media franchise". Just look at the definition - media franchise - "a collection of media for which components exist in multiple forms of media, generally fiction, such as film, literature, television, or video games, involving a story, characters, and setting." Let's just call the MCU what it is - a collection of feature films, short films (Marvel One-Shots), television (agents of shield), literature (novelisations and comic book "tie-ins"), video games and merchandise (toys and soundtracks) involving interrelated stories, shared characters (Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain America, etc) and setting (the shared universe). Do you disagree with the definition? Do you think the MCU doesn't fit the definition? Do you want sources calling MCU a "media franchise"? FilmTVComicsNerd (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right, but that doesn't override the WP:WEIGHT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE concerns of your suggestion. Soundtracks, novelizations, merchandising, etc. accompany just about ever major motion picture release. It doesn't mean we have give equal weight to those topics. We can atleast change film franchise to media franchise in the first sentence.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Very good; I'm pleased you've changed the first sentence to "media franchise". The MCU is now being described by the term that best defines it. You're right - we must follow WP:WEIGHT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Agreed - soundtracks, novelisations and merchandising are not very important at all - however the television series, short films and comic books are rather important but I believe the article should be re-arranged into sections by form of media. FilmTVComicsNerd (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Should IMDB rating be shown as well?

Hello. I haven't looked at IMDB ratings in a while, but many of my friends still look at ratings there and don't even know about Rotten Tomatoes. So three questions. 1) Is IMDB rating relevant? 2) Can or. should it be also shown in the article, alongside Rotten Tomatoes and Metascore? 3) If yes, then, can anyone include it? :) David — Preceding unsigned comment added by BJdavidLS (talk • contribs) 10:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

IMDb ratings are user submitted, thus they should not be on the page. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic takes reviews from members of the industry and "official" critics, thus those are the ones used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree about not including the IMDb ratings. The problem is that IMDb ratings are subject to vote-stacking and demographic skew. I would say that if we can get CinemaScore grades for all the films, we could include these instead. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
In fact, Wikipedia has established guideline disallowing IMDb audience ratings from being used, and allowing the more objectively obtained Cinemascore's. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Cinemascore links: Iron Man Incredible Hulk Iron Man 2 Thor Captain America Avengers Iron Man 3 Thor 2 -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

6

Is big hero 6, part of MCU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

No. FilmTVComicsNerd (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Tv

Is [Man Armored Adventures] [Panther] The Avengers Earth Mightiest Heroes[Assemble] Hulk_and_the_Agents_of_S.M.A.S.H. Part of MCU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No, they're not. But just a heads up, if you want to link to a wikipedia page, just use the single brackets: [ ]. And just copy the article name you want to use rather than the address. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Recurring cast and characters: Scope

If this has been discussed elsewhere, I'd appreciate being pointed to that discussion, and my apologies for the repetition, but it doesn't appear to be on this page. I would like to challenge the FAQ rule stating that the "recurring cast and characters" table be defined as all characters "that have appeared or [are] scheduled to appear in multiple different MCU franchises". Under the current rule, major characters such as Jane Foster and Bucky Barnes are not included in this table, other (so far) minor characters such as The Collector and The Collector's Aide are included, and I suspect that Stan Lee should be included under the current rule (though I'd have to dig up his cameos, see where his character is credited as himself). I'd like to propose that instead the characters do not need to have appeared in multiple MCU franchises, but that they need to have been in the first 5 billed actors in one of the films. These proposed criteria would allow Jane Foster and Bucky Barnes to be listed in this table, would eliminate The Collector and The Collector's Aide, and would not require us to include either Sif and the Warriors Three or Stan Lee. This might however inadvertantly remove Nick Fury, so I'm open to other criteria that would allow us to include the more major characters but not the more minor characters, even should those major characters appear in only one of the franchises. --zandperl (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Search the archives. The point of this table is to show the connectiveness of the universe, not simply restate the starring roles of the films, which can be found in the each of the film articles. Also it is a neutral pov means of limiting the table as major and minor is subjective terminology. There is also the full list article for readers searching for such information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
What TripleThreat said, plus Stan Lee does minor cameos, why would these be included? They are minor mentions at best in any film article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
That and he hasn't appeared as the same character more than once.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, let's be consistent here. Chris Evans appeared as a different character in Thor:TDW --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
He's in the Avengers though. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Dark, I believe Prof. Kilroy was referencing the fact that Evans is "technically" Loki in Thor:TDW, in response to Triiiple's statement on Stan Lee. Prof, I believe this was discussed on the Thor:TDW page (don't remember if you were a part of that convo), but I think it was determined that it was still the concept of Captain America appearing, even though it is Loki "in disguise". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The Netflix shows

Here's a little interview with Drew Pearce where he refers to the Netflix shows as a part of the MCU: "I love Jessica Jones, and while obviously Jessica Jones and Alias is NOW going to exist in the Netflix part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), I'd always obsessively been trying to put her in stuff I'd been working with Marvel on." I wasn't sure if that was enough to warrant inclusion on this page, so figured I'd bring it up here first -Fandraltastic (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear by that quote.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree. It might be worth it to look through the article history to find and retrieve the info and references and readd it to the page, and then with this little tag as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Anything to make of Pearce saying "Alias" after Jessica Jones? Possibly the series name? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
He's referring to Alias, the comic where Jones first appeared. I think when AKA Jessica Jones was first announced they had to change the name because of Alias (TV series) but no doubt any series based Jones will be de facto based on Alias as well. Those are my original thoughts.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
That makes sense! I knew the two were connected but didn't remember how exactly. I went to the TV series page and knew it wasn't right, but didn't look at the other dabs. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I put together a draft for a Jessica Jones article, with all the various sources gathered in one spot, here: Draft:Jessica Jones (TV series). I think some of the stuff about the old version of the project should be removed from this page, and just keep it to the overview stuff - the 5 Netflix series being announced, Goddard and Rosenberg working on them, and other actual production info that pops up. -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I think that the Netflix section should be renamed as "Defenders", as the first paragraph of the section is focused on pre-Netflix events. Additionally, the Agents of SHIELD section isn't labelled as "ABC series". I think Defenders would be a more appropriate summary title. Ωphois 22:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, that sections is about multiple series (including the pre-history) that are schedule to appear on Netflix, not just the Defenders series.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's about multiple shows so the Netflix header works well. I just think the first paragraph doesn't really apply to this page, as it's a bunch of specific details about a version of the project that's no longer happening. Most of that stuff is on the Jessica Jones page anyway, and in that draft I made. -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Fandraltastic, which is why I proposed the name change. Half of that section doesn't have to do with the Netflix deal. Ωphois 22:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
About the draft would a cover-all article for all the shows like Marvel One-Shots, Marvel Anime, or The Marvel Super Heroes be more appropriate?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so, a big budget 13 episode Netflix series will almost certainly be high-profile enough for its own page. Maybe an overview article that links to each, but that could probably be covered here. -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, just wondering.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Responses to a few things. I agree too that the Netflix heading should stay as is. As for the first paragraph on AKA, I added it there, because I thought it related most there, but would agree with Fandraltastic that it could probably be removed from here, as long as the info is covered on Marvel Television, Jessica Jones, and the draft page. I do think that an overview article regarding the Netflix series would be appropriate, similar to the One-Shots page. It will be important to figure out what would go there and how to handle things such as a cast table, as the Netflix ones will definitely cross, but what if SHIELD gets involved, or the One-Shots and the films? Definitely something to consider, as I still agree that this page should keep its scope on the films. Maybe a List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series or Marvel Cinematic Universe (television) page would be appropriate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem there is that the cinematic universe and the television universe are not separate universes, so I'm not sure that separate articles are the way to go, unless there's some kind of article called Marvel Multimedia Universe, with child pages of Marvel Multmedia Universe Films, which this article would be renamed to and Marvel Multimedia Universe TV Shows. Honestly, pretty soon there's going to be more watchable hours of television than film in the MCU, so focusing on the films seems like stubborn refusal to acknowledge a lack of acknowledgement that the MCU has become bigger than originally anticipated.--LeoEvilsbane (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
No one is saying that they are separate universes and the television shows will still be covered here. But perhaps a cover-all article for just the NETFLIX series might be warranted since it seems those shows will be even more closely linked than the others. As for the name, it's still early I'm certain Netflix/Marvel will come up with something. Also 1 hour of television does not equal 1 hour of film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Clarification: "stubborn refusal to acknowledge" was poor phrasing. However even if 1 hour of film = 2 hours of television, television is quickly catching up to film in watchable hours. The point being that the scope might soon become restrictive on an aspect of the MCU that comprises a large share of it. It's worth noting that the scope of the article might need to be re-examined once the Netflix series are released. The primary scope was decided as being the feature films when only one television program was known about, which makes sense because as an "odd one out" it makes sense to identify that as more of a "spin-off" than equating it with the movies. But it seems increasingly obvious that the TV programs will play a significant role in the franchise, and a "primarily films" scope might cause the article to ignore a large portion of what makes the franchise notable, which is it broad interlocking narrative across separate projects. I suppose what will tip the scales is when something from a TV series gets referenced in a film, which could potentially happen in either The Winter Soldier or Age of Ultron and would demonstrate the TV series being equally interlocking and "canon". Until then, I just want to keep this concern highlighted so that the article doesn't get too comfortable in its current status. --LeoEvilsbane (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The catch all for the Netflix shows may be the best option, but I do agree with Leo, that the initial scope of this page is changing. While it, and the List of characters page, should skew more towards the films, we'll all have to figure out the best way to incorporate all the information. And Triiiple has brought up very valid points before regarding including cast from SHIELD, as it is currently hard to distinguish when an actor appears relative to the film's actual release dates. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the paragraph about the scrapped AKA Jessica Jones show, can go, provided that it is covered on other appropriate pages, as Favre1fan93 noted. If it is to stay on this page however, it should not be kept under the header of a show it is not.
Also, as TV becomes a more and more prominent part of the universe, the scope of the article will need another look into. Exactly how we approach this may become more obvious as the universe expands. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The AKA information is on the Draft page for the new series, so it will not be lost if needed elsewhere. I will remove that paragraph. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Spin film list off to separate article?

Alright, I think the article has grown massive enough and the film list long enough that this is worth discussing. Would it be better if we spun the list of films off to its own page? With this as more of an overview article. There seem to be numerous questions, some of them valid, about the scope of the page, the scope of the cast table, and the scope of the reception section, and I think this would go a long way toward addressing them. Structurally, I'm picturing something like this:

  • This page (Marvel Cinematic Universe)
    • Development section
    • Films table, with a link to the new page above it
    • Home media section
    • Other media section
    • Reception section, sans the film tables
  • New page (List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films)
    • The prose currently under the films table
    • The prose currently in the Future Films sections
    • The recurring cast table
    • The reception/box office tables

I believe this would leave us with two pages, both with very clear scopes. The first page would be about the entire media franchise, and the second would focus on the series of films. The FL List of James Bond films is a good example of what the second page would be, although ours would include the film-to-film production prose as well. -Fandraltastic (talk) 07:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that's something to think about as list of films grow but I don't think we're there yet.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
What would you think the threshold is? If we're not there, I'd say we're close. Eight films, with a ninth around the corner and a tenth only a few months away. And the page keeps inching closer and closer to being 200k long. Plus it'll only get harder to split it out as time goes on, with the way we handle refs. -Fandraltastic (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
We've already entered Phase 3 in the future section, so perhaps when we enter Phase 4. Moving the refs shouldn't be that hard as they are really well organized.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I dunno, I just think that waiting that long might be a mistake. There's already plenty of content for both pages here and it gets added to regularly. The page is getting almost overwhelmingly long and there's a pretty clean way of splitting it into two fully-formed articles. -Fandraltastic (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you create a couple of sandboxes so we can better visualize the two articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll get on that. -Fandraltastic (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I chopped it into two with the proper refs, here and here. Obviously the leads would need to be added/rewritten some, and I think the main page needs a bit more in the reception section. What do you think? -Fandraltastic (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
If I may make a few suggestions: move the table from One-Shot article to the One-Shot section in this article, add a table for the television shows (showing series, network, seasons, # of episodes in each season, season premiere date, season finale date), remove the Other media header, turn level-3 headers for Comic books, Short films and Television to level-2 headers, turn level-4 headers for television series to level-3 headers. In the list article move recurring cast table in front of Future films section. Overall its not bad but still not sure if we need it at this moment but I'm interested in hearing what others think.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I like the idea, but I'm torn on when it would be appropriate for this to split. I also agree with Triiiple's comments above on some changes to the sandbox creation. (Sorry for the brevity. The next Arkham game was announced and I'm trying to focus on figuring out what to do with all the revealed info.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I did most of these, and also added/adjusted leads (although they could probably be punched up more). The only thing I didn't do was move the recurring cast table up, since it includes some of the future films as columns I think it makes sense to have it after. Although I'm not too tied to that, it can be moved up if need be. -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I just thought aesthetically it will look better to break up all tables and provide an additional barrier between the released and unreleased films. Also here (either the combined or individual tables) are some examples of what the television table(s) might look like. Obviously this wouldn't be implemented unless we a have lot more confirmed information. Also the style and layout can be adjusted.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that looks good. I just figured we didn't have enough info for a TV table yet. -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
So would either of you object if I went ahead and made the split? -Fandraltastic (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Again I don't think it's exactly needed right now, but maybe at some point.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I just wasn't sure since you seemed to be undecided rather than against it. I would say that if we have the content to support the split there's no point in waiting, but I won't move ahead with it if no one else agrees. Another advantage of the split, is that it would streamline the WP:GT process considerably. Use the film list as the main article, and the film articles as the content. And then there's no questions of scope and needing to expand the topic to fit every article about every piece of spin-off media. -Fandraltastic (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I also agree with Triiiple that I don't think we are at the point yet to split. One thing I would like to know, if we did do this now, is how it would affect the pending GA nom for this page, because we are essentially removing all the major content. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
We would probably have to delist it temporarily, but it's gone two months without a review anyway. We could always nom again after some work. -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I was in contact with User:Corvoe, who did IM3's review, regarding this nom. I asked, before this conversation, that if he had any intention to do another review, would he consider this article. He stated he was going to look at the review soon, so if we are planning work, I will let him know that it is our intention to rework the page, and de list, then relist the nom.

Also, I have some suggestions to the format, and am leaning more now to just doing this split, as we are going to have to do it eventually. For the List of films page, we should replace the lvl 2 "Film" header with "Phase One: Avengers Assembled" and then add another for Phase 2, and change "Future films" to just "Future". As well, I agree with Triiiple that the recurring cast should split the released, and future films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Although I think it's nice to see all of this information in the one place, I support the split. I think the page is large enough for this as it is, and it's also growing very quickly. But, at the very least, the split removes a lot of the confusion surrounding the scope of this page, brought about by the dual nature of the MCU. And that is something that should be dealt with immediately. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the scope is the main issue, both with this page and with the potential good topic on the film series. It seems consensus is now leaning toward performing the split. -Fandraltastic (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I have decided to be bold and perform the split. Hope there are no issues. (I did have to go through and replace all the archive.is links with webcitation.org ones on the new page, in order for it to go through.) -Fandraltastic (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Sorry about the extra work with the archiving. The powers that be made a poor rash decision to black list that archiving service, because there was one isolated incident with an IP spamming links or something. Really frustrating. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
@Fandraltastic: Should we investigate getting the protection moved to the new page as well? I believe it was on this page mainly due to the vandals adding all rumors for future or potential films that might be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, if a problem arises over there we can always request protection then. Don't think there's a reason to preemptively do it. -Fandraltastic (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Prashant! (talk · contribs) 03:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Here, I see the same problem in refrenceing style. Checkout.—Prashant 14:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. -Fandraltastic (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Why it is listed one after the other? "The first film to be released in the Marvel Cinematic Universe was Iron Man (2008), followed by The Incredible Hulk (2008), Iron Man 2 (2010), Thor (2011), Captain America: The First Avenger (2011), Marvel's The Avengers (2012), Iron Man 3 (2013), Thor: The Dark World (2013) and Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)."

  • You should split the names by phases. Like "The films within MCU are released in Phases.........Phase 1 (film names), phase 2 (film names)....." or something like that as its neccessary to talk about the phases in the lead if they are an essential part of the body.—Prashant 08:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest to expand it a bit. There is no text about seperate films, in production, Box-office gross, critical reception and review aggregation, etc. Please, take a look at the Harry Potter (film series) article for more details.—Prashant 08:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the entire media franchise. List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films is about the film series, with the information you are looking for. This is clearly noted in the film section of the page, and the split was performed due to size and scope concerns. -Fandraltastic (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I reworked the lead a bit (and added something in Reception), if you care, @Prashant!:. igordebraga ≠ 16:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok Prashant!, everyone is waiting for your further comments here. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, Sorry for the delay as I'm busy with my studies. I will continue now.—Prashant 20:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Development
  1. "Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige realized that unlike Spider-Man and the X-Men, who were licensed to Columbia and Fox respectively, Marvel still owned the rights to the core members of The Avengers."
Who? you are talking about the comic rights or the superheroes in person?
  • Short films
  1. The first film, a second, a third film, a fourth film, a fifth film? It sounds repeatative. Tweak it a bit.—Prashant 20:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Done and done. -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Well, I didn't found any other problems with the article.—Prashant 10:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Pretty good effort overall, thanks for addressing the points and sorry for the delay.—Prashant 10:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the pass and review Prashant! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

I noticed theres a mistake in the AoS section. The second paragraph says that Maximiliano Hernandez plays Sif, Titus Willander plays Agent Sitwell, and Jaimie Alexander plays Agent Blake. I would have switch this but the page is protected. 66.87.113.78 (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the catch! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Marvel Studios: Assembling A Universe

Now that Marvel announced that they'll air this TV special on ABC in March, I wonder if it's notable enough to create an article on the special since it's a behind the scenes view of a movie studio (similar to The Pixar Story). Perhaps include a mention in the MCU article or the Marvel Television article? Richiekim (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Anything can become notable, but I don't think a single announcement will do it. Its probably worth a mention in both articles though.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree that we can probably mention it on both. And depending on what is covered, it can probably be just kept on this page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, if it does break out to a page, this source has info for the infobox not in the press release. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there any possible way we could create a page for the TV special? I believe it has the merits of owning it's own page, with Marvel Comics and Marvel Executives/Producers/Stars/Writers/Directors contributing to the Special itself. This may not merit it for it's own page, but I guess this would be wishful thinking on my part. 71.188.30.224 (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, it doesn't have enough to create its own page. After it airs, I think this can be considered. I think, based on what it is advertised as, it will be fine just as a section here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Alright, seems fair, I noticed that it was already discussed above, but didn't realize it until after I posted this. No worries though. Still hoping it can get it's own page ^_^ 71.188.30.224 (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay. So after watching that, I definitely think it does not need to be separated to its own article. However, I think we should try to snag that type face of "Marvel Cinematic Universe" seen at the very beginning, to use as the logo here. Also, anyone else catch Glenn Close's brief appearance as Nova Prime and Hulkbuster for AoU!?! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, doesn't need its own page. There's some art from it here, we might want to crop the Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch art and use it on their pages, at least for now. -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I saw that. Is it worth a mention here ie "new concept art was shown, including Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch's designs."? Also, Fandraltastic (or anyone), if they post the special online, are we able to screen cap the type face logo, crop it, then upload it here to use? Is that acceptable? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
This Slash Film article comments on Hulkbuster armor as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe note that on the Age of Ultron page where it's relevant. We should also note the Hulkbuster thing there if/when some reliable sources comment on. And if it's an official upload I believe we could use the logo, as long as we properly cite it as a screen grab and provide adequate fair use rationale. -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to all. I'll be on the look out for that logo then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Useful articles - BusinessWeek and Entertainment Weekly

  • Here is another about the propmaster for some of the films, that can be used for some of the films. It can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Black Widow film?

A film about Black Widow has been announced and is listed on IMDB. Should this be reflected in this page, or not until more is known? --zandperl (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

No Black Widow film has been announced. I think we generally wait casting news, a press release, or something that confirms that a movie is in production, beyond the phase of scripting before we give it any real weight. However, potential films are discussed at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Other potential projects. || Tako (bother me) || 01:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Quesada confirms Netflix series to be part of MCU..

Further confirmation from Marvel Entertainment’s Chief Creative Officer Joe Quesada that these Netflix shows DO exist in the MCU... With his quote being lifted:

“There will be some interconnectivity, much like the movies. They will exist within the cinematic universe again, so this is all the same world as S.H.I.E.L.D. and the Avengers.” - JQ

71.188.20.227 (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This has been known since February (from Drew Pearce) and Quesada's info was added yesterday. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Just wanted to let everyone know that I am in the process of creating this page in my sandbox. I know we are all working on different facets of the MCU pages, but if anyone has time to expand it some, or just drop a ref there, that'd be great. Surprisingly, I was able to find sources for the composers of SHIELD, all the One-Shots, and even the TV special (Brian Tyler again. Surprise surprise), so all of this can be included on this page as well, beyond the soundtracks and compilation albums for the films that have been released. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering whether this page is intended to replace all of the individual soundtrack pages, like the Hobbit music of page, or to simply link them, like the Lord of the Rings music of page. Seeing as the track listings from each individual page can be collapsed to conserve space, i think it is a reasonable idea to have all of the soundtrack information on just one page, which all of the other pages (individual films, MCU overview, MCU template, etc.) could then link to. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

What should be at Agent Carter?

So in light of the series order, I've done some moving around, but I don't know if it is correct. I made Agent Carter a disambig page, directing to the one-shot, tv series page (more in a minute), as well as Peggy Carter and Sharon Carter. I also created Agent Carter (TV series) for the eventual series page. My question is, is this correct? I didn't feel the television series would be the primary topic over the one-shot, thus not making Agent Carter the TV page, and moving what I put there to Agent Carter (disambiguation). Other opinions on this would be appreciated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you are correct but it could change if the TV series becomes more popular in which case the TV series should be moved to Agent Carter and the disambiguation page moved to Agent Carter (disambiguation).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I felt that too. But for now, I think the TV series and One-Shot are on equal playing fields. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I feel it's a sure bet that if the series makes it to air it'll become the primary. But for now the dab page is the proper target. Great work getting everything pointed in the proper direction, by the way. -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Glad I had the right mindset! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Television Series List

I understand holding out on this until more info on the netflix series is revealed, but i think its a good idea to get the page almost fully set up now over at Favre1fan93's sandbox. Someone correct me if i'm wrong, but I guess this page will be very similarly laid out to the film list, withe a couple paragraphs on each show, as well as sections on characters, future, reception etc. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It will, but there isn't really much other info yet to add to it currently. It will be more beneficial when we have specific info for each Netflix series. Right now, as it is on this page is basically all that is on my sandbox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Draft for Daredevil (TV series)

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Daredevil at Draft:Daredevil (TV series) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Does this notification need to remain on the talk page now that the article exits? - adamstom97 (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Favre1fan93 removed the tag that prevented archiving by any bots, you can archive it if you want or a bot will do it with other dissccussions.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 12:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Section order

Is there a good reason to separate the comics section from the film and tv sections with the cast section? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because the comic section is not in relation to the recurring cast and characters. Yes the characters appear in the comics, but that is not considered an appearance by the actors. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Marvel Studios: Assembling a Universe

I think we should consider moving this information to the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1) page. By having it here in the Television section, people could assume that it has some bearing on the MCU, like S.H.I.E.L.D. and the other shows do. The reason i suggest the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1) page is because the special aired during the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. time-slot, and it will be released on the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Season One Blu-ray/DVD. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The special is related to the MCU as a whole, so it should be on this page. As for your removed comment about moving the television series page, as I stated on your talk, it is best to not rush in to things. It should be of the same quality of the other main MCU pages with all info known, and it is not there yet. We are in no rush. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

series

can we gourp the films into series (for the box offie)

example

Iron Man $2,424,547,547

The Avengers $1,518,594,910

thor $1,094,109,758

Captain America $1,079,819,774

The Incredible Hulk $263,427,551

I'm not really sure what you are looking for, but film box office info is available here: List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Box office performance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I believe he is requesting that each franchise be grouped together to show box office performance. For example, the total revenue for the three Iron Man films vs the total revenue for the two Thor films. Ωphois 21:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh. Well that info is still on the List of films page, and can be done by sorting the table in the section I linked. Actually can't see total series info on that page. But if it should be added, it would be at that page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Development

TriiipleThreat, I am sorry for going ahead without prior discussion, but i stand by the changes i made (i wont change them back unless we decide here collectively that it is the right move). I would just like to go over the points i briefly made when i was making the edits, in case you or anyone else wishes to comment on them: The development section is about the making of the MCU and the connecting of all of the individual parts. Obviously there is no prose in the films section needed, because that information can be found on the individual pages, and of course in the developments section. For this reason, and the fact that the development of the MCU made no mention of the expansion into other mediums, i moved the prose from the individual sections to the development section. I feel this is still the best route to go, though the paragraphs may have to be re-written to be more about the expansion of the MCU than the individual aspects themselves. Also, the films section is about the films set in the MCU. the short films section is about the short films set in the MCU. the comic books section is about the comic books set in the MCU. so why does the television section talk about the making of the MCU? the tv special is all about the development of the MCU, which is what the whole development section is all about. It just seems like the logical place to put it. Finally, the home media section for the films is all about the films only. Since this page is about the MCU in general, while the list of films page is about just the films, it makes more sense to have the section there. If someone comes to this page and wants to know about the films, they can click on the link to the films page, where they are able to read the home meia information. Since it hasn't been removed from the other page, i can only assume that you other agree that it fits there, so why have it on both pages? it is an unnecessary duplication of information. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If anyone wants to see what these edits look like, you can have a look here. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The development section does not contain any information regarding the development of any particular film, but the universe as a whole. If you actually read the prose of the sections that you merged, they were about the development of those particular entities and therefore inappropriate for the development section. Now if you would like to add prose about the MCU expanding into other mediums and what that means to the universe, then go ahead. However merging the existing sections is not the way to do it. Likewise the television special is about the television special, not the development of the MCU. The prose contain the airdate, a brief description of its content, and a review. The homemedia section contains information regarding the boxset of films, not individual films. In other words, it is the universe being released on home media. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is even in the name of the boxset. If ABC were to release a combopack of the first seasons of Agents of Shield and Agent Carter, or if Netflix were to release a boxset of their shows, then I can see that being placed here as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
You have made valid points, and i again apologise for my previous brash and hasty edits (its something i am working on) - adamstom97 (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Avengers S.T.A.T.I.O.N. exhibit

Don't know where this could go on this article, but some good stuff here: [8], [9] - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is another [10] - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we can make a section called "Live attractions" and include this with the Disney World exhibits?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
That could work. Is that info on film articles post Avengers? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Good articles invite attacks and poor editing

This article has achieved Good Article status. Has it become a magnet for careless editing? People seem to think it's ok to just delete stuff without checking that what they have done has not caused a cite error. This kind of drive by editing does no service to Wikipedia or to those who do this kind of thing. Jodosma (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it actually does anything, it is just more noticeable than a "C-class" article being edited in the same way as the "C-class" article it can be explained as trying to improve it, on "GA-class" articles people just attempt edits that then end up making the page no "GA-class" so people revert/undo and moan saying it is GA and as such big edits that change the page need to be talked about and examples given in sandboxes. So no I don't think having an article grading system is bad and encouraging borderline stupid edits, I think it is just that tiny bit more noticable as big edits could easily demote the page.
On a side note, the grading system also tells the various projects which pages need working on the most out of all the page under said project--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
The broken refs are there because someone transcluded a table but didn't add the refs. -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I have commented out that transclusion until the time that that table is ready to be transcluded (if at all). Now, it is back to how the page was before those edits. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

New behind the scenes article on the MCU

I found this article from the Hollywood Reporter. I think it would be a good resource on the behind the scenes production of the MCU.Richiekim (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll give it a read to see if anything could be added, that you or anyone else has not already done. Thanks as always Richie. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2014

captain america 3 is no longer in development it's in pre-production, that needs to be changed. Thanks. Adamcawtonn (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a reliable source that verifies the claim. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2014

Add the movies that have announced dates, but no titles or information. You already added one. I'd add it myself but Wikipedia won't fucking let me. Justletmehaveausername (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done That was only done to show that there is still a film in between Doctor Strange and GotG 2. We only add table rows once we have confirmed titles; this is an exception. As well, no need for the language. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Strange: In development / Pre-production

Doctor Strange is currently listed as in pre-production, but shouldn't it be listed as in development instead? Using the Filmmaking article as a guide, "in development" seems more accurate as the movie is uncast and currently unwritten[11][12] (or maybe in just early stages). Pre-production, to my understanding, is basicly the period just before filming starts where locations are chosen, sets are built, etc so that filming can start immediately once done. Last I heard was the filming was being discussed for spring of 2015.[13]. Just in general, it also seems strange (no pun intended) that the Doctor Strange movie is listed as being further along than the dated Captain America movie coming out some time before it (which I believe is correctly listed as being in development). The pre-production label makes sense for Ant-man as it is scheduled to start filming in August. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

We have a source stating it is already in pre. It actually is quite far along in pre to be honest. Whereas, we have confirmation from the Cap 3 writers that they are only still in the script drafting process. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, cool. Just wanted to check because I thought it seemed to fit the other definition better, but I don't have anything that actually says otherwise. I'll look around to see if I can find an update on Cap 3. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah. I've looked around the past few days with comic-con for an update to Cap 3, and there isn't one. Still in development. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Marvel Upcoming Movies

Can the editors help me confirm the news of these upcoming movies as of whether it is true or not. This link is from the magazine that posted all the upcoming movies up to 2019.

https://www.facebook.com/fhmmalaysia/photos/a.10151473475440535.531900.172564000534/10152568780735535/?type=1&fref=nf

In brief:

  • Avengers: Age of Ultron (1 May 2015)
  • Ant-Man (17 July 2015)
  • Captain America: The Fallen Son (6 May 2016)
  • Doctor Strange (8 July 2016)
  • Thor: Ragnarok (5 May 2017)
  • Guardian of The Galaxy: War Of Kings (28 July 2017)
  • Black Panther (3 November 2017)
  • Avengers: Civil War (6 July 2018)
  • World War Hulk (2 November 2018)
  • Inhuman (3 May 2019)

Kelvintjy (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

That's some nice photo shop skills there. Rumors and a very unreliable source at that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I know Marvel has three 2018 movies planned, the third of which was announced a couple days after the rest of the 2017-2019 dates. The fact that this list ignores that third 2018 movie suggest to me that this was made as someone's wish list in the days between those announcements and is not some sort of official leak. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

See also section

Froth had originally added a link to DC Cinematic Universe, which is currently a redirect. They then changed the link to be List of films based on DC Comics and added List of films based on Marvel Comics because "DC and Marvel are the major IPs. The list of DC movies and Marvel movies are twins." I came around and moved the Marvel link to the list of films page. Froth has now come back and readded both those previous links here, plus a link to the list of MCU films page. First, the list of MCU films page should not be in this section because it has its own section on the article (Marvel Cinematic Universe#Films) where it links to that. Second, since I did move the list of films based on Marvel over to the list of MCU films page, that is a better location, as that deals with the films of the universe. This is the overarching page for the universe, so those are not appropriate on this page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The MCU page is about the universe as a whole, so any links to pages about individual films etc. should be moved to the films page (which Favre already did). The list of DC films, however, has no place in these articles at all. The see also section of any page is about further information on a subject appearing within the article that is covered more extensively elsewhere. Any mention of DC stuff on these pages should be here, in the Reception section, but as pointed out previously, the DCCU does not currently have a page to link to. At such a time as there is a page for the DCCU (and that goes for fox and sony) then they can be linked to in the Reception section, otherwise, these pages should be about the MCU only. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I've just had a look over at the films page, and it already has the link to the list of films page, as well as links to all marvel comics films, in the form of the navbox at the bottom of the page. The see also section is unnecessary duplication of this info, so really, none of these edits needed to be made, or need to be kept. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm agreeing with Favre1fan93 and Adamstom.97, the information added is either redundant or unneeded. The DC film information, especially, has no place in this article at this time. Maybe when it has its own article, it can be added. Sock (pka Corvoe) (be heard)(my stuff) 18:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marvel_Cinematic_Universe/Archive_4&oldid=785003178"