Talk:Captain Marvel (film)

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

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)

"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