Talk:Captain Marvel (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Logo

http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Captain-Marvel-Movie-Logo-Official.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.126.21 (talk) 23:13, October 28, 2014‎

Images are not allowed outside the main space. Will add once it is moved to the main space. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggested sources

• Kevin Feige Q&A: [1]
• Meg LeFauve on the film: [2]. Hula Hup (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to add from either source that isn't already in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Emily Carmichael and Elizabeth Wood

@Favre1fan93: Lets take a look at these sources. THR says, "Her name has even surfaced as a possible contender to direct Marvel’s Captain Marvel." While it might be short, THR is making a definitive statement - her name has surfaced - and the attribution for making the statement comes directly from the author. Nothing is being passed off. On the other hand, We Got this Covered says, "our sources are telling us that a private meeting was held last week between Marvel representatives and independent filmmaker Elizabeth Wood in order to discuss potential directorial duties." As you can see, they are passing off the attribution to anonymous sources, thereby ducking any responsibility for reporting it. The only thing that can be assured by WGTC is that they were told about the meeting, not that it actually happened. The strength of the statement shows if the source is willing to back it up by taking credit for it. That is not what WGTC is doing here. Furthermore the credibility of THR goes a lot farther then WGTC, which admiteddly I had not heard of until this story broke.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I've seen WGTC in passing a few times so it isn't super new to me. I looked further at their About page (which I should have done sooner), and they don't have much for editorial oversight. I'll remove the Wood info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Brie Larson

Something to keep an eye out for "Brie Larson the Frontrunner to Play Captain Marvel." Ofcourse this is one of those "sources say" articles, so it by itself is not verification that she is indeed in talks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

THR has also confirmed her being the frontrunner and in early talks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

They use the same wording, "sources say she has emerged as the choice for the part. One source says negotiations may be underway.".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

How is this different from Lupita N'yongo entering talks for Black Panther? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Wording. The N'yongo article says "Lupita Nyong'o, who won an Oscar for her performance in 12 Years a Slave, is in negotiations to star opposite Chadwick Boseman in Marvel Studios’ Black Panther," which is direct verification. All the Larson article verifies is that someone told them that she is in talks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

We can still use the sources IMO, even if we aren't certain on the negotiations part, saying Larson was being considered. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

IDK, given the flimsiness of the rest of the article, it's kinda sketchy. Our policy is pretty clear on the matter.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see this being any different than any other film articles we've worked on. The sites are reputable, and the fact, as I suggested, that we remove "negotiations" doesn't go against the policy. Because both Variety and THR have confirmed that she is being considered. The speculation part is if she has actually entered talks or not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we should definitely use these to say that Larson is the frontrunner / first choice, which we have done before. And obviously expect more concrete news soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, this is the same standard we've been using all along. Variety doesn't confirm anything, THR does however make a direct statement in the opening sentence but the rest of the article seems to undermine it. I understand how exciting this news can be but we have to be careful with publishing speculation. Policy says speculation even from reliable sources is not permitted.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, I don't see the issue in saying she became a frontrunner, or that the other two women were director contenders. All of this info, if not from Marvel directly is "according to sources", even if they never say it in the articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Not true, investigative journalists do independently confirm information for themselves, not just repeat what someone tells them. As I said the front runner part though iffy is a direct statement so go ahead and re-add it if you wish. I feel it's better to err on the side of caution.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Deadline is giving literally the exact same info, saying "Brie Larson has emerged as the front-runner for the role in what would be Marvel’s first female-led superhero pic, Deadline has confirmed." However, they don't mention anything about "sources", yet it is literally the same thing THR and Variety is doing, providing info "according to sources". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This Deadline article confirms what I was saying, I feel: she is definitely the frontrunner / first choice, but nobody is really confident enough to say that she is in negotiations yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

And IGN says "reportedly", more reason to be cautious but go ahead and add it if you must.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Heh, Vanity Fair says the Variety article is far from a confirmation.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The "reportedly" is for being in talk, which I think both myself and Adam agreed is too speculative at this time between all the sources to definitely state she is in. But that doesn't mean she isn't being considered, which all our sources have all confirmed she is. I think we can all agree from our work on these articles that consideration and being in negotiations are not the same, so that is why just saying what you did here is fine. Additionally, I think Vanity Fair saying "far from a confirmation" is more to the fact of her being cast in the role, as we've all seen these reports about actors entering or being in negotiations and then other news outlets say they are cast. Case in point, Marissa Tomei last July was only ever said to be in negotiations from Variety, and everyone else then took that report and said she had been cast. So in summary, what we have on the draft right now is fine in my eyes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Larson confirmed at SDCC lads! https://mobile.twitter.com/AgentM Rusted AutoParts 02:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Director shortlist

Lexi Alexander is not on the list, but she believes that Rachel Talalay is. Is this too speculative, given Alexander only believes, and isn't 100%? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I think so.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Just curious

Why was it okay to include the new THR report about directors on the shortlist, yet we couldn't include Caro and Jennifer Kent when they were mentioned in Brie Larson's being eyed article? Both use some form of "according to sources", which we were discussing above as why we couldn't add the info per WP:SPECULATION. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I didn't even check but you're right.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Larson reads comics to prepare for the role

Mentioning that an actor read comics in preparation for a role borders on WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, but would it be more substantive if we mentioned which comic they read? As seen here, Larson read Captain Marvel Vol. 1: Higher, Further, Faster, More as preparation for playing Carol Danvers. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I think, cautiously, yes, if there is some significance to "Higher, Further, Faster, More", beyond the fact that (as I'm reading the situation) it is one of the more recent TPBs on the character in the moniker. Possibly TriiipleThreat could shed some more light on what I'm feeling, given I know they work a lot on maintaining the Danvers Wiki article. I feel if it is ever revealed that LaFauve and Perlman used that run as inspiration, it would make sense to me to include. But if nothing like that ever emerges, to me it is just the WP:RUNOFTHEMILL info as you initially pointed out. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

That is the first volume of the second series which features Danvers as CM. The only significance I see is that it is more cosmic, whereas the first series was more earthbound. But that is my OR. We need RSs to provide whatever significance there may be. Therefore, I'd have to say no at this time.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Analysis on 1990s setting

From THR. Wasn't sure where exactly to add this. Maybe after the "announcement" line in pre-production? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I have added. Perhaps you could rephrase or hide until a better phrasing can be found? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Filming location

According to this article, they will be filming in California. This contradicts the existing source. - DinoSlider (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll add it in, with wording in Pre-production how the location changed (and to keep the Atlanta source should that still prove to be true). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Filming start potentially revealed

Unreliable but still. Start: January 8, 2018 in Atlanta (so presumably Pinewood Atlanta). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Here are more details. Start: January 8, 2018; End: May 11, 2018: Working title: Warbird. Probably unreliable source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I see CAJH has been using this site a lot today. From what I can tell it seems weakly reliable. It has editorial oversight but all the editors come from blogging backgrounds.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Fine. I admit. I had no clues the site would be unreliable. One reason I didn't believe so was that it was a site where viewer can not register like a blog or anything like it. CAJH (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Its okay, I didn't say it was unreliable. We should just still be on look out for something more reliable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe next time before making any edits I should come straightly here to talk if information comes from a site that is unfamiliar to me. CAJH (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea but you have the right to WP:BEBOLD.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Production will begin starting Jan. 22, 2018 in Los Angeles.

WP:FRUIT. Traces back to a Reddit post. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Budget

This source (page 9) says that total budget is ~120 million or only the California part of the budget? --Escudero (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It might be the full budget if I'm reading it correctly, with $20.8 million worth of credits. So I'm guessing this could be a gross budget of $118.6 million and a net budget of $97.8 million. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Move to mainspace checklist

Since it appears we may be making some headway in moving this out of the draft space, time for our final move check list for Phase 3!

1. Move to the mainspace! Myself, TriiipleThreat, and Adamstom.97 all have page mover rights, so we can perform a page swap move to move the article to Captain Marvel (film). DO NOT CUT AND PASTE!  Done
   1. Remember to remove {{Draft article}} and unhide the categories.  Done
2. Change the template at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Captain Marvel (2019) from {{further}} to {{main}} and update the table on the List of films article to link directly to the new article and change its status to "Filming" (in this case, if we move before end of March, maybe "Filming (hiatus)" would be appropriate...)  Done
3. Upload the film logo (which you can grab from here) to File:Captain Marvel logo.jpg.  Done
4. Fix redirects currently going to Carol Danvers#Film to the new mainspace article (that is only Captain Marvel (2019 film)).  Done
5. Add the article link to all the nav boxes used in the article.  Done
6. If Marvel provides us with a press release indicating filming starting, add any info from that to our respective pages (castings mainly).  Done

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

"Minn-Erva" or "Minnerva"

Deadline says "Minn-Erva", while THR says "Minnerva". The former is the formatting used in the comics. Both are obviously reputable (and sourced already in the article), with Deadline having the "exclusive", but the casting has also been confirmed independently by THR without sourcing back to Deadline. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we may just have to choose one until we get something from Marvel, and Deadline did have the intial exclusive, used the formatting we would expect from the comics, and was consistent with what we have for Mar-Vell. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Filming

Looks like Production has begun. [3] Rusted AutoParts 19:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Found this source too: https://mcuexchange.com/captain-marvel-filming-january/ Disneyisatale (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

We need more clarification. There appears to be some debate if this is for Captain Marvel or an additional scene for Avengers 4 [4][5][6][7].--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Didn’t Avengers 4 wrap filming? Rusted AutoParts 20:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Principal photography yes, but that doesn't mean they can't film additional scenes.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Found this photos online - seems to be from Captain Marvel. https://pagesix.com/2018/01/25/first-look-at-brie-larson-as-captain-marvel/?utm_source=P6Twitter&utm_medium=Native&utm_campaign=P6Twitter

That's the same article RAP posted.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The movie started this week because of California Film Commission's (CFC) Tax Break 2.0. That required to start so early, and allows the hiatus until march. http://comicbook.com/marvel/2018/01/26/captain-marvel-production-delay-explained/

Ignoring the fact that this information traces back to MCU Exchange, would this be considered principle photography or just some preliminary shoots? This reminds me of a similar situation when Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice shot a football game sequence several months before principle photography.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm uncertain as well. First of all, the set photos that have been leaking have been from Atlanta, which as far as we know, was not supposed to be used as a filming location anymore for this film. However, many of the MCU films start and end their filming on location, so I see this more either being final principal photography/pickups for Avengers 4 (to Triiiple's point, wrap parties generally happen slightly before the actual wrap of photography) or some "pre shooting" (as James Gunn calls it) for Captain Marvel. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Whatever it is, I don't think we should call it principle photography if they aren't starting filming proper until March. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Revisit

THR says production has begun. I still think what we have, that production starts in March (which is from Feige) is correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I concur, unless any set photos featuring other cast (Law, Wise, etc) emerge beforehand. Rusted AutoParts 06:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think this might back-up what the IP said, it started filming for tax purposes and then immediately went into hiatus.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Somehow I seemed to have missed that link from the IP. I would be in support of including the information as such, including the source from MCUExchange and/or Comic Book.com (and the Film California PDF linked by MCUExchange), because even though MCUExchange is generally unreliable, the article is sourcing reliable sources and just giving us the commentary. Because if we didn't use that source, and just sourced the Film California PDF, would that be WP:SYNTH on our parts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I do think it supports what the MCUExchange is saying, but we still need a better source about the tax credits.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

How about wording like this: A small amount of filming took place in late January 2018 in California, under the working title Warbird.[existing California and Warbird source, plus new one for Jan set photos] This was done for Marvel to comply with the California Film Commission tax credit program which requires a production to begin filming 180 days after being awarded the tax credit.[ California Film & Television Tax Credit Program 2.0 Guidelines pg 6 via MCUExchange ] Captain Marvel then went on hiatus, as allowed by the California Film Commission, before resuming principal photography in March 2018.[PDF source from before, plus our existing March source]. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem is the MCUExchange is still unreliable so we cant use them to verify claims that are not in the California Film & Television document.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to think on this to see if there is some way we can word what we want to add to the article using the document information only. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I am personally less worried about using MCUExchange here, since we are using them as a source that rbings various others together rather than trusting them based on their word alone. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Gave it some thought. How about something along the lines of the following (this would be the first content of the "Filming" section for reference):

After receiving tax credit from the California Film Commission in late July 2017,[source we have in pre-] Marvel began filming in late January 2018,[new source here] in order to comply with the Film Commission's requirement for a production to begin filming 180 days after receiving their credit.[ California Film & Television Tax Credit Program 2.0 Guidelines pg 6 ] Captain Marvel then went on hiatus, as allowed by the California Film Commission, before planning to resume principal photography in March 2018.[PDF source from before, plus our existing March source]

In this instance, we avoid sourcing MCUExchange all together, but use their though process for the filming with all reliable sources. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The Pdf only states that principle photography must start within 180 of being issued and any hiatus cannot last over 120 days. It does not state that this is the reason that Captain Marvel started filming in February and took a hiatus until March. Saying it is without a more reliable source than MCUExchange is WP:OR. I’m okay with saying that filming has started and that it will resume in March but we cannot mention the tax credit as a reason until we find a better source.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I think my issue if we did that and we don't include the tax bit, then we aren't giving a reason for filming going on hiatus. So maybe it is still best for us to simply hold off some more, which is fine with me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

We can just note both things—when the filming took place, and the details of the tax deal—and leave it up to the readers to figure out the connection, at least until we have another source to make the connection for us. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Whats the point of mentioning that a tax credit if you can’t tie the film to it. I think we should just add the information that we can verify and add the rest when better sources present themselves.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

We have a source tying the tax credit to the film, we just don't have one explaining the early filming. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I must have missed that. Which one?—TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

This and this are currently references 47 and 48. - DinoSlider (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

But I think to Triiiple's point, is we sources the film got the tax credit, we have a source now in the PDF linked above about the tax credit guidelines, and we have (or can get) sources that filming took place at the end of January. What we don't have is a reliable source tying all of these together. Otherwise I think we are going to be employing WP:SYNTH. So correct me if I am wrong, but I think Triiiple is feeling we should add the January filming info, but exclude the tax credit info because we can't tie it to the reason filming began then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I did also just add this source to the article, in which Feige confirms location shooting for the film and comments on the paparazzi photos from January. So that can be used as filming confirmation I believe, which covers that aspect of all of this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

But, just because we can't tie the tax credit info to the early filming doesn't mean we should just leave it out. Both pieces of info are still noteworthy on their own. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

If we have sources stating that it received a tax credit, then we can mention it but we cannot infer that is the reason for the early filming without a separate source saying so.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, that's what I have been saying. We should be stating all the information that we know, not leaving some out because we can't explicitly connect it to the rest. The tax credit information is still inherently noteworthy. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The awarding of the tax credit is already in the preproduction section. The only ting we are leaving out is how it may have effected the filming schedule.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

So I think we're in agreement that we're going to leave out the tax credit provision at the moment. So how about this info for the beginning of the "Filming" section (which would also suggest we should move this to the main space)?:

Location shooting occurred at the end of January 2018.(Sources: http://collider.com/captain-marvel-set-photos-brie-larson/ & recently added Vulture source for Feige confirmation of filming.) Principal photography is scheduled to begin in March 2018,[51] in California,[47] under the working title Warbird. Filming is scheduled to last until May 11, 2018.[54]

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Umm, I'm not sure we are in agreement. I don't understand why we aren't adding in this other information about the tax credit. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

What else is there to add that can be verified?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Adam. I took your post Exactly, that's what I have been saying. We should... as meaning simply state the tax credit as we do because it is noteworthy, not the provision. I don't see any way we can include it at this time without violating WP:SYNTH or putting our own analysis on the sources we do have. I thought we could add info about the 180 days provision in the pre-production section after the info on it being awarded. But then, why would it matter that we are stating this one aspect of the tax credit program and not any other? This is what I was thinking so you can hopefully see what I mean. From the second to last paragraph in pre-production. adding "we [will] be able to streamline our production process for this and other films we’re working on concurrently".[47] A provision in the tax credit program notes that any production receiving the credit must start production within 180 days.[PDF source] This would imply that filming would need to start in late January 2018. By mid-August, Marvel hired Geneva Robertson-Dworet to take over... As you can see with the sentence I have bolded and italicized, we would have to include some sort of statement like that to validate why we are singling out the 180 day provision, but we don't have any reliable source that states that. Yes we have now that filming started in January from Feige, so we can add that, but we can't make the connective leap that it was because of the tax credit at this time. Hope I conveyed that well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we need to go so far out of our way to state it like that. We just have to say, Awarding of the tax credit was dependent on production beginning within 180 days. or something along those lines, as that seems like a reasonably important point to note. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to including a sentence like that, as long as it is in the pre-production section with the other credit info. And then we include wording for the filming section as I suggested above, just that filming did start. TriiipleThreat what are your thoughts on doing something like this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I suppose that's fine but it wont be necessary once we have a reliable source that ties all this together.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Great. So if there are no other queries, I will do the following within the next 24 hours: add about the tax credit in the pre-production section with Adam's wording; add about the January filming similar to the wording I suggested above; move the article to the mainspace because filming has indeed started, per WP:NFF. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Content has been added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Not that it really matters at this point but the THR article about Chan says that the film "is set to begin shooting next month".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I saw that bit too. Good to know it is at least still on track for a March start, officially, as we had thought previously. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Geneva Robertson-Dworet

It’s not too related to the film itself but I started a draft for the screenwriter Geneva Robertson-Dworet. Should anyone wish to help research it, it would be a great help. Thanks. Rusted AutoParts 23:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Marvel's or MCU's first female-led film

Elektra (2005 film) was a female-led solo film produced by Marvel Entertainment. Even though "Marvel's first female-led" is probably referring to Marvel Studios, I think this article should use "the MCU's" or "Marvel Studios'" first female-led film... either would clarify the difference without confusing any casual reader of the article. HENDAWG229 (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Rob Kazinsky

I see he wasn’t included in the press release. Should we hide/remove him until it’s confirmed/disproved it is the source solid enough for him to remain? Rusted AutoParts 00:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The press release only listed the starring roles, so he could very well be among the additional cast .—TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

In other castings, I’m keeping eye out for sources to back up the inclusion of actors Colin Ford and Kenneth Mitchell to the cast. Comicbook.com included them but aside from IMDB and some unreliable tweets exclaiming how Ford liked their tweet about the film, I’m not seeing where these new castings came from news wise. Rusted AutoParts 02:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of knowing, what extent should Twitter be used for confirming cast members? I saw that Vik Sahay was sourced with a tweet. I know it’s directly from Sahay, so that works. With Colin Ford, he has only been sporadically included in also starring sections of articles like Comicbook.com (which we do use as sourcing). But though there’s no direct tweet of him saying he’s starring he’s been retweeting many tweets from people about him being in the film on his Official Twitter. I’m wondering if it’s doable to source the comicbook.com article with using his Twitter as means of a verifier? If not, fair enough because it really isn’t the greatest means of confirming his involvement. Rusted AutoParts 00:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually I just found him make a direct response to someone about it, if that works at all. Rusted AutoParts 00:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The tweet for Ford you've linked above, I would shy away from, because it isn't a clear confirmation as say Sahay's was. I'd still hold off on including him at the moment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Could We then use the comicbook.com link I shared as a source and use the tweet as a verified as opposed to using it as the source? Rusted AutoParts 00:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I think just the Comicbook.com source would be fine, without the tweet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I’ve included Ford with just the comicbook.com link. Kenneth Mitchell’s mentioned too but there’s no outside verification from Mitchell himself like Ford so I didn’t include him. Rusted AutoParts 17:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2018

64.53.201.43 (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Home media Captain Marvel is scheduled to be released by Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment on Digtal HD and UHD on April 30, 2019 and on Ultra HD Blu Ray Blu ray and DVD on May 7, 2019

It’s not even in theatres yet, I doubt they’re already looking at DVD release dates. Rusted AutoParts 01:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Where did you find this information about the release date? Forget the theaters, as Rusted AutoParts mentioned; we haven't even had a teaser yet. Even the date for Captain Marvel could change, considering how far away it is; similar to how Solo and Infinity War both had their dates moved around this year. So I doubt they have a date lined up for the Blu-Ray yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSameGuy (talk • contribs) 03:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't take much notice of this IP, they have been going over a whole lot of MCU articles today making disruptive edits. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2018

I want to edit this page Ben Mendelsohn is playing Yon-Rogg 82.16.65.11 (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done as unsourced. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Marketing Section

Hello fellow Wikipedians. I would like to have a chat about the marketing section on this page. On September 5, Entertainment Weekly released ten exclusive photos of the movie whilst doing an interview with Brie Larson. I have attempted to add this twice but both of my edits were reverted. I have to say, this played a pivotal role in the marketing of Captain Marvel. Could someone please explain why this keeps on being removed? Mystic Moore 08:48, 20 September 2018

My primary opposition the first time around was that a source wasn't provided. It seems on the 2nd attempt, you provided one, but SassyCollins reverted it. I'll defer to that editor to provide an explanation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. Got the first time. Editor didn't give explanation second time round. --Mystic Moore 16:34, 20 September 2018

My explanation was that I feel this piece is trivial information. My opinion is, however, worth the same as anyone's! Please fell free to add this again and I'll stay away from it. SassyCollins (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMMARKETING we do not cover customary marketing tactics w/o analysis.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Lead suggestions

Favre1fan93: While I can understand you may disagree with some of the changes, I don't understand the move to perform a wholesale revert. Let's see which of these you actually disagree with.

1. Current: "...it is intended to be the twenty-first film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)"

Proposed: "...it will become the twenty-first film of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)"

The problem with using "intended to be" is that it suggests some entity (by whom?) intends this film to be the 21st entry. That's odd phrasing

and intended isn't the best choice here.

2. Current: "A film based on Carol Danvers has been in development at Marvel Studios since as early as May 2013."

Proposed: "Marvel Studios began development on the film as early as May 2013."

We already know from the introductory paragraph that this is a film based on Carol Danvers. Why repeat it again here? Dropping that unnecessary detail makes way for a restructuring that is more concise. Also, any rephrasing that allows us to drop "since" from "since as early as" is undoubtedly an improvement.

3. Current: "A release date was first set in October 2014"

Proposed: "A release date was originally set for July 6, 2018, but was pushed back twice."

The current phrasing, though technically makes sense, can be misleading. It can unintentionally suggest that an early release date was originally planned for October 2014. I know that's not what it says, but there's a ton of room for improvement here. Besides, the original release date is more important than when it was set, especially for the lead.

4. Current: "...Robertson-Dworet soon took over scripting duties, the story of which borrows elements from..."

Proposed: "...Robertson-Dworet soon took over scripting duties, borrowing elements from..."

Complete head-scratcher as to why you would believe the current wording is superior. I'll assume you didn't look at this change.

There were other changes, but they are less important and minor in scope, so I'm willing to drop those for now. I look forward to your feedback. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

There are WP:CRYSTAL concerns with point 1. We don’t know the future. It could be delayed which might push back the release behind another film. This happened twice already. The whom you are looking for is the studio, they intend it to be the 21st film. The rest of the points seem relatively minor and have no concern one way or the other.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair point about WP:CRYSTAL, but "intended" is still a poor choice. The studio does not literally intend this to be the 21st film. It just happens to be the 21st. Replacing it with "scheduled" would be a better choice. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: Addressing each:

1. Agree with CRYSTAL, but I don't think "intended" is an incorrect choice to use.

2. Per the info in the article, the film started as a Ms. Marvel film, Danvers old moniker, so "Marvel Studios began development on the film as early as May 2013." isn't fully correct. That's why saying a film based on Danvers should be used. Fine to remove "since". Sorry, I already adjusted this I feel.

3. It currently no longer says that, only that the film was announced in October 2014.

4. I think I'm just going to take another pass on this altogether.

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that some time after you did the revert, you implemented some of my proposed changes. While this is fine on occasion, I would caution against doing this very often. The problem is that it implies that suggestions must first be evaluated, filtered, and/or modified by a privileged editor before they are allowed in. A better approach would be to evaluate the changes BEFORE reverting, and then only revert the portion(s) you disagree with. Doing so shows better faith and would also help you avoid crossing that line between ownership and stewardship (WP:OAS). --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I have recently made a new section about the marketing and have decided to see what's going on here. GoneIn60 definitely has some points here that really do need to be changed. For starters, point 1 needs to be edited the most. Captain Marvel's release date may be changed but probably only by one week. This is a pivotal movie and will not be released after Avengers 4 or Spider-Man: Far From Home. Therefore it WILL be their 21st film. Many reliable websites have confirmed this along with people in Marvel Studios. Point 2 and 4 are fair. I'm not going to talk about them really but I do believe GoneIn60 makes it sound better. Point 3 definitely needs to be changed though. You can say in the Release section, that the release date was first announced in October 2014 but everywhere else, you need to say that it is set for a March 2019 release date. --Mystic Moore (talk) 9:01, 20 September 2018

"Vers" name

This source may be a bit better if we want to swap out for the original I included. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Or this one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2018

The word "where" should be "were" in this sentence...

Newby also noted that the character's unfamiliarity to audiences was not presented as a joke like Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man (2015) where, and commended cinematographer Ben Davis for....

...but more importantly, since the world "unfamiliarity" is ungrammatically structured parallel to the movie titles, the grammatical fix would be:

Newby also noted that the character's unfamiliarity to audiences was not presented as a joke as with Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man (2015), and commended cinematographer Ben Davis for....

--2604:2000:1382:C5DD:C068:CE9D:D43F:C9C (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Sandrobost (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

FIRST female marvel film

Incorrect claim to be the "first" female marvel film, Elektra (2005) was the first female led marvel film — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.188.186.144 (talk) 16:35, December 18, 2018 (UTC)

It says "Marvel Studios' first female-led superhero film." Elektra was co-produced by Marvel Enterprises and 20th Century Fox.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Android app image rendering

SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT HOW THE ANDROID APP RENDERS THE IMAGE: ALL TORSO (BREASTS) SANS HEAD! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.247.172 (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

No need to shout. That's not something we can control. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Vote brigading

Is it worth mentioning? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I came to this article to read unbiased information about the controversy. However there is nothing at all here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Jude Law

There is NO official confirmation he will be that charachter Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Literally the first source linked in his cast entry: Law will be playing Doctor Walter Lawson, a.k.a. Mar-Vell, who becomes a mentor of sorts to Danvers as she tries to figure out her new powers. You’ve been told this before. Rusted AutoParts 20:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

It is one link, and Jude Law said nothing, marvel said nothing and the director said nothing. No official sourcing, variety has been wrong more in the past. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Also there are now a lot of sources that say he will play Yon-Rogg. So I'll hereby remove the non-offical information until we get an official source. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

This is also sourced in the article, “Another key member of the Kree’s officers is Jude Law’s Mar-Vell.” Sources can be wrong and they often are. We are not investigators, it’s not our job to discover the truth, only what we can verify. Remember, WP:Verifiability, not truth. Also we don’t need an official source, only a reliable source. In fact, secondary sources, are often preferred over primary sources.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I tried to make a compromise of sorts with this edit regarding the role, but I understand why it was reverted back. While Triiiple and Rusted are both correct, we should still consider that, while we have this reported role, Marvel has not confirmed or revealed what role Law is playing. Additionally, Scenario, please provide 1 reliable source stating he is playing that character that does not fall under WP:FRUIT and come from an unsubstantiated leak. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I always just chalked that up to Marvel’s general tendency to keep mum on a lot of their film’s details (we are of course still on Avengers 4 trailer watch, which Marvel if you see this PLEASE). It’s becoming apparent that there’s likely going to be a twist given the chronic speculation and the lack of description from Marvel, but as Deadline and Variety are probably some of the best film related sources to cite, it’s why I feel comfortable keeping it as Mar-Vell for the time being. Rusted AutoParts 04:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I with RAP, more than likely this is part of some plot twist. Benedict Cumberbatch went around for months before Star Trek Into Darkness insisting that he wasn’t playing Khan, but of course we know now that was complete bullshit. The screenwriters said that they were changing Danvers’ origin, and Marvel recently retconned her origin in the comics, removing Mar-Vell’s DNA and making her mother an undercover Kree. But this is all speculation without explicit verification from a reliable source. We have explicit verification from two highly reputable sources saying Law is Mar-Vell and until we have equally reputable sources to the contrary, we have no choice but to let the prevailing sources remain. We do not remove sources simply because we feel that they are wrong.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

There are sources of the same believability like hollywoodreporter and Variety that says he won't be playing Mar-Vell. https://nerdist.com/captain-marvel-jude-law-toy-theory-nerdist-news/ - https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/jude-laws-captain-marvel-role-leaked/ - https://comicbook.com/marvel/2018/11/30/captain-marvel-jude-law-revealed-mar-vell-yon-rogg/ - https://news.google.com/articles/CBMiQmh0dHBzOi8vaGVyb2ljaG9sbHl3b29kLmNvbS9jYXB0YWluLW1hcnZlbC1sZWFrLWp1ZGUtbGF3LWlkZW50aXR5L9IBAA?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen - (This sources has even been shared by a marvel employee who has never been wrong with his information when it comes to Marvel: https://mcucosmic.com/2018/11/30/jude-laws-role-in-captain-marvel-is-finally-clarified/ (Here's the tweet: https://twitter.com/ManaByte/status/1068491402630164480 So, I propose we either make it Yon-Rogg or change it to yet to be annouced. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Since this is a controversial topic, I would not be against crediting him in the cast list as Marvel have done for now (just saying he is the leader of Starforce), and also keeping in the production section our line about him reportedly being Mar-Vell. If he does turn out to be Mar-Vell then we can just change the cast list back, and if not then we just need to update the cast list and then add to the production section who he turned out to be. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

None of the sources that Scenarioschrijver20 mentioned are as reputable as THR or Variety.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Adamstom. Also tripllethreat someone who works for Marvel is not as believeable as some new site? Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

If the source isn’t as reliable then how can you trust that the information hasn’t been fabricated, misquoted, misinterpreted, or if they have thoroughly vetted their informant? Is this Marvel insider who they say they are, is privy to such information, or isn’t intentionally misleading the public like Cumberbatch above?—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This marvel 'Insider' is an employee of Marvel who has always been right with his information when it comes to Marvel movie information.

So what will it be? Will we change it to what Adamstom proposed or to the information of someone a million times more believeable than a newssite?

Also this has NOTHING to do with the cumberbatch thing. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Neither. The information should remain as is until we source as reliable as THR and Variety, the two top trade publications in the industry, that states the contrary. And yes, I trust them over some anonymously sourced blog.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The links I sourced are as reliable. Also the marvel employee who's tweet I cited is again a million times more believeable than THR and Variety. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Wait, are you talking about Jeremy Conrad? He is not a Marvel employee. MCUCosmic is not affiliated with Marvel, it’s a blog which according to their own mission statement says that they dabble in rumor.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Still he has been right more than news sites like variety.

Also your precious THR realeased an article in which they say: "and Jude Law’s Starforce Commander who may or may not be the original Captain Marvel, Mar-Vell" So, I still think we should change it to how Adamstom proposed it. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Heres the link: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/captain-marvel-trailer-kree-skrull-explained-1166031 Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Now that's more like it! But the fact that you'd rather go with a blog source over a reliable news organization with a reputation for fact-checking and vetting sources is troublesome, and I'm afraid you're going to have a hard time on Wikipedia. That said, THR backing off their original claim maybe a enough to pull back Mar'Vell but its not enough to add Yon-Rogg or anyone else. I'd like to hear what @Rusted AutoParts: has to say.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It adds credence to the theory there’s gonna be a twist, but still I don’t see this as backing off of their claim. Sounds like a teaser. For now I think Marvell should be left intact as it is still reputable sourced as the case. If the provided THR source worded it as their initial reporting being wrong, I’d have agreed with removal. But since it’s a one sentence blurb, I feel something more concrete (and reliable) is needed. There’s truly no rush. Rusted AutoParts 19:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI, Disney’s official website confirms Law is playing Mar-Vell. - Richiekim (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, CBR.com are claiming that Yon-Rog "has officially been confirmed".[8] --Mondo Beer (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems Favre already added this to the article and I completely glossed over it. While it’s not exactly an official confirmation as they discribe (toys can often be different from the actual film), it is enough as Favre suggested to pull mentioning Mar-Vell until we something more concrete.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you could follow the example of Sigourney Weaver's role at Avatar 2. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: Yeah, I added in regards to the Funko Pop! toy, and no worries about missing it. I was putting in a bunch of content, and we had another editor adjusting the note to, so it was easy to miss. But yeah, that's why I felt it was good to remove the character name at this time. Admittedly, at this point the character could be known by both names in the film, so both can be right. We'll see in 2 months. Also, the Previews World source doesn't show the box, but here's the Funko product on Hot Topic, which does and confirms the Yon-Rogg name. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

This official video describes his role as "Star Force Commander", perhaps someone could add that to the note? 128.84.127.241 (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete the review bombing part

The part in the Reception about the movie getting review bombed by "internet trolls" has to be deleted since its inaccurate information. The movie hasn't opened yet so its not possible to submit user reviews. The so-called "reviews" are just poll results from RottenTomatoes standard question "Are you interested in seeing this movie?" from where you can vote "Yes" or "No".Jonipoon (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

agreed. Will modify and provide a source to represent these points

We need a controversy section for all that stuff where we can put the internet's misinterpreted take on Brie Larson's comments and their bombing on Rotten Tomatoes Mystic Moore (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Users can leave comments in the audience reviews. Also no need to give this WP:UNDUE weight by moving it to its own section. A simple line is all that is needed.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Modified to more accurately express what was actually happening, what the reviews were expressing, and change the tone to be more objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 20:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You cited an unreliable source as well as editorialized statements (“drastically”).—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain what makes it unreliable and editorial and how it is more so than the original source? There is a consensus that there is no review bombing. As for changing the part about feminism; the people who are complaining have been clear and this is supported by the article that the reason they are complaining is that they perceive Larson's statements to be aimed against white males...not that it supports feminism. The writer of the original source is expressing their opinion that it is about feminism but the actual statements and alternate source confirm they are reacting to specific statements about "white males." Either this should be deleted from the page or reflect the actual stated perceptions of that community.

(edit conflict) Please familiarize yourself with the cited guidelines. Can you explain who is apart of this so-called concensus since your bold change at 15:44 February 25, 2019.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It actually states it in the source provided and the examples of the comments in that post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 23:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think you know what a concensus is, please read WP:CONCENSUS. I’ll provide more helpful links to Wikipedia policies and guidelines on your talk page.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Jonipoon expressed the same view that you can't review bomb the movie on Rottontomatoes because it isn't open to reviews. People weren't reviewing the movie they were expressing why they didn't want to see the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 23:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

That doesn’t constitute a concensus, concensuses take time to develop, besides comments in the audience review section are open.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It is an agreement and thus the begining of one...if you revert, ignore, and refuse to discuss disagreements then the agreement within the talk page should take precednt. Which is why I haven't reverted again is you have support. You want to argue there is no consensus and yet not discuss the disagreement to come to one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 00:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

That’s not how this works. WP:BRD is clear. You made a bold change, it was reverted then you discuss. You do not re-revert while you wait for a concensus to be established.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree I have rerad enough to know that the intent is to generate discourse and you were attempting to force a view without engaging.

Within 2 hours, you’ve got to be kidding. The minimum is usually a week.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You were reverting without responding. If you would of reverted then stated why you were reverting then you might have a point — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 02:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

That’s not a liscense for you to re-revert i.e. edit war.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

exactly the difference is that from my persepctive your choice to not engage and revert means you are the one that started the edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 02:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The R comes before the D in WP:BRD.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with TriiipleThreat's observations. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I am rolling=back on that as well..even the cited article isn't deiscounting that Larson and MCU are promoting Feminism

No Jablonsky2020 (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. This has nothing to do with the film. If the downvotes are because of anti-white statements, then this belongs to Brie Larson, where it is already included. If the downvotes are because of actual low anticipation by viewers, then this may be included together with a low box office if it isn't clickbait WP:Recentism as I've explained at WP:BLPN. Finally, this is only controversial because RT decided to change the feature with a very suspicious timing, and all of this should only probably be covered at Rotten Tomatoes. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 20:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  There are many reliable sources that write about this in direct connection with Captain Marvel. To exclude it entirely ("This has nothing to do with the film") is disingenuous. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Modify the review bombing statement

Current,ly this section says Ahead of the film’s release, the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes experienced an effort to review bomb the film’s page with negative comments attacking the film and its star, Larson, for their perceived feminism

I am looking for a concencus to chnage this with the appropriate source to: Ahead of the film’s release, the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes received a drastic decrease in expressed interest in viewing the film as the film’s Rotten Tomatoes page received negative comments attacking the film and its star, Larson, for perceived sexism and racism

On the bases that Rotton Tomatoes is not open to reviews, people are just expressing their desire to see or not see the movie and the perception of the people complaining is not that they are against feminism but support of feminism through the use of negative idenity politics that targets white males. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 00:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The current description is very inaccurate. --41.132.92.231 (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You are editorializing when you claim it had a “drastic” decrease. Also RedState is not reliable for verifying incontrovertible facts, see WP:RSN#RedState.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Er, uh, "negative identity politics that targets white males" isn't a thing which exists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

>In what fantasy world are Europeans exempt from racism? 86.93.208.34 (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You need to substantiate the claim against the source. Let's try this: Ahead of the film’s release, the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes fan expressed interest in viewing the film dropped from 96% to 27% and received negative comments attacking the film and its star, Larson, for perceived sexism and racism

Seems good and gets irrelevant semantics out of the way. Unless we're gonna keep pretending that losing interest in watching a film is "review bombing" by using a subjective news article as a source. --41.132.92.231 (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

There are numerous sources that discribe this behavior as review bombing.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

doesn't mean that it is factually correct. If you can't review you can't review bomb. You even made a change to the article that identifies that it is the want to see, not reviewing.

That’s based on your own definition of review bombing. Reliable sources, which is what we go by, state otherwise. Also as repeatedly stated these comments were left in the “Audience Review” section.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

No it is based upon the actual definition of what a review iswhich is independent of what someone who wrote an article thinks. Which we now have a concensus of 4 people who agree. If you want to call it "bombing" or "interest bombing" that I would be willing to work with. But citing article's that make a factually false claim based on the actual definitions of words isn't objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 15:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The definition of review is not being questioned. We are defining “review bomb”, which again per reliable sources show a difference. There is no such thing as “interest bombing”.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You still need a more reliable source to verify your claims. BTW, I added RT’s. response.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Again I will say you need to substntiate your claim about the source. The current article cited on the "article page" shows a bias against the groups they are writing about, calling them trolls and hateful, and if any source is unreliable it is the source showing bias through ad hominem.

Per WP:RSN RedState is only “usable as a source for attributed conservative/right-wing opinion”. Whereas, the cited sources in the article are generally accepted as reliable.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

This is completely bias. You literally posted that this morning and now trying to use it as a base for discounting a source. This proves you are not negotiating in good faith. If you continue I will report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 16:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Do as you like, but that's why the noticeboard is there. You are free to comment as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

This is an article that support the inacracy of the statement review bombing and actually points at the current source being used as infactual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 16:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Though this does appear to be from a published author, we still caution the use of WP:BLOGS sources, especially one that describes themselves as "alternative movie news".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Also FWIW, I've posted an invitation at WT:FILM for others to chime in. This is growing tiresome.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since Rotten Tomatoes has deleted the "Interest section" for all movies we can no longer provide direct links to the actual comments to prove that the comments have not been hateful. On the other hand, that will indirectly make all the news articles reporting about the so-called "review bombing" somewhat inaccurate as well. My suggestion is to simply change the current section into something like this that is more objective, that CLEARLY showcases the situation from both perspectives:

Ahead of the film’s release, the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes experienced a massive decline in interest for the film's "Want to See" score. News sources reported this as an effort to review bomb the film’s page with negative comments attacking the film and its star, Larson, for their perceived feminism.[149] In response, Rotten Tomatoes removed the “Want to See” feature, which polled anticipation for the film, as part of a larger re-design of the site. Before its removal, the “Want to See” score had fallen to 28%.[150]

Jonipoon (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Just some general c/e:

Ahead of the film's release, Captain Marvel's "Want to See" score, an audience anticipation poll on the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, had fallen to 28%.[150] News sources described the decline as an effort to review bomb the film's page with negative comments attacking the film and its star, Larson, for their perceived feminism.[149] In response, Rotten Tomatoes removed the “Want to See” feature as part of a larger re-design of the site.[150]

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I find that acceptable in regards to reviewing bombing. My other issue is with the use of the term feminism. Perhaps a more general identifier such as "for thier activism" that way you could just remove the word "percieved" or perhaps "for how they expressed their activism" or maybe even "how they expressed their feminist activism"

I suppose that would be acceptable although it is not how it is described in the source. Also its still POV as to whether or not film is actually pushing activism, or feminism for that matter, so "percieved" is still needed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with the word perceived, however, the way it is currently it reads as Marvels and Larson's percieved feminism.

Maybe, News sources reported this as an effort to review bomb the film’s page with negative comments attacking the film and its star, Larson, for the perception of an expression of feminist activism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 19:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm also fine with TriiipleThreat's new suggestion, however I only have an issue with the "perceived feminism" part. Is it necessary to put it there? Jonipoon (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we need to give a reason for the attacks and that's how it is described in the cited source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I actually don't think precieved feminism is appropriate. Even the current article recogise the feminism support of Larson and MCU. The issue I have is the wording is it indicates that the people's motivation is aimed at all feminism. The complaints are really aimed at comments specifically made by Larson in conjunction with the advertising of the film. I am not sure how you indicate that. Obviously, there are opposing perceptions of the two side, how do you indicate that without villain either side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 21:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Inserting your own research as to what the "complaints are really aimed at" isn't helpful. All material must be verified by reliable sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the current source is biased. That is my point. There are many sources that state the comments that began the backlash. So my research is relevant in the sense that this article is biased. Made evident by the demonising of one side of the issue. While some of the facts can be agreed as valid, the assertion of from opinion piece on what is feminism and a what are the beliefs of a group are that the author states are trolls and haters, shouldn't be taken as valid. You have an author writing outside his expertise, that is a proponent for the comics, making accusatory statements about people criticizing the subject he is a proponent of. I don't see how you can't believe that isn't a bias source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 22:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

We seemed to have been making some progress so before we blow the whole thing by diving deeper into this circular argument, I’m going to go ahead and make the change with the word activism instead of feminism that we seemed to agree to.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Brie Larson's generalizing comments aimed at an entire gender rubbed some people the wrong way. That's all that needs to be said in the "Controversy" section with links. 86.93.208.34 (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that Rotten Tomatoes didn't remove the Want to See feature altogether (which is what the Wikipedia article says right now), but rather changed it so that it only displays the number of people that indicated they want to see the movie (instead of a percentage). Soronast (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Call sign

Should we add their call signs like in the Top Gun article? Photon for Rambeau and Avenger for Danvers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.147.197.214 (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Cameo

Kindly add cameo appareance by Katheryn Winnick as Sersi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerisecalibur (talk • contribs) 16:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I certainly didn't see her after seeing the film twice.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Plot note

A first-draft plot is embedded, with much white space between this warning and the plot itself to help avoid spoilers for anyone editing this talk page. Though scores of reviewers and others have seen the film at this time, and premieres have screened in multiple cities, this is NOT to go live on the article page until the film officially opens. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Moving this to the article. We don't censor spoilers just because the movie hasn't opened in the U.S. yet. The movie is currently in theaters around the world. The Ozzy Mandias (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Didn't know it had already opened outside the U.S. ... cool. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Mar-Vell

This article is currently saying that Annette Bening plays Mar-Vell in the movie; do we have a reliable source that backs this up? The cited source mentioned Wendy Lawson as her character, but it does not mention Mar-Vell. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The source is the film itself. YgorD3 (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

So they actually say the name "Mar-Vell" in the film? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they do. The Ozzy Mandias (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Logo

Should we mention that the logo mainly feature Stan Lee's appearances in the MCU? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.147.197.214 (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

End credits

In addition to the mid-credits scene with Steve Rogers, Natasha Romanoff, Bruce Banner, and James Rhodes, there is also an end-credits scene where Goose vomits the tesseract onto Fury's desk. Presumably during the events of the first Thor movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.196.43 (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Project Pegasus

Does Project Pegasus make an appearance in the film? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it plays a pretty huge role in the plot. 24.187.209.35 (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Is the Shazam thing really necessary?

I find it hard to believe somebody would come here looking for Shazam. I get that the Shazam character was known as "Captain Marvel" about 50 years ago, but it seems like a big stretch. Is there any precedent for this type of thing? Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. DC didn’t stop using the name until 2011, and the WP:COMMONNAME for the character is still Captain Marvel. That’s why the article is located at Captain Marvel (DC Comics).—TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Would WP:COMMONNAME change after the movies popularize the characters? Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

End credits scene

Is there some reason why this scene keeps getting written out of the plot summary? It seems to be one particular editor doing it each time... — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryRarelyStable (talk • contribs) 23:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Kree DNA?

The cast description of Carol Danvers still says her "DNA was fused with that of a Kree during an accident". Though that was her comic-book origin story and appears in at least one of the references (all from pre-release articles), the film as I saw it has no mention of her having Kree DNA (though she apparently has blue Kree blood from transfusions during her recovery on Hala); per both the film and the plot section, her powers came from an exploding Kree energy core in her test plane. Isn't the mention of Kree DNA now inaccurate, unless that energy core contained Kree DNA or the blast also embedded in her the DNA of Wendy Lawson/Mar-Vell (consistent with the comics, but there Mar-Vell was male, the original Captain Marvel, and survived the explosion)? I almost changed it myself, but thought it better to discuss it here first. --RBBrittain (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The article has incorrect info that came out before the movie was released. The stuff about Talos should also be edited; he's not leading an invasion and the time he spends as Keller is very short. The Ozzy Mandias (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The Kree engine got its power from the Tesseract, so Carol's powers actually came from the Tesseract. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe Yon-Rogg says that he gave Carol transfusions with his blood. Richiekim (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Metacritic syndrome

Hi. Appearently, Alex21 and his dear longtime friend TropicAces, after a couple of weeks, have started to bother me again. This time it is a critic review description about the film which is displayed on the Metacritic's homepage. They think it is not the place, because you can't "source Metacritic up top" and "this should be a fun article to keep an eye on over the weekend lol". They insist to keep the Independent info, which sums up only 4 reviews and only praising words: "entertaining, enjoyable and savvy". So, considering this is a place that summarizes the page, what do you think? Should we help them to make the film look critically acclaimed masterpiece? Sebastian James (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Sebastian James, you wanna try that again while agreeing with WP:CIVIL? Or are you (clearly) WP:NOTHERE? -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I have been WP:NOTHERE since 2012, you have discovered it! Why don't you use your wisdom to try to comment on the subject, not the editor first? It is not needed here. Sebastian James (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Public anticipation vote from IMDb should be updated : Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2019

This line found under the Reception->Theatrical Run section I think should change from the currently "In late December 2018, the film was named as the most anticipated 2019 film by IMDb, "

To the new: "The film has was named as one of the most anticipated films of 2019 by IMDb [source], " [source] = https://www.imdb.com/list/ls024951332/ Skblackbeard (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The film was the most anticipated film on IMDb per the Variety source currently in the article, and "has was named" does not make sense. NiciVampireHeart 23:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Any source on the claim of "Analysts attributed the low score and sheer number of reviews to online trolling"

Reading the article I came upon on review bombing which stated that "Analysts attributed the low score and sheer number of reviews to online trolling." My point of contention with this sentence is the world Analyst, which suggest that multiple "qualified" individual on review bombing have come to this conclusion after conducting an analysis of the situation. The only source provided has no mention of the word analyst nor any mention of an analysis and the author of the piece is a standard staff writer who has no indication of being an analyst or preform an analysis. I ask that this sentence be further clarified with sources, altered, or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MontclairReality (talk • contribs) 21:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I think even using the phrase "review bombing" is non-neutral hyperbole that overstates and gives undue attention to what is merely lame ballot stuffing (not reviews, not bombs, maybe spitballs?), so I'd say it's all h____sh_t. I also disagree with this ballot stuffing being included under Critical response, I welcome any effort to at least put it a subsection away from serious criticism. It's so lame I hesitate to dignify it by suggesting it even counts as proper trolling.

To address your specific criticism though, the sentence "Analysts attributed the low score" is referenced to the Hollywood Reporter [9] but the article does not contain any actual text to that effect, so if you want to be bold and rephrase the text you could certainly do so. What the article does point out is that the film received more reviews in a matter of days than Avengers Infinity War did throughout its entire run, and I would encourage you or anyone to rephrase the text to more closer match what the source actually says. The mention of "analysts" is a bit of dubious claim or possibly an attempt to make Argument from authority. There are plenty of reviews that judge the film on its merits (and flaws) so this article should stop giving undue weight to the peanut gallery and instead start to carefully include some reasonable criticism without feeding the trolls. -- 109.76.145.159 (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Release date in China

I added the release date in China and it has been removed. Is there a policy not to add release dates other than US/UK? – NirvanaToday^t@lk 08:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_film#Release_dates "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release". So the Infobox will only mention the primary release date, but in some cases maybe a festival release date and the major wide release date.

The article body might still mention the Chinese release, it depends. Other times the Chinese release gets discussed in the Box office section because films often earn a whole lot of money in China. -- 109.76.145.159 (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)