Jump to content

Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WolfRisingSun (talk | contribs) at 19:46, 11 February 2011 (→Cobie Smulders is MARIA HILL!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sandbox for the Avengers film

This is just a notice that Fandraltastic and I have created a userspace draft for this film and that anybody who wishes to contribute may do so. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notablity

Until the start of priniciple photography this article fails notability guidelines for future films. As those guidlines state and is in the case for this film the media coverage and likelihood of a high-profile release does not guarantee that it will be immuned from setbacks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but this meets the GNG by itself, based on the RS coverage, so failing NFF doesn't mean it can't have its own article. Since the redirect is contested, feel free to start an AfD on the topic, and I'll be happy to abide by the community consensus on the matter. Jclemens (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfD not required for redirects. This happens with almost every major release media coverage is not enough. There is nothing exceptional about the coverage of this film that NFF should be overidden. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is an appropriate stop for a disputed redirect, and I've taken this there. NFF is a SNG, which does not override the GNG. I'm sure you're correct that there may be plenty of such coverage for other major releases, but I disagree with the forced redirect, in that it directly contravenes the GNG. We agree that there's plenty of RS coverage and that principal photography has not yet started; we disagree whether NFF takes precedence over the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it or Wait for it

I would leave the page instead of wait for the film come out. Lg16spears (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

categorization

Other film projects are categorized into film categories, so what's wrong with doing it here? 76.66.193.119 (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you referring to other films, this is a non-film as it has yet to enter production.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have an entire category of films in various states of non-production Category:Unfinished films. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit different. Unfinished films are films that have started production but have for various reason never been completed, upcoming films are films that are currently in production and unreleased films are films that have completed production but have not been released.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several articles in the category have not entered production, like Sprockets, which didn't even get to the screenplay stage, or Concentrate (screenplay) that never entered production. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe those are probably incorrectly categorized.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have a guideline at WP:NFF where we would usually merge details of a project to a broader article. However, this article is essentially being treated as a sub-topic due to the level of detail. That is why it is not formatted as a film article, being without the infobox, for example. The categories are for films only, and films are usually "almost certain to take place" when they start filming. At this point, this is just a project that is not guaranteed, and there needs to be a distinction between films and plans for ones. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like there should be a Category:Proposed films then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.193.119 (talk • contribs) 10:09, August 2, 2010
This article is a rare example of being on its own, and we would not have enough non-film articles to populate such a category. It would be better to add more high-level categories. I'll take a stab at it. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind we are working without much precedent here so try to bare with us. As Erik stated a few more generic categories might serve for the time being.--TriiipleThreat (talk)
The categories he added look good. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! We can include film-related categories if filming does begin. We've seen too many planned films, even for major franchises, just never take off despite all the excitement (Jurassic Park IV, as one example). Erik (talk | contribs) 14:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename?

Can we at least rename this page something like "The Avengers (2012 film)"? That sounds like a more official page title than "The Avengers film project." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.4.185 (talk) 04:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was at The Avengers (2012 film) before, but it was moved here because we rarely have stand-alone articles about films that have not even started production. This is more an article about recent history than an article about an upcoming film. If production does not happen, then we would continue treating this as history. If filming does happen, we will change the format to that of a film article. That's why the current article does not use a film infobox nor film-related categories. If filming starts, we can move it back to the original title. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may be about recent history, but nevertheless the recent history of a film. There are dozens of articles on wikipedia about films in development, so why does this one have to be different? --Boycool42 (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that there is no film actually being made. The dozens of articles about upcoming films are those that have already begun filming and are on their way to being released. We use the start of filming as a threshold because until filming starts, anything can happen to delay the project. For example, Jurassic Park IV has been in development hell forever. Films like Shantaram (film), Ant-Man (film), and Spider-Man 4 have been planned for a while, but nothing actually happens. (All these are sections in broader articles as part of the pre-filming threshold.) The recent Batman and Superman films had various unsuccessful projects before them for years. Here, we're trying to avoid the "(2012 film)" label because it's still just plans that may not be realized by 2012. No one has directed, no one has performed, etc. If filming begins, we know with pretty strong certainty that there will be something tangible, and we can restore the original article title. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Almost none of the films in Category:Upcoming films have reached production. Guess what! None of their articles are titled "The ________ film project". Double standard? --Boycool42 (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF.-5- (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I get that. But this is like titling the Obama article as "John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt"!--Boycool42 (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL since there is no film, there can be no film article. However there are enough reliable sources on the development of this project to statisfy WP:GNG on that topic alone. That is why article is named what it is and there are none of the usual film identifiers.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boycool, I used to complete a lot of tasks for the future films department of WikiProject Film, making sure such articles were merged or deleted where applicable. I was away for a while, so there might have been some backsliding. I'll review the articles in that category to see if they stand up to scrutiny. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General Ross

Is General Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross scheduled to appear? If so, will he be portrayed by William Hurt? --Boycool42 (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image use of File:The Avengers 2012 logo.jpg

I am not sure about the use of this non-free image without an infobox and would like a second opinion on the matter.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although we aren't yet including an infobox (because "it's not a film"), the image does emphasize points in this article on "recent history". But, I could be biased. --Boycool42 (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming we have a good FUR and are simply using one relevant FU image, I don't see what the problem is: if you could use once it with an infobox, does the lack of an infobox invalidate the informational/identity component of FU? Jclemens (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many. More space is devoted to navboxes than content. Surely the 'Joss Whedon', 'Marvel Comics films', and 'Avengers' boxes cover it without the 'Captain America', 'Iron Man', 'Thor', 'Hulk', 'Hawkeye', 'Black Widow', and 'S.H.I.E.L.D.' boxes needing to be tacked on? - Tanetris (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The boxes themselves are shelled propperly so taking up too much space is not an issue. The main character boxes are supplied for readers navigating through articles on that particular character. However we could do without Black Widow, Hawkeye and Shield as they are in a supporting capacity. On a side note the Black Widow box is currently being discussed for deletion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would certainly be a help. I still don't see the necessity of navboxes for each main character either, though. Most of the links in each box are not related to this film project, and the ones that are are already in the Avengers navbox or the Marvel Films navbox. If someone wants to explore a particular character more in-depth, the Avengers navbox contains links to each one's main page, and it's easy enough to go from there. If someone's coming here from another page related to one of the characters and wants to go back, not to put too fine a point on it but most browsers do include a back button. - Tanetris (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The links in the navboxes do not have to be about this film project but rather subject of each navbox. The Avengers box is for the team as whole while the character boxes are for each specifically, so someone reading about The Hulk can come here from the Doc Samson article then go directly to the Leader article without having to go back or elsewhere (which is the point of navboxes). Is there some overlap? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MCU

Can The Avengers be listed in the "followed by" section on the other MCU films' articles?? In each respective series (Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, and Captain America), this is the next sequel. It isn't uncommon to do this for crossovers (see Freddy vs. Jason). --Boycool42 (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the same universe does not automatically make it a direct sequel even though the films might share characters and plot elements. That being the case if you are going to label this is a sequel it needs to be expletively stated by a reliable source. For instance how do you know the next direct chapter of the Iron Man franchise is The Avengers not Iron Man 3?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jon Favreau has said so on numerous occasions that have mysteriously been removed from wikipedia. --Boycool42 (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide find them and pay close attention to what wording is used. Favreau has already stated in numerous sources that he intends to make the Iron Man franchise into a trilogy consisting of a third Iron Man film (Iron Man 2#Sequel already states as such). The Avengers for all we know might be more of a spiritual successor or companion piece to these films and not a true sequel meaning that it follows the events of the earlier works but does not directly build upon the plot lines therein (though it might have indirect consequences). Also be aware of the can of worms that is will no doubtly open, for instance is Captain America: The First Avenger the direct prequel to everything, is The Incredible Hulk the direct sequel to Iron Man and the sequel or Side story to Iron Man 2.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --Boycool42 (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filming

Has anyone announced when production starts? --Boycool (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruffalo replacing Norton

I have to agree with Oknazevad's edit here. We do not need to note agencies unless there was an event that required explicit identification of them. Otherwise, it is assumed that actors land roles through agents or agencies. Without any real context, such as strife between agencies, the mention of the one agency does sound like a press release. I would prefer for it to be removed. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe its a wording issue, but to me it offers insight into the process. Without it seems there was nothing more than Marvel offering him the part and he accepted. Personally I think naming the agency is also irrelevant but its does give the since that there was some negotiations and back and forth taking place since a deal was "reached".--15:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I think naming the agency seems unnatural. What about "Ruffalo's agency"? Like I said, unless there was a specific reason to identify the agency, such as an event, we're not compelled to identify it. I've referenced a lot of Variety and The Hollywood Reporter references, and they go on and on about agents and agencies because that's the nature of the business. It's less relevant for this film article and probably more relevant at the actor's article (as some change agencies throughout their career). Erik (talk | contribs) 15:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reform

I believe it's time to add an info box and set the page up like a regular Wikipedia film article. Any thoughts? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 9:17 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Per previous consensus and WP:NFF that time will be if and when the film starts principle photography.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about not changing it yet. Filming is supposed to begin in four months, which is still a long way off. Once filming begins, it's an indicator of all resources invested in it. It's far more likely for a film to be made once it has actually started filming. Before then, it's indefinite. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could at least rename it to The Avengers (2012 film). Rusted AutoParts (talk) 15:21 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Again per previous consensus and WP:NFF once the film starts principle photography there is a higher likelihood that film will be completed and released on the projected date and thus less intrusive on WP:CRYSTAL. As WP:NFF states there is no "sure thing" production. Until then remember there is no deadline.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. We have to remember that we cannot declare this topic as a definite film. Justice League collapsed even though there was a cast ready to go. When filming does begin, it's near-certain that the film will be completed. Before then, we err on the side of caution. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citing The Hollywood Reporter

As can be seen by the "dead link" tags in this article's footnotes for The Hollywood Reporter, it's crucial that we add a WebCitation or some other archive link for Hollywood Reporter citations since they're only available to the general public at the original URL for a limited time. They then go into a subscriber archive with a different URL and may or may not be searchable. (You know how internal search engines are.)

An archive link is a snapshot of the page as it appears that day. If the URL changes or the article goes away, the cited information remains available. It doesn't seem useful to have "dead link" appear after every Hollywood Reporter cite a month or two after we give it.

Using http://webcitation.org takes less than 60 seconds once you've done it a couple of times. If we believe in Wikipedia as a lasting source of information and not a news site for the latest on this Marvel movie or that, it's critical that we archive our citations. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Hill

The Variety article that reports that Cobie Smulders has been cast does not name Maria Hill as the character. However this earlier Deadline article does name Hill when Smulders was considered the front runner for the role but only with speculative terms such as "I'm hearing that" with no mention of from who the author is hearing. Is this enough to state Smulders is playing Maria Hill or should we continue to wait for something more concrete?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that The Hollywood Reporter, another source being cited by the blogosphere does not name the role either.--TriiipleThreat 13:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fine to leave out the name until we get confirmation. The character Maria Hill is not notable enough for her own article, and I think that defining her role as a SHIELD agent is enough for now. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fine but for clarification she does have her own article, Maria Hill.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say:

On February 7, 2011, The Hollywood Reporter said [Cobie Smulders]] was in final negotiations to play "a key member of the espionage agency S.H.I.E.L.D.",[1] for which the trade magazine had previously said Morena Baccarin would be screen-testing.[2] In a talk-show interview on February 2, Jackson had described the role as that of his "sidekick".[2]

That's pretty much what the two articles say concretely; the latter articles includes a vague "also said to be vying for the part," without saying who's saying it. Hope this helps. P.S. Remember, for The Hollywood Reporter citations, we need to use WebCitation.org or some other archive, since THR links go away in a week or two. --Tenebrae 17:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Footnote 1 title etc. here
  2. ^ a b Footnote 2 title etc. here
What about the inclusion of the character name, Maria Hill?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see it given anywhere in those sources. It's possible they're making her blond and casting her as Sharon Carter — actresses change hair color all the time, and Sharon Carter would provide a love interest for modern-day Captain America — and it's also possible the character may end up named Maria Perez or Maria Cohen etc. for diversity reasons. It's also possible they may change the name to Sharon Hill to combine characters. Or it's possible they may not like the name Maria and change it to Paula Hill or some such, like the 1970s Hulk series changed Bruce Banner to David Banner. Anything can happen between now and production. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the budding edit war, with two editors both reverting [User:Rusted AutoParts]] on this issue, I've left a note at User talk:Rusted AutoParts. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is this for compromise:

Smulders, whom Joss Whedon once considered for his unproduced live-action Wonder Woman film, was selected from a short list of potential actresses that reportedly included Morena Baccarin, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Jessica Lucas.

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "reportedly" is considered a weasel word, the idea being that we're either including something concrete and verifiable in the encyclopedia or we're not, and that we shouldn't equivocate. I'm just not sure at this point what [User:Rusted AutoParts]]'s overdetermination is — we're not a news source here to report every rumor. -- Tenebrae (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I was afraid of that. Should we also remove the contested names from the Pre-production section?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed contested names there, but yeah, we really shouldn't include anything not reliably confirmed. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added Winstead and Lucas because Jackson confirmed they screentested. I provided a source confirming this. But are you just gonna keep reverting my edit to keep it to your liking? It gets frustrating when i added sourced material and you claim it's from another source that said reportedly. Honestly, i think this is how children act. You want it the way you want it so you remove all material not added by you. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:58 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Its called thorough editing. Tenebrae has already explained this to you but I'll deconstruct these points again. Jackson did not confirm that anybody screen-tested, in his interview he did not mention any names. Infact the interview took place before the screen tests were held. The source you posted specifically reads, "We got the news via Collider". Collider reads "Heat Vision reports that actresses screen-testing for the role include Morena Baccarin (V), Jessica Lucas (Cloverfield), Cobie Smulders (How I Met Your Mother), and Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World)". However Heat Vision only states, "V star Morena Baccarin is on that list", the rest are just "said" to be vying for the part. Grabbing headlines is only half of citing sources, the rest is tracing back to the original report and understanding the language that is actually used.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cobie Smulders is MARIA HILL!

http://movies.ign.com/articles/114/1148345p1.html

THERE, PROOF THAT SHE'S PLAYING MARIA HILL IN THE AVENGERS, NOW STOP CENSORING EVERY GOD DAMN MENTION OF MARIA HILL! I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF YOU CLOWNS DENYING IT'S MARIA HILL BECAUSE YOUR MAD AND WANTED SOMEONE ELSE LIKE SHARON CARTER. IT'S FRACKING MARIA HILL, DEAL WITH IT AND LET US CONFIRM IT FOR EVERYONE ELSE ON WIKIPEDIA!!!! WolfRisingSun (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Stark's Hulk Cameo

Wouldn't his cameo in The Incredible Hulk count towards the amount of Marvel films Downey Jr. has been in? Should there be a mention of this? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:31 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Who knows? The cited source only mentions IM2 and The Avengers.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Avengers_(2012_film)&oldid=413351482"