Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film)

Two things

1. Why does this and other articles in this series open with who produced and distributed it? This isn't a particularly common thing in other articles and isn't a particularly important thing either, especially who distributes it which is possibly one of the least important facts about a film. Most articles tend to open with whoever wrote and directed it and stars featuring. Obviously we don't have those credits yet but it is an incubator so it doesn't matter all that much. I'd propose removing that here and in other MCU articles tbh. But that is a discussion that can be had in the respective things.
2. I'd also like to propose following long date format "January 1, 1970" and not "1970-01-01" as the latter means different things to different people depending on where they are from (obviously a bit more simple an example here) and is not as instantly recongizable and understandable as the former. I say this from personal experience dealing with the latter format, where you might have something like "2010-03-10" which can mean either "October 3, 2010" or "March 10, 2010" depending on which format you are accustomed to. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

At first I believe it was done because the films were being produced by an independent studio and various studios were buying the rights to distribute them, making the distributors an interesting newsworthy piece of info from movie to movie. At this point I believe it's mostly done for internal consistency among the franchise's articles. In regards to the date format change, I'm okay with that. The refs all need to be archived at some point, too. Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Cast section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Two things:

1. We do not know how similar the versions of Star-Lord and Drax that appear in the film will be to their comic book counterparts. All we know is that Star-Lord will be Peter Quill and that he is the leader of the film's version of the Guardians. Assuming any information about his parentage or Drax's origins is speculation.
2. Although there is concept art for the film depicting the characters of Gamora, Rocket Raccoon, and Groot, this is by no means a confirmation that the characters will appear in the film. Although (as of writing this) Zoe Saldana is in talks to portray Gamora, that is by no means confirmation that she will portray the character, or that she will appear in the film. Assuming any of these three characters will appear in the film until they are either cast or an official plot synopsis is released that features the character is speculation.

Any of the above information will be removed as speculation.
LoveWaffle (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

We do know, the descriptions come from reliable third-party sources, the same source referencing the casting.

The other characters are likewise sourced to be in film in the article body, besides they are currently hidden from view in the cast section.

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

For one, the descriptions are of the characters as they appear in the comics, not as they appear in the film. An important distinction.

Secondly, it doesn't matter if the characters are likely to appear in the film (which they are), what matters is if they are confirmed. They are not, so until they are, saying the characters will appear in the film is speculation. And if they're hidden from view, there's no reason for them to be listed anyway.

LoveWaffle (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No, they are not. Did you even the read the sources? The Pratt source says "The role is..." and the Bautista sources says "Drax is...", not Drax in the comics is. Also, they are not likely to appear, they are confirmed to appear. The hidden text is there to ease editing. Also I want to remind you that are now at WP:3rr.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I did read the source. They are talking about the characters as they appear in the comics, which does not mean this is how they will appear in the film. Nor are those other characters confirmed to appear, as they only appear in concept art. Characters have appeared in concept art in the past only to not make the final cut of the film. Until they are cast or an official plot synopsis is released that mentions them, it is entirely speculative that they will appear in the film. Speculation that is likely true, but speculation nonetheless.

Also, I am not at 3RR as I only reverted your edit once.

LoveWaffle (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No, they are specifically talking about parts in film (i. e. "roles", thats why the author used the term). Also read the article Kevin Feige confirmed these characters by name. All the contested information is verified by Wikipedia standards. Also you have reverted three times, at 19:59, 20:14 and 20:22.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The sources talk about the roles they will play, but the descriptions are of the characters from the comics (Earth-616) and not from the Marvel Cinematic Universe (Earth-199999). An important distinction. If this were either Chris Pratt or Dave Bautista talking about their roles in the film, this would be different, but Deadline and Hollywood Reporter do not have access to the film's script.

Furthermore, the characters have only appeared in the concept art that was drafted when the film was in the earliest stages of pre-production, which is hardly a confirmation that they will appear in the finished product. And if they're not going to appear on the page anyway, there's no reason for them to be listed. Simply add the sourced information when any character is confirmed to appear in the film.
Finally, the only time I actually reverted your edit was at 00:14, which is only how its read in the description. The edit also removed the inaccurate information added by another user that states Zoe Saldana had already been cast as Gamora when she is in fact only in talks to portray the character. The other times I manually removed the speculative information.
LoveWaffle (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You do not know what these journalists have access to or how they obtain their information. These are highly reliable sources with strict editorial oversight. No where do they say that this is speculation or a comic book discription of the character. Deadline made the definitive statement, "The role is Star-Lord, the Guardians leader who is the offspring of a human mother and an alien father." Again Feige confirmed these characters at Comic-Con. Also it doesnt matter if you manually removed the information or not, your next edit removing the same information will put you over 3rr. Besides you are not even guaranteed three reverts, it is just a bright line threshold.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

They are not talking about the characters as they appear in the film, but the characters as they exist in the comics. An important distinction. They can't talk about the characters as they appear in the film as it has not begun filming, ergo does not exist (and technically neither should the page via the site's notability standards). Furthermore, Kevin Feige's statement and the concept art were all made very early in pre-production, before the film began casting and before James Gunn rewrote the script. Similar information from other films has proven inaccurate before. Until the characters are cast or there is some official plot synopsis released that mentions them, any character's appearance in the film is purely speculative.

It should not be this difficult to have some patience for a film that isn't released for another 16 months.

LoveWaffle (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. The sources do not say they are talking about the characters as they appear in the comics. They are defining the "role". And yes, they can and do talk about film roles before filming begins. And like I said, these are highly reliable sources and are acceptable by Wikipedia standards unless contradicted by similar sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. The sources are talking about the characters, but are not talking about the characters as they appear in the film. They cannot do so as neither the film nor the characters yet exist. These sources are reliable for casting information, but that does not mean they know the exact details of the film's plot. Until someone involved in the film's production talks about these characters' roles in the film or official material is released that details this information, saying anything about how these characters will appear in the film is speculative.

LoveWaffle (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If they are reliable for one then they are reliable for the other. The information is from the same source. We do not differentiate unless the author's wording suggests otherwise. If we do, then we would be applying our own WP:POV. Also there is no guideline stating that we must wait until someone involved talks about it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not how reliability works. It's reliable as a casting announcement and nothing else. Besides, information in the article from Deadline that confirms Pratt's involvement is different from what's in the information concerning his character in the article from The Hollywood Reporter that confirms Bautista's involvement.
LoveWaffle (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Says who? Show me a guideline. WP:V is the overriding policy here. If it is a claim made by a reliable source then it is acceptable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I kinda fell into this discussion and - believe me - I have no dog in this race whatsoever. There is a Wall o' Text to sort through above, so i was wondering if you fine editors could help me out and summarize what your viewpoints and how they differ from one another? I'm pretty sure we can sort this all out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

What is being dispupted is the inclusion of the short discriptions of the roles. LoveWaffle removed them, claiming that they are speculation. I say they should be permitted as they are verified by reliable sources and by the terminology used there in.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't really have strong feelings on this matter, as TriiipleThreat is correct that the info is sourced, but LoveWaffle is correct that the writers are likely talking about the comic versions of the character. However, LoveWaffle, the characters from the concept art are 100% confirmed to be in the film. It is in no way speculation, we even have a quote from one of the producers talking about how the specific visual effects of those characters will be handled, from February, in this article. And the hidden text was a holdover from this article's time in the incubator, it's probably fair to remove it and just wait for the casting announcements. -Fandraltastic (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

When the author uses the term "role", then they are specifically referring to the part in the film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and it does seem to be OR to come to any sort of conclusion about whether or not these descriptions apply to the film versions of the characters. It's probably best to leave the descriptions, as that's the information we've been presented by reliable sources. -Fandraltastic (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The characters that appear in the concept art, other than the two who have already been cast, are not confirmed to appear in the film. A statement and concept art made over a year before the film begins shooting, several months before director James Gunn re-wrote the script, and several more months before any individual was cast in the film cannot be taken as confirmation of anything. Information such as this has proven inaccurate in the past. Saying that any character other than Peter Quill and Drax appears in the film is speculation. Speculation that will most likely turn out correct, but speculation nonetheless.
Furthermore, the articles used to confirm Pratt's and Bautista's involvement cannot be talking about characters that do not yet exist. The discussion really does not need to go any further than that. Any detail concerning the two characters other than Star-Lord's status as the team's leader is purely speculation.
If we wanted to take a really hardline stance here, the page should be up for deletion, as Wikipedia's notability guidelines for film clearly states that films should not get a page until they have started filming. For this film, that's at least two months in the future. Like what Fandraltastic says, it's fair to just remove the information and wait for a casting announcement. I can't see why anyone would have a problem with having some patience for a page that technically shouldn't exist yet.
LoveWaffle (talk) 06:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The info can be about film characters because the characters will have descriptions for auditions, and the film is 2 months away from a proposed filming date. They will have an idea where they are going with the character by that point or you just end up casting Gilbert Gottfried. Frankly I would think that you need a source saying that they AREN'T accurate, as your opinion that they aren't isn't quite how we normally source information. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, yes, the characters are confirmed to appear in the film. As I said above, this is from February, not a year ago, or months before Gunn joined the project. It is from a month and half ago, and the producer specifically talks about how they are handling the visual effects for Rocket Raccoon and Groot. So no, it is not speculation. Secondly, it is very possible for those reporting on the casting of actors to describe what their roles will be in the film, in general terms. Which is often the case. We cannot assume that these reliable sources are speculating, as this is POV editing. Third, there are cases, where coverage is consistent and broad, that WP:GNG overrides WP:NFF. Given the amount and persistence of coverage for this film in the media, and the amount of material in this article, this would seem to be one of those cases. It was developed in the incubater and only moved here after it had developed into the article it is. -Fandraltastic (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The source is from February, and the film is still months away from even starting filming. Plenty of time for those characters not to make the final cut of the film. Besides, an actor has not been cast for the characters in question, so there's no point in listing them under the section of the page for the cast. Where they are in the pre-production portion of the article is fine, but there's no reason to list uncast characters in the casting section of the page.

Secondly, I think Darkwarriorblake is slightly misinformed as to what information we're talking about concerning the Star-Lord and Drax characters. The information in question is specific details regarding their origins, namely Star-Lord's parentage and Drax's origins on Earth. We're not assuming the sources are speculating when they talk about this, because we know the articles are not talking about the versions of the characters that will appear in the film. These characters did not exist when the articles were published (and still don't as of writing this); therefore, the articles cannot by any means be talking about the characters as they appear in the film. Describing a character as it appears in the comics when one is cast for a film is standard procedure for these sources.

LoveWaffle (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Any detail concerning the two characters other than Star-Lord's status as the team's leader is purely speculation. How is being team leader not speculation but the other information is speculation? It's all very basic information, that whoever the author confirmed the casting information from, could have easily told him. It's not like he revealed that Darth Vader is Luke's father. But it doesn't matter, the articles are making definitive statements, WP:V is clear on this and concensus is building against you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to try and separate the comic book characters for a bit and just focus on those references that speak only to the movie? I mean, pretend its an art house movie, or a chick flick. Remove the pre-knowledge of the comics and evaluate whether the info survives without the pre-knowledge (that we as editors are not allowed to use). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No pre-knowledge was used. The descriptions were taken directly from the information published by the reliable source. If this were any other type of film, the descriptions would not be disputed. LoveWaffle is assuming that because were dealing with a comic book movie then the author must be referring to the comic book characters, despite the fact the author is specifically talking about a "role". Stating otherwise is WP:OR as this is not stated in the source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Prime example: yesterday THR reported 'Gossip Girl' Star Leighton Meester Joins Robert Downey Jr. in 'The Judge' and that "Meester will play a character with whom Downey has a one-night stand and whose later revelations cause quite a bit of headaches for the man". This description would be allowed by most editors even though filming has not begun or Meester didn't say it herself.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to point out that User:LoveWaffle, certainly in good faith, is making an assumption about what The Hollywood Reporter and Deadline.com, both well-regarded trade sources, are saying. All we can go by is what the sources say, and the sources refer to Pine's character as "the Guardians' leader" and Bautista's character as "Drax the Destroyer." That's all we can go by. Saying that the journalists are referring to the comics characters and not the movie characters is POV interpretation. One can argue for that interpretation, and perhaps that interpretation is correct, but it is still an interpretation. All we can say is what the sources themselves say.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Well-put, Tenebrae. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Since it seems we all are in consensus that LoveWaffle's edits constitutes POV, I am restoring the content.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I said no such thing, Triple, and would suggest waiting until LoveWaffle can respond to the claims made here. No sense rushing a single version into place until an actual agreement is established. For that reason, i am going to revert that edit and step back. I think if it gets reverted again, this whole matter will have to escalate. We are not in a hurry, and consensual agreement is the only way the article will stabilize. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. It seemed you were in agreement with Tenebrae.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I am in complete agreement with T's assessment of our policy and guidelines. I just think that LoveWaffle needs to be a part of that consensus-building - especially since he thinks he's looking out for the best interests of the encyclopedia as well.

It's an environment of community-based editing. If he doesn't learn from the process, how can he ever be expected to use the same process with the same courtesy that we all desire? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion

Actually in the interest of compromise with LoveWaffle, would it be fair if we qualified the descriptions by writing; "Deadline.com describes the role as 'the Guardians leader who is the offspring of a human mother and an alien father'." and "According to The Hollywood Reporter, 'Drax is a human resurrected as a green warrior with the sole purpose of killing Thanos.'"?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That seems fair and reasonable. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It would not be fair because the two sources are not talking about the characters as they appear in the film. I would, however, be in favor of something along the lines of something written in The Hollywood Reporter article:

Galaxy centers on Peter Quill/Star-Lord (Pratt), a U.S. pilot who ends up in space in the middle of a universal conflict and goes on the run with futuristic ex-cons who have something everyone wants, according to the plot description.

So, in the interest of compromise, something like that next to Star-Lord.

LoveWaffle (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

As stated above, saying that "the two sources are not talking about the characters as they appear in the film" is a POV interpretation and not supported by the sources. You have no proof to the contrary. If what you just suggested is valid information then what I suggested must also be valid. Infact the very next sentence after what you suggested in the article is what I suggested. You cannot selectively choose what information from the same source is acceptable without proof.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a POV interpretation. They do not speak to exactly how the character will appear in the film, nor do they intend to. To say otherwise is a fundamentally flawed misinterpretation of the source.

Furthermore, the information I suggest is valid because the source includes the qualifier "according to the plot description". No other claim concerning the plot in the article has this.

LoveWaffle (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Deadline source specifically says "The role is Star-Lord, the Guardians leader who is the offspring of a human mother and an alien father." The role in other words; the part in the film. It is absolutely referring to the film. Drax's description makes no other qualms, so we can only go by the exact wording used in the source. No interpretation, just the exact wording used in the source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the exact words that you're reading incorrectly. They are describing the character, not the character as it appears in the film. An important distinction. They do not intend to speak towards the film's plot. They never have.
Doing some extra research on the earlier quote, it doesn't actually originate from the Hollywood Reporter article. Here is an industry page that lists that as a very basic plot synopsis, and here is a source that dates it back to at least August of last year. So The Hollywood Reporter isn't even making that claim, they're just repeating what was already publicly available information.
LoveWaffle (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid LoveWaffle is still insisting that he's not interpreting. The articles do not say that the writers are talking about the comics character; that is that editor's assumption. I think the compromise version TriiipleThreat suggested is the most plain and factual representation of what the articles say, and much less wordy than LoveWaffle's version.

I'm also not sure what LoveWaffle is saying about The Hollywood Reporter, which says via its headline that it did its own reporting on this — THR regularly talks with agents and studio executives. There's nothing in the article remotely suggesting THR cribbed from ComicBookMovie.com, a site of user-supplied content that Wikipedia does not consider a reliable source. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I see the plot capsule from the website It's on the Grid, but I'm afraid LoveWaffle is making another assumption in saying THR cribbed from it. It's much more likely, if I may make an assumption, that this is the capsule description the studio has given casting directors and the trade press. Indeed, as ComicBookMovie.com even states, the capsule "has already surfaced via two industry sites, Production Weekly and It's On The Grid." Given the implausibility that each came up with the same wording independently, it seems virtually certain this is the studio logline. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

They also don't say they're talking about the film character. That's the editor's assumption. An assumption that ignores the article's purpose.

Given the implausibility that each came up with the same wording independently, it seems virtually certain this is the studio logline. I apologize my previous statement wasn't clear enough, since that's what I meant. The point is that The Hollywood Reporter did not come up with that line themselves, nor is it new information (the only reason I linked to the one site is because it was simply the oldest one I could find that speaks to it). The statement that the version of Drax that will appear in the film is a resurrected human being is not only unique to the article, but is not supported by the logline. Assuming that the statement is based on information provided to the source referring to the character as it appears in the film (particularly given that articles such as this have never done that) is entirely speculative. The same can be said for what Deadline says about Peter Quill.

Here's the compromise version I propose:

Chris Pratt as Peter Quill / Star-Lord: An American pilot who ends up in the middle of a universal conflict

Dave Bautista as Drax the Destroyer: A futuristic ex-con

The information there cannot be contested due to it being supported not only by the film's (current) logline, and is appropriately concise is not overly descriptive.

LoveWaffle (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Deadline article specifically says its talking about the film role. The THR doesn't specify but it doesn't has to as it made the blanket definitive statement "Drax is...". Assuming this is in reference to the comic book character and not the film character, when it doesn't say so is WP:OR. Also just because this information hasn't been mentioned previously doesn't make it invalid. Presenting new information to the public is the definition of journalism. As for your suggestion, the article does not say Drax is a futuristic ex-con but it does say "Drax is a human resurrected as a green warrior with the sole purpose of killing Thanos." However, I concede that you will not be convinced as several editors have already pointed this out to you. Fandraltastic and Tenebrae have already agreed to the first suggestion, so I'll wait to give others time to offer their opinions and we'll go from there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how this discussion is going on, unless the source says "In the comic [insert name] is a [insert description]", then it's being provided as the description of the film character. If LoveWaffle deems it inaccurate that is not enough to discard perfectly logically valid information, unless LoveWaffle can provide contesting evidence beyond opinion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not the convention of articles of this sort.
LoveWaffle (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what LoveWaffle is putting forward when he speaks of convention that several experienced editors are not seeing. But I will say this: No one is making an assumption that THR and Deadline are talking about the movie. They are film and TV industry trade publications. The articles are about a movie. These are facts, not assumptions. The only assumptions are 1) that an article in a movie trade publication about a movie is talking about anything other than a movie, and 2) that neither of these respected publications did any original reporting by contacting agents, studio personnel and other sources to independently confirm information. That's what responsible journalists do: Get independent confirmation. I'm not sure one can credibly say that THR and Deadline are behaving like bloggers and second-rate Web journalists and simply reprinting anything they see on the Internet and calling it fact.

Consensus does not mean that any single editor has veto power. And WP:VERIFY is clear that we can't determine "truth" but can only report what reliable sources say. THR and Deadline are reliable sources. I believe the majority of editors here are behaving properly by editing an article to say what two reliable sources say — no more and no less. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to draw this discussion to a close, as I was the neutral party stepping in over a week ago. It would appear that substantial discussion, compromise and a sincere willingness to understand the minority opinion offered by Lovewaffle has taken place in the interim. There appears to be a fairly solid consensus against LW's viewpoint at this time, and I think the matter is resolved.

This is not to say that this consensus is etched in stone - far from it. What this means is that we put the sticks down and leave the dead horse to the worms, at least for now. If new information in the form of explicit, reliable and verifiable citation appears that offers a new look into the subject, the matter can be revisited. I would suggest the form of that revisitation occur here in the article discussion page as opposed to the article, but that's just how I roll.
If Lovewaffle feels that the consensus is wrong, there are venues that editor can pursue to address them. At this time, however, the matter appears to have been decided by consensus. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adam Sandler and Jim Carrey inclusion to article

They're both said to be in talks with Marvel for unspecified roles as of January 2013.

Source: http://collider.com/jim-carrey-adam-sandler-guardians-of-the-galaxy/, http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/23/carrey-and-sandler-up-for-guardians-of-the-galaxy/, http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2013/01/adam-sandler-marvel-guardians-of-the-galaxy-rumor, http://www.thesuperficial.com/adam-sandler-rocket-raccoon-guardians-of-the-galaxy-01-2013, http://screenrant.com/guardians-of-the-galaxy-jim-carrey-adam-sandler/, http://www.ifc.com/fix/2013/01/jim-carrey-adam-sandler-guardians-of-the-galaxy, http://www.craveonline.com/film/articles/203617-marvel-wants-adam-sandler-in-the-guardians-of-the-galaxy, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/adam-sandler-jim-carrey-marvel-guardians-of-the-galaxy_n_2533810.html, http://movieline.com/2013/01/24/guardians-of-the-galaxy-movie-casting-rumors-jim-carrey-adam-sandler-groot-rocket-raccoon/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.13.67 (talk • contribs) 23:42, April 20, 2013‎

This disputes the report at least for Jim Carrey, so I do not think these reports have any credibility. We can just focus on reporting clear-cut casting news. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

They all trace back to same source, which says its heresay.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Collector Source

The text of the article may have changed since it was first put up, but the THR article that confirms Olivia Lovibond's casting makes no mention of the Collector.
LoveWaffle (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It has been changed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yup, the archive says "Details of Lovibond’s role are scarce but it is known that she will play an aide to a near-immortal being called The Collector, who gathers artifacts and beings in the hopes of saving them from a foretold galactic annihilation." The current article says, "Details of Lovibond’s role are being kept in the farther reaches of deep space, home of Marvel's security bunker."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I dunno, are we really going to change it because of that? Do we usually change info because Marvel sent them a request to take down the info? Suzuku (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no indication that Marvel asked them to take it down, it could just as easily have been inaccurate. We can't assume either way here. -Fandraltastic (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

HitFix

Do we want to include the information from this HitFix article here? I'm not sure how reliable it is, and it was already disputed by one editor, so instead of getting into an editwar on the the page I thought it would be good to preemptively start up a discussion.

On a different note, Gunn confirmed that Ben Davis will be the film's cinematographer on his Formspring page. -Fandraltastic (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Since Deadline has apparently confirmed the Reilly casting, I'd think it's reasonable to include this HitFix report. I've looked around a bit and HitFix seems to be fairly reliable, and is cited here and there on various film articles on Wikipedia. -Fandraltastic (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the question though is, is it official, or still just negotiations? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hollywood Reporter says Reilly's part is still just an offer for the moment. -Fandraltastic (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Then if the HitFix source is used, for Reilly at least, it should be noted as such. (Or hold off like when it was first reported about Saldana). But I think that source had info in regards to the writing team that can be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added a little bit of info from it, I think that should cover it. Feel free to tweak it. -Fandraltastic (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Deadilne says he's already joined the cast so shouldn't that be enough? Suzuku (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Both HitFix and THR say he has been extended an offer. Deadline says he has been cast. I would say its safe to include the offer but we should be cautious about including him as part of the cast.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NORUSH. We can wait for an article or announcement that definitely confirms it. I think the way Fandraltastic worded it is fine for now. Also, can we move the writers who are polishing the script to the info box, and add them on other MCU pages? - Favre1fan93 (talk)

Writers who only do final polishes on a script are often uncredited. I think that's another instance of WP:NORUSH, at this point we can probably wait to see which writers get screenplay credits or story credits or no credit before we edit all of these pages. -Fandraltastic (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright. Sounds good to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Glen Close and John C. Riley

The current descriptions of their roles might seem conflicting to some. Close's role is currently described as "the head of the Nova Corps", while Riley's is described as "the leader of the Nova Corps". I see that the title of the Deadline article does refer to Close as the "head cop", but it goes on to describe her as having a "leadership role in the Nova Corps". I suggest we use the latter description as it does not necessarily conflict with Riley's role and is still verifiable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I would keep Riley's the same and make Close's say "Glenn Close will have a leadership role in the Nova Corps". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I've updated the info per the suggestions. -Fandraltastic (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Den of Geek

A recent article from website Den of Geek reports that Lee Pace, Karen Gillan, and Benicio del Toro are portraying Ronan the Accuser, Nebula, and The Collector, respectively. The reliability of this article has come into question. I searched the reliable sources noticeboard and found this post finding the source credible. On top of this, the article's citation of an unnamed source shouldn't be an issue due to WP:V.

If there's a posting on the noticeboard that I've missed, or I've in some way misinterpreted WP:V, please let me know. Otherwise, there should be nothing wrong with using this article.

LoveWaffle (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be a problem since the noticeboard says they're reliable. The "close source not being reliable" thing is pretty silly too because Variety, Deadline, etc all do that and we still edit things based off of their reports. Suzuku (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue is the fact that they have "confirmed from a solid source" (their emphasis), but they don't state who or what that source is, so it can not be considered reliable. In addition, there is no rush for this, especially since Comic-Con is next week and Marvel is expected to release a full casting update then. Other sites on the web that have been running this story, but are citing Den of Geek, makes those unreliable at the moment. If Den of Geek had said they received this info in an interview, or through contact with a Marvel executive, then there would not be a problem. But because of the ambiguity (their solid source could be a user on a forum somewhere, etc.) it can't be considered yet. As for Variety and Deadline, to my understanding, their information where sources aren't directly stated, comes from press junkets or released statements from agencies/groups etc. But again, that is my understanding. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No, they use "our sources confirm", same as Den of Geeks. As they're a reliable source as sited by noticeboard, there is no problem here, unless you want to take down all the Deadline and Variety scoops on the multiple Wikipedia pages because their only claim of verification in their reports is their "sources". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzuku (talk • contribs)

I think you're drawing a false dichotomy between what Den of Geek did here and what Variety and Deadline do in their articles. The latter two sources don't list their sources, yet we still trust them to be accurate because they are credible sources. An article from Den of Geek that doesn't explicitly name its source shouldn't be treated any different from a Variety article that doesn't list its own.

I understand not wanting to rush things, but I don't think the addition of this content counts as "rushing" anything. It's just the most up-to-date, accurate information available on the film. If information from Comic-Con contradicts what Den of Geek says, the information would be changed to reflect that if/when that happens.

LoveWaffle (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The difference is Deadline and THR have the reputation amongst their peers that Den of Geeks does not have. And as such they have access that most other sites do not have. This doesn't mean that Den of Geeks is incorrect just that we shouldn't jump all in at first glance. If true more reliables sources will pick it up. I agree there's no harm in waiting.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't have as great a reputation, but Wikipedia still considers it a credible source and that's really all that matters. It doesn't necessarily mean it's entirely correct - as even Deadline et al have been wrong at times - but that doesn't mean an article from Den of Geeks should be treated any differently than one from any other credible source.

LoveWaffle (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually I don't think Wikipedia would consider it to be reliable source per WP:RS. Den of Geek is neither a scholarly nor a news outlet. Its more along the lines of WP:NEWSBLOG, which we can only use if the writer is a professional journalist. According to the author/editor's LinkedIn profile, he is a publisher that is publishing his own work and probably not considered "an established expert on the subject matter".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Linkedin says he's the editor and founder of Den of Geek. Here's the Wikipedia entry for Den of Geek's publisher, Dennis Publishing. I wouldn't call his work self publishing any more than Nikki Finke's work on Deadline.com. Also, WP:SELFPUBLISH states that newsblogs are exempt from this criteria, which Den of Geek certainly is. Richiekim (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. Nikki Finke is a professional journalist and widely considered "an established expert", Simon Brewer is not. Per WP:NEWSBLOG, "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process" and per WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Simon Brewer fails in this regard.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Without getting into this deeper, TriiipleThreat is correct that WP:NEWSBLOG is not blanket approval of all news blogs, and in fact says only that they may [emphasis added] be acceptable ... if [emphasis added] the writers are professionals." I'm not sure, from looking at the site, if Brew and the others are paid professionals. Dennis Publishing certainly is a genuine publishing company, and one would presume the small Den of Geek staff gets paid, but judging from some of the grammatical and other issues, it's hard to tell. And if the long list of contributors at the "About Us" page don't get paid, then they're not professional journalists and I'd be as loathe to use their material as I would be to have a non-professional lawyer represent me in court.

Overall, I would agree with the editor making the WP:DEADLINE argument. Wikipedia is not a news source; it's an encyclopedia. If there's any question at all about the validity of an item — and anonymously sourced "confirmations" often turn out to be wrong, like a recent Avril Lavigne item that erroneously claimed she was married on the Saturday before last — then it behooves an encyclopedia to wait and to not post anything for which a reasonable person may have doubt if it's true.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

And again, I think the fact that no other news outlets have picked this up, and if they have, they are only citing Den of Geek, warrants that the validity of the information should be questioned. As such, should the page be returned to the WP:STATUSQUO, which is this edit (on the right)? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Other news sources reporting on this only citing Den of Geek isn't out of the norm. When Deadline reports on something first, for example, the other news sources that report on the same thing usually cite that same Deadline article as their source. Also, don't understand why this would be in violation of Wiki's rule about not being a news source since casting updates have been added to the page as they've been reported on by credible sources as long as this page has existed.

Regarding Tenebrae's comment regarding the source not being reliable - it is, per the posting on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you have your doubts on the source's credibility, you should probably raise that issue there on said noticeboard where it may be found to be unreliable. But until then, Wiki considers the source credible, so it should be treated as any other credible source.

LoveWaffle (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The noticeboard thread is not the determining factor of the site's reliability, all it shows is one editor's opinion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

And we don't know exactly what article or info was in question when they brought it there. For that instance, that editor deemed the site as credible. But again, we can't consider this credible because, as stated, no other reputable new sites are picking this story up, without crediting Den of Geek, and the fact that the source is an arbitrary "solid source", we don't know EXACTLY what or who that is. You said that other sites would credit Deadline etc for news articles, and that's fine because we can trace the info back to the credible source. For this, if a site cites Den of Geek, we can't trace it back to the credible source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I still say you're drawing a false dichotomy. We don't know EXACTLY what or who the source is on most if not all articles from Deadline et al either, and, as stated before, if Deadline (for example) is the first to report on a casting development, other news sources that report on the same story cite that Deadline article. The only real difference between this article from Den of Geek and an article reporting on a casting development from Deadline et al is that the credibility of Den of Geek is in question.

LoveWaffle (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Just take a look at how IGN is reporting on this. They say "a new rumor has popped up" and "According to a "solid source" at Den of Geek". [1] Even this reputable site is claiming that this is just a rumor at this point, and have not been able to verify it themselves. As Tenebrae said, "Wikipedia is not a news source; it's an encyclopedia. If there's any question at all about the validity of an item" we should wait until a solid confirmation is found. And the Den of Geek "source" is not a sold confirmation. And please see TriiipleThreat's first comment in this thread in regards to Deadline et al. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Please remove the recent character name additions, unless CONFIRMED by the production house themselves or the stars, they are still UNCONFIRMED. A rumour is a rumour..it may or may not be true but then this is an encyclopaedia, we deal with FACTS.--Stemoc (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the content back to the WP:STATUSQUO. Further discussion can take place if needed. Regardless of if I'm for or against it, it is under discussion, so the questionable content should not be on the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Chris McCoy

He was not credited in the recent press release, so I see he has been removed from the article. However, his not being credited does not retroactively mean he was not hired, or at least reported to have been hired. I think that information was valid, perhaps with an additional note about his not being credited. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The info should be added, and then just added with something like, "however, in the official release note for the film, he was not credited." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Cast picture

Which is the better picture of the cast?

• 
• 

The one on the left is better lit but the one on the right has better composition of the actor's faces.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the right, because you can see the cast's faces distinctly and better. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Left. The lighting in the one on the right is poor. They're all in shadow. Nightscream (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Vin Diesel

First apologies to RAP, I didn't mean to rollback your edit. However after looking into the cinemablend article it traces back to this LA Times article, which headline reads "‘Guardians of the Galaxy’: Vin Diesel talks possible Groot role" and in the body states "all but confirmed that he’s in for the “Guardians” role."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think someone not in the cast would talk so much about the role. Rusted AutoParts 03:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That maybe but wikipedia policy is verification not truth. If it is indeed true it will be verified, but until then it is not permitted.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Theres also all the sites posting he is confirmed via the CinemaBlend source. I'm fairly certain these site runners wouldn't put up false info Rusted AutoParts 03:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

If they are all citing cinemablend then they are all going off the same misinformation. Not every site has the same threshold of verification and why not every site on the internet is reliable. Also I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying we can't verify it. Remember theres WP:NORUSH.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ive hidden it until the confirmation is verified. Rusted AutoParts 03:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure but I might have confirmation. http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2013/08/the-week-in-spandex-kick-ass-2-thor_17.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidorulz (talk • contribs) 14:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The article traces back to Deadline, which says he is just in talks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Groot/Rocket Raccoon's placing

It's stupid that this has to be made, but clearly those two should be in the top 5 as they're, you know, a part of the freaking Guardians. It has nothing to do with an A-Lister joining. Of course Rocket and Groot would be at the bottom of an announcement of the beginning of production because they' weren't cast yet. Suzuku (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• I just realized, Rusted AutoParts, that you're the same guy who made a big deal over adding Sharon Carter to the main cast list of TWS because of her placement on a press release. Please stop. We've been through this, a press release does not circumvent common sense. Suzuku (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ha. Your common sense. Now put aside your fanboy rage and listen. Just because they are part of the aforementioned Guardians, doesn't mean their casting would put them above everyone else! Hell, take Batman & Robin. George Clooney is playing the main hero, yet Arnold Schwarzenegger got top billing. Jack Nicholson as Joker over Michael Keaton as Batman. So stop assuming this is the case. Just because they're part of the namesake of the film, it doesn't mean that's how their credit will appear. Rusted AutoParts 03:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You're making absolutely no sense. We don't order the cast list by their billing. Is Mr. Freeze ahead of Batman on the Batman and Robin page? No, he isn't. That statement alone completely invalidates your argument. This is stupid, please just move Groot to under Gamora, where he belongs, instead of making this more difficult than it has to be...which is not at all. Suzuku (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

'Waah, I want Vin Diesel above everyone! Waah! No, I will just just put him under Gamora. Your way isn't how Wikipedia does things. He was just added to the cast, and until we find out his placement in way of credit, he stays put. Now stop crying. Rusted AutoParts 03:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't care about Vin Diesel, I don't even like Vin Diesel, this is about Groot. The abrasive and sarcastic tone is unnecessary and does nothing to help your case, other than make you look like an ass without a real argument. No, we do not have to wait for billing, because we don't order the cast list by billing, especially for characters who are a part of the film's namesake. It's almost as if you know nothing of how we go about editing these pages.

Your Batman&Robin comparison already exposed your faulty logic, so you have absolutely no argument anymore...just as you never did with Sharon Carter. You're being completelt ridiculous and unreasonable for no reason. I'm not about to get into an edit war with you so you can hold it "hostage" for now, but there are going to be very few people who agree with your ridiculous stance...as there is absolutely no precedent on Wikipedia for it, especially with CBMs, just the opposite actually. Suzuku (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

If you took the time to view every single solitary movie article on this site, you'd know that we do make our casting notes by the credit of the actor, not the importance of the character. I really love how you think hiding behind "he's a main character" changes ANYTHING. The sheer lack of understanding on your part must be embarrassing. This is all in your head, that Groot comes before everyone else who was cast before Diesel. So before you come charging in here as if your view mean anything, learn first that the way you do things isn't the way the site does things. Diesel is off the list anyway, so I suggest you back down. Rusted AutoParts 03:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, cast lists are done by the significance of the character to the story; look at Captain America: The Winter Soldier#Cast, Iron Man 3#Cast, or Thor: The Dark World#Cast.
Also, please try to engage other editors without being insulting; stuff like "The sheer lack of understanding on your part must be embarrassing" is entirely unproductive. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

sigh, because they have a poster stating what order the cast goes in. We can't make the assumption that, because they're a member of the aforementioned Guardians, that they credited before, say Lee Pace or Michael Rooker. Now stop. Rusted AutoParts 15:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

That makes absolutely zero sense. Please start backing this up with policy or guideline pages. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Bottom line, placing Cooper above others is nepostistic. Besides, do we even know if Cooper or possibly Diesel will get a credit? Paul Bettany voices JARVIS, but has no top billing. So please refrain from going against the norm. This is what every film article does. I'm sorry you don't see it. Rusted AutoParts 15:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If you can't back up your position with a policy or guideline citation (I'd even take links to other articles; "every film article" doesn't quite cut it), I'm not inclined to listen to your argument. The nepotism argument doesn't make any sense; placing a character who is a member of the group that the film is named after above, say, a character that doesn't even have a description, seems like a far better structure for the average reader. The Avengers (2012 film)#Cast is a good example. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Who says I have to cater to you? It's not your say. It's not mine. Until a cast posting stating the order, it's not being touched. Comprende? Rusted AutoParts 15:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see my explanation (now moved to #Cast order) in regards to these characters and any future casting news. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

CBM leaked photo regarding Yondu

Yes CBM itself isn't a trustworthy source but can we link to this article to use as a source of info for Yondu (specificly the use of his last name and association to Star-Lord) as it comes from a primary source, the movie itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzuku (talk • contribs) 03:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No, because cannot trust that the information has not been altered or misrepresented.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Cast order

Okay hopefully this will settle this debate for this page and any future MCU films as well.

Per WP:FILMCAST, point 1: "A film's cast may vary in size and in importance. A film may have an ensemble cast, or it may only have a handful of actors. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc. If there are many cast members worth identifying, there are two recommended options: the names may be listed in two or three columns, or the names may be grouped in prose." The lead of WP:FILMCAST states: "Actors and their roles can be presented and discussed in different forms in film articles depending on three key elements: 1) the prominence of the cast in the film" and then states "Editors are encouraged to lay out such content in a way that best serves readers for the given topic. If necessary, build toward a consensus." Key here is "build toward a consensus".

As such FOR MARVEL CINEMATIC PAGES, established I believe with The Avengers here (and definitely going for establishment in this post), cast members are added to the page in the following order: 1) as they are announced (generally during preproduction, first casting news comes out); 2) by any official billings or press releases by Marvel such as [2] (most of the characters have been cast. Marvel gives us a formal announcement, usually around when filming starts); 3) repeat 1 and 2 as needed as additional castings are revealed after a most recent full cast press release/billing, and then reorder when a new press release/billing is released; 4) the poster billings (and a mixture of the press releases if necessary). If any actor is not listed in the billing (as with Lovibond or other minor roles), those are added below the bulleted list, in the order the info was received. Each of those instances are unique and should be handled (I believe) on a case-by-case basis, if necessary.

With Groot and Rocket's case on this page, we are stuck in #3 above and as such, we don't know their importance in the film. Yes they are part of the team; yes they were in original concept art. But we don't know if they are going to be considered a more important role, than say Glenn Close, or del Toro. So, once again, they stay below Close, as she was the last actor to be officially named in the most recent release (in full below thanks to Rusted AutoParts). Once Marvel gives us another ordering, then we can move cast names around. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The Press Release
"Guardians of the Galaxy,” the next epic adventure from Marvel Studios has started shooting at the UK’s Shepperton Studios. Directed by James Gunn (“Slither,” “Super”) from his screenplay, with a story by Nicole Perlman and Gunn, the film will introduce audiences to a whole new side of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The all-star cast includes Chris Pratt (“Zero Dark Thirty”, “Moneyball”) as Peter Quill aka Star-Lord, Zoe Saldana (“Star Trek Into Darkness”, “Avatar”) as Gamora, Dave Bautista (“Riddick”) as Drax the Destroyer, Lee Pace (“The Hobbit,” “Lincoln”) as Ronan the Accuser, Michael Rooker (AMC’s “The Walking Dead”) as Yondu, Karen Gillan (BBC TV’s “Doctor Who”) as Nebula, two-time Academy Award nominee Djimon Hounsou (“Amistad”, “Gladiator”) as Korath, with Academy Award® winner Benicio del Toro (“Traffic”) as The Collector, Academy Award nominee John C. Reilly (“Chicago”) as Rhomann Dey, and six-time Academy Award nominee Glenn Close (“Albert Nobbs,” “Fatal Attraction”) as Nova Prime. Marvel’s “Guardians of the Galaxy” is slated for an August 1, 2014 release in the U.S.
Marvel Studios’ President Kevin Feige is producing the film. The executive producers are Louis D’Esposito, Victoria Alonso, Jeremy Latcham, Alan Fine & Stan Lee; the co-producer is Nik Korda.
The creative team includes director of photography Ben Davis, BSC (“Wrath of the Titans”, “Kick-Ass”), production designer Charles Wood (“Thor: The Dark World”), BAFTA-nominated Editor Fred Raskin (“Django Unchained,” “Fast Five”) and Academy Award-winning editor Hughes Winborne, A.C.E. (“The Help,” “Crash”), and Academy Award winning costume designer Alexandra Byrne (“Marvel’s The Avengers,” “Elizabeth The Golden Age”). The film will also shoot at Longcross Studios, and locations in and around London." Rusted AutoParts 17:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't necessarily believe there's anything wrong with the way the list is currently ordered, but I can't help but feel like some editors are being deliberately subversive. From day one, it has been established that the film would focus on the 2008 GOTG team (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/comic-con-2012-marvel-movies-robert-downey-jr-349346), and when this article first came about (prior to anyone being cast), no one had anything to say with regards to the order in which the characters were listed nor to their importance to the plot. The above press release was made long before any talk/announcement of Cooper or Diesel's involvement; it's now outdated and inaccurate. A more recent release on the Marvel's website (regarding Cooper's casting) addresses the core team, and makes no mention of the other characters: "In the far reaches of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, an unlikely cast of characters including Peter Quill, Gamora, Drax, Groot and Rocket Raccoon must join forces to defeat a cosmic force of epic proportions." (http://marvel.com/news/story/21107/official_bradley_cooper_to_voice_rocket_raccoon_in_marvels_guardians_of_the_galaxy) Also of note is that the most recent, updated piece of art for the film features only the core team as well. (http://marvel.com/images/gallery/story/21107/bradley_cooper_to_voice_rocket_raccoon_in_marvels_guardians_of_the_galaxy/image/957400) I really don't think there's any question as to who the main players will be, Marvel has made it abundantly clear. Zargabaath 17:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay....but we still don't know how they are being billed. As stated, the most recent accurate info we have stating this is the press release from around Comic Con. So the order stays as such, with additional castings added to the end, until an updated billing/poster is released. We are in no rush to create the cast order, as Marvel will surely by releasing new info as we get closer to the release and production ends. It is not being denied that Marvel appears to be giving preference to the 2008 team members, but we do not know how Marvel will determine each actors notability and importance for the film, besides what is known from the current press release. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Voice actors in a live action film are rarely qualified as starring roles anyway regardless of who the voice actor is. We use the poster billing block for a reason. Sure we can move all the Guardians to the top. Then the argument becomes "Well Rocket Racoon is obviously more important to the plot than Drax, and Gamora is hotter than Groot so she should be higher". There is no harm in waiting for a billing block if there is one, I don't understand why people think it is diminishing to be featured in an unspecified place in an unnumbered bullet point list. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Diesel YouTube video

Okay. I'm like 50/50 on this. Yes he says "From that moment on I was Groot," (in regards to showing concept art to his kids), but that could also mean "From that moment on I was Groot, [so I went into negotiations with Marvel to work it out]." But then he says "I haven't even done the mo-cap, and I haven't done the voice over yet", which makes it seem like a done deal. Gah! So torn right now. I want to make this be the confirmation, but there is something about it that is holding me back. Anyone else getting this concern I have? I'm not flat out saying no; it's just troubling. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel someone who wasn't very involved with the process would be so leaky about the details of the character. Discussing the mo-cap and voicing aspects aren't the type of things an actor joining a new project who discuss right off the bat. Plus, Marvel sent him a script. Now that he's seen it, should he back out, they'll assassinate him (joke). But in all seriousness, the openness of him and the project directs me to believe this is confirmed. Rusted AutoParts 03:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sean Gunn, Ralph Ineson, with Unspecific role(s) in GOTG?

Tweets by Sean, and James:
https://twitter.com/JamesGunn/status/374670492424482817
https://twitter.com/Thejudgegunn/status/368488988559953921
https://twitter.com/ralphineson/statuses/370992983086489600
https://twitter.com/dramascene/statuses/375907646609432576

Gunn confirming his brother as an integral part of the film: http://comicbook.com/blog/2013/09/13/guardians-of-the-galaxy-will-be-action-adventure-film-with-lots-of-drama-comedy/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.24.247 (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Diesel...again

I just found this article on Newsarma, a reputable source, and in it, it says the following: "As Marvel Studios has yet to officially confirm him in the role..." So I bring up, again, was the YouTube video enough? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It could just be that Marvel hasn't publicly acknowledged the deal yet.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Vin voicing GROOT, no motion capture.

Can we add this to the filming section? Vin is voicing groot (not motion capture) due to Fast and Furious 7 filming

Source: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151967086323313&set=a.10150844693113313.461646.89562268312&type=1&theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.29.64 (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - This has no information to use. It's a photo used by Diesel on his personal Facebook page to get fans excited. It does not state either way that he is or isn't doing more than voicing the character. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

- as filming is wrapping up in the next few days, I'd say it's safe to add this to the article. (source: https://twitter.com/JamesGunn/statuses/388341234756239360) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.30.146 (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Vin Diesel yet again

According to this report from the Huffington Post, Vin Diesel's casting in GOTG is not yet official, according to Kevin Feige. Should we remove Diesel from the casting until an official announcement is made? Richiekim (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Geez, this is one of the most insane casting announcements I've seen since working on these pages! I don't know what to do, because Diesel is essentially saying he is Groot, while the studio has come back and said "wait a minute. hold on there." Maybe replace the sentence in the filming section that is already there, with this source saying, "Also in October, Feige stated that Vin Diesel was close to finalizing a deal to play Groot." and then remove him from the casting? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Diesel is quite probably playing Thanos and possibly voicing Groot..its like when they cast Benedict Cumberbatch in Star Trek, they told us he was "John Harrison" but he turned out to be Khan...with Diesel's jawline and deep voice, why wouldn't he be the first choice for Thanos? hehe--Stemoc (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

That is definitely an option. Obviously an opinion, (presumable of many, myself included), but it does add an possible element to the mystery. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel as thought it should be deleted at all, because he has stated in two videos that he IS voicing/motion capturing GROOT. Also, the THANOS thing is completely up in the air. I don't believe he's playing Thanos. They (MARVEL/KEVIN FIEGE) wanted/want to get a high-profile actor in the role, and formerly stated that they would be interested in working with Arnold Schwarzenegger as Thanos. Let's not change anything as it seems that a casting announcement regarding Vin's portrayal of Groot is imminent. (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.31.185 (talk)

I've been thinking about this, and thought of a way to present the info. Please give any feedback if it seems plausible or not. I feel we should remove Diesel from the bulleted list, and put him at the beginning of the paragraph with the following statement (or something similar): Vin Diesel is confirmed to appear in the film. The actor has stated that he will provide the voice and motion capture for Groot, however Marvel has yet to officially announce Diesel's participation or role in the film. The first sentence I provided and the part on voicing and motion capture can be sourced with what we already have on the page, while the "however" onwards part can be sourced with the Huffington Post source Richiekim provided, and the following MTV source. Thoughts on doing this? It still confirms that Diesel is in the film, who he has stated he is playing, but also notes that Marvel has been particularly quiet about the casting and his role. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

How is Diesel confirmed, if Marvel is denying it? You should remove the first sentence to read something more like this; Vin Diesel stated that he will provide the voice and motion capture for Groot, however Marvel has yet to officially announce Diesel's participation or role in the film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I will add something. But I could have sworn he was confirmed to appear in the film, just not in a certain role. Maybe I'm thinking of something else. I'll add as you suggested and add the other bit if I find the source I seem to be thinking of. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You were correct. I was under the assumption that he was confirmed, just without a role, but it was only that he was in talks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Fiege and Alan Taylor confirm Mid-Credits scene for Thor: The Dark World; Directed by James Gunn

Alan Taylor and Kevin Fiege have confirmed that the mid-credits scene was filmed by James Gunn, and features a cameo by Benicio Del Toro as The Collector and Ophelia Lovibond as his aide.

Source: http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/10/22/kevin-feige-and-alan-taylor-talk-to-me-about-thor-the-dark-worlds-big-mid-credits-tease/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.110.5 (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Minor Casting that got overlooked: Laura Haddock as Meredith Quill, Peter's mother, and Janis Ahern as Meredith Quill's mother

English actress Laura Haddock will apparently play Meredith Quill, mother of Chris Pratt's Peter Quill. And a Janis Ahern will play Meredith's mother in the movie.

Source: https://twitter.com/AmericnActorsUK/status/385286400553529344 - better source.

This is a fan site and original source does not have a verified Twitter account. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the source link, The fan site never cited the source.

I asked James Gunn, maybe he can clarify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.110.5 (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue was with the American Actors UK twitter - it is not verified, with the blue "check". Thus, that can't be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, other supporting cast members include: Marama Corlett, Alexis Rodney, Melia Kreiling, and Spencer Wilding

Source: https://twitter.com/JamesGunn/statuses/383688941305876480

Will add these names. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Ophelia Lovibond Casting

since we have seen Ophelia as the Collectors Aide in the mid-credits scene in Thor: the Dark World, and since its also cited on her Wikipedia Page should we take her off the "cast in an unspecified role" list at the bottom of the casting and list her as the Collectors Aide on this page? I mean keep it at the bottom like it is (since that seems like what you guys tend to do) but instead of it saying "Cast in an Unspecified Role" have it say something like "Ophelia Lovibond as the Collectors Aide, and all the rest of the people in unspecified roles" 98.154.187.240 (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You need a source confirming her role, of which I don't believe exists from a reliable source yet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I was able to find one and have made a note of it, here and on her page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I know you already settled it but if you notice in the comment here they already say that she is the character in a scene in Thor 2, which as far as I know constitutes as a source since we have visually seen her play this character. 75.85.116.220 (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Chris Pratt Signs Multi-Picture Deal

Source:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/18/chris-pratt-guardians-of-the-galaxy_n_4284398.html 68.45.110.5 (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that he signed the multi-picture deal to play Star-Lord. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.110.5 (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Already on the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Favre1fan93! 68.45.110.5 (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)