Jump to content

Talk:Captain America: Civil War

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.8.222.161 (talk) at 08:19, 13 August 2015 (→Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2015: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Forbes article

This may be of some use. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TriiipleThreat and Favre1fan93, what do you think? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really anything to note in the article. It's pretty much just a new view of the same argument that this is "Avengers 2.5" and not a Cap movie, which we noted in the filming section, with a bunch of refs already. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ruffallo as HULK confirmed?

Here's a source. Npamusic (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He also says that he hasn't been contacted by anyone official at production yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was a tongue-in-cheek response.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Holland confirmed as Spider-Man

Here's the source. Npamusic (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no confirmation for Civil War though, which is why it has not been added yet.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears we have another case of WP:SYNTHESIS (A+B=C):

  • A: We have sources that say Spider-Man will appear in CA:CW.
    • Fritz, Ben (February 9, 2015). "Marvel and Sony Reach Deal on Spider-Man Movie Production". Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on February 7, 2015. Retrieved February 11, 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
    • McNary, David (March 3, 2015). "Russo Brothers Sign First-Look Deal with Sony". Variety. Archived from the original on March 3, 2015. Retrieved March 3, 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  • B: We have a source that Spider-Man will be portrayed by Tom Holland.
  • C: But we do not have a source that says Spider-Man will be portrayed by Tom Holland in CA:CW.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure we do: http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/06/23/marvels-new-spider-man-is-our-third-white-peter-parker-in-15-years/ "... Marvel and Sony Pictures have finally cast their all-new Peter Parker in their all-new Spider-Man movie. And the winner is Tom Holland. He will be playing Spider-Man first in a glorified cameo for Captain America: Civil War and then again in a stand-alone Spider-Man movie ..." DinoSlider (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would of course note at this point that this has of course not been "officially" announced yet but Wikipedia does not rely on official sources, just reliable ones. This is more a note for the sake of anyone reading this and needing clarification in case there's a shock announcement it's really Doctor Strange he's making his debut in. It's unlikely, but I feel the point should be made here on the talk page (rather than in the article itself) on the 1% chance something has changed between December when the Sony leaks happened (and the Civil War confirmation was made) and February when the deal was finalized for the pre-solo movie appearance. Ruffice98 (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
then if he can't be added to the page because there is no source then all the information on SM on this and article should be removed right? The info about Sony and marvel and the Russo's meeting to pick Spiderman, a!l that. It's irrelevant then, right? Npamusic (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no confirmation from Marvel or Sony that he will appear in this film. Even previously, HitFix announced that Aquaman would appear in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, but that was not considered reliable or even slightly credible until it was officially announced. What makes this any different? Kailash29792 (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, HitFix isn't exactly Forbes. Besides our guideline is reliable not official.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
here is a reliable source for his inclusion. Npamusic (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes article above is good enough.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ok please include I can't for some reason and remove the SuperHeroHype source. Npamusic (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, not too keen on the Forbes source as it does look like an opinion piece. I'd rather have the inclusion of the Hollywood Reporter source as it looks more concrete than that of the Forbes article. Npamusic (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The statement, "Our long national nightmare is over, as Marvel and Sony Pictures have finally cast their all-new Peter Parker in their all-new Spider-Man movie. And the winner is Tom Holland. He will be playing Spider-Man first in a glorified cameo for Captain America: Civil War and then again in a stand-alone Spider-Man movie that is due to be released on July 28th, 2017 and directed by Jon Watts (Clown, the Kevin Bacon thriller Cop Car)", is pretty definitive except for the "glorified" remark. The THR source on the hand is a bit more ambiguous: "With Holland in the lead, the franchise is now ready for rebooting for a new series of Sony films, the first of which will arrive in theaters July 28, 2017 -- but not before the character first appears in Marvel Studios' Captain America: Civil War." It says the "character" will appear not Holland.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TriiipleThreat, I think you're nitpicking with that last comment for why we shouldn't use THR as a source. Forbes has more opinion than news and Wikipedia is only for news. Spidey104 20:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe but its not the opinions that we are referencing. We need the best source possible to unambiguously verify that Tom Holland will play Spider-Man in Captain America: Civil War. So far the Forbes article does this better than other source that has been brought up.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline says "He will appear with Evans in Captain America: Civil War, which Joe and Anthony Russo are shooting in Atlanta."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

then Deadline has it. I can go with the source. Add it. :) Npamusic (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Hollywood Reporter or Deadline work for me. Spidey104 14:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appears THR has updated their article to make it less ambiguous. It now says "The actor will appear in both Sony's 2017 stand-alone film and Marvel Studios' 'Captain America: Civil War,' which will precede it."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect to my colleagues, neither Variety, THR or anyone else says the Spider-Man claim in confirmed. Go back and back through the articles, and there is no attribution for this claim anywhere. Even Variety says it based on no sourcing at all that Spidey "was expected" to be in the movie. Expected by whom? Significantly, neither Marvel nor Sony have confirmed any claim about Spider-Man in CA:CW, meaning that at this point it's a rumor. And tempting as it may be to say it here based on widely reported rumors, an encyclopedia has to have a higher standard than journalism — which is famously "the first draft of history" because of deadliens and of facts only gradually coming out. An encyclopedia is closer to the final draft of history. Forbes would be great if it attributed its claim. But Forbes is simply repeating a rumor.
Rumors, additionally, are WP:CRYSTAL. Marvel itself may not know how it plans to introduce Spider-Man. And the fact that Marvel/Sony press releases give an even dozen superheroes appearing in Captain America: Civil War but leave Spider-Man out of it — despite the clear audience/fan desire and attendant promotional boost — should be a red flag in that regard.
I think an encyclopedia needs to wait until a particularly high-profile claim like this is actually confirmed. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The respect is mutual. THR, Deadline and Forbes all make clear definitive statements without regard to attribution. But I don't think its completely necessary when the tone is so unambiguous. But if there is doubt, and there seems to be based on your comments, I do not mind waiting for an "official" confirmation. We are as always in WP:NORUSH. Let's hear from others to gauge consensus before we act.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have another confirmation from THR from today's interview with Kevin Feige that Spider-Man will be in Civil War: http://comicbook.com/2015/06/24/spider-man-confirmed-for-captain-america-civil-war/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.79.49 (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Feige didn't say anything about Holland, but THR doubling down is worth consideration.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
THR is doubling down, but I still think it's a case of them going A+B=C. We should wait until there is official confirmation. Spidey104 18:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need official confirmation, we need reliable secondary sources which we have. When Marvel or Sony want to come out and say he is in Civil War then the sources can be switched out, but right now we do not have an official source so we go with the secondary reliable source.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TriiipleThreat and Spidery104 that there's no deadline, and would add that we're not news. And there's at least one journalist who's writing with caution about this, at Newsday here: "Since the deal, which was announced on February 9, trade reports have indicated Spider-Man will make his Marvel Studios debut in next year's "Captain America: Civil War," but neither Marvel nor Sony have confirmed either this or reports that the new cinematic iteration of Spider-Man would be a high school student."
Ditto51 makes the valid point that reliable secondary sources are sufficient in lieu of official confirmation, but that doesn't apply to rumors. If THR, Variety, etc. were quoting the directors making this statement, for example, then we wouldn't need to wait for Marvel/Sony. But we don't have that — if you go back to the earliest mentions of the CA:CW Spider-Man possibility, you'll see that it's based on anonymous, unnamed sources. They can repeat the rumor over and over, but that doesn't make it less of a rumor. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out that the Newsday report isn't really relevant here, because, as has already been said, we don't need official confirmation and never have needed it, not to mention that Feige indeed has stated that the character will be in high school. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If Feige confirmed high school, that's great and we can use that wherever. But it's pretty well-established that we don't report rumors just because a reliable source does. We didn't run rumors about ScarJo's pregnancy (either time it was reported — the first time, a couple of years ago, it being not true.) This is no different. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any official reliable source saying his appearance will only be cameo though? Charlr6 (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was one that mentioned him only being in a cameo, but in the article it is just stated that he would appear. He isn't bulleted until/if he is confirmed to be starring.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While we're discussing this, could we please at least adjust the wording here to reflect that used in Spider-Man in film, which is (with cites): "Reports indicated that the MCU film Spider-Man would appear in as part of the deal would be Captain America: Civil War." Conversely, the article Captain America: Civil War is saying that Holland is definitely, unequivocally, absolutely cast in the film. I don't believe even Marvel knows at this point if that's a certainty. All that we definitely, unequivocally, absolutely know is that some reliable sources have claimed this based on anonymous sourcing — and not even semi-attributed anonymous sourcing, like "a studio executive who asked not to be named," but just some shadowy "insider." This is tabloid-level, it wouldn't fly in WikiProject:Biography, and I'd like to ask my colleagues to consider the other article's wording for A) consistency and B) letting readers know the honest facts. Otherwise, I think we're leading people to believe this is absolutely a done deal, and we don't know that. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that gets me is that while some sources are being a bit cautious (e.g IGN), we have sources (e.g. THR, Deadline) that make unequivocal definitive statements without the usual gossipy catch phrases like "I hear" OR "a source close to the film." By making such definitive statements and not attributing the information to anything else, these journalists are taking full responsibility for their reporting. In cases like this, we should rely on the reliability of the publication. At the same time, I understand your concern for caution.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I've worked with you long enough to know how careful you are and how you always do things thoughtfully. I'd like to suggest a middle ground, and let me give some background reasoning first.
Variety actually did hedge its bet the first time it mentioned this [1], saying "It’s very likely that Spider-Man will make his first appearance in 'Captain America: Civil War' next year." The Hollywood Reporter likewise wrote it as speculation [2], saying, "As part of the revamp, the new Spider-Man will first appear in a Marvel film. The companies are not revealing details, but that movie is likely to be 'Captain America: Civil War', as Spidey was a major player in the comics storyline." Deadline.com as well says it was speculating [3]:"There had been talk that Spidey would surface in the next installment of 'Captain America: Civil War'. Now, that can happen."
As far as I can see, having called up further stories from these outlets, they've simply changed their language without giving any evidence of further reporting. So it's still speculation. As I mentioned earlier, it's one thing if Variety or another RS reports that, say, Kevin Feige or the Russos confirmed it, even though Marvel/Sony hadn't yet. But this isn't that — it's only their speculation. IGN and Newsday are, as noted, reporting this cautiously.
I'm not advocating for complete removal of the mention, though that would be my preference. I'm suggesting a compromise: to use language that we already use in Spider-Man in film. It's factual, it lets the reader know there's been no official confirmation, and it's consistent, which helps avoid mixed messages. What do we think of this compromise suggestion that uses extant wording? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there is some middle ground, but as of now I am not advocating any position just gathering some thoughts before I do so. Hopefully, this discussion will help. Surely a source can change their stance between February and June, but is it necessary that the source share their rationale or evidence with its readership? I think we can all agree that it would be useful, but is it necessary for our purposes here? Are we to assume that when a reputable source like Deadline makes a definitive statement like "He will appear with Evans in Captain America: Civil War, which Joe and Anthony Russo are shooting in Atlanta," that they are speculating or are we to take it at face value?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TL;DR, but I believe we can use this Hollywood Report source, which states that "Holland will report immediately to the set of the currently shooting Captain America: Civil War". I believe that will suffice. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the above mentioned source, Feige states, "Spider-Man wasn't part of that announcement when we made it in October. So there's always room to shift. But since we shifted the release dates a couple of months ago when the Sony agreement was announced, that's the plan we're very much headed toward, with Civil War being the first part of that." Through this, I assumed that Feige confirmed that Spidey would appear in Civil War, as I perceived the film as being the first part of the Sony deal. Am I right or wrong? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believed Feige meant the film release dates, so the plan they annonced in October was without Spider-man on the table, while the one they annonced later was with Spider-Man on the table. He may have just been reiterating that Civil War is the beginning of the Phase 3 line up and storylines and whatnot. However, it may also meant Spider-man being in Civil War but it isn't clear enough right now.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 10:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I take a day off from Wikipedia, and we get the ACA accepted, marriage quality approved, and Spider-Man sounding pretty much confirmed! What a day!
Given that THR spoke with Feige and reported a definitive, physical action involving a specific person — "Holland will report immediately to the set of the currently shooting Captain America: Civil War" — and given the highly RS, I'd agree with Favre1fan93 that this constitutes confirmation. The previous claims were anonymously sourced; while THR didn't quote Feige directly, the magazine clearly was speaking with him and wrote something highly specific that, if need be, can physically be checked. Speaking as a longtime journalist, I'm comfortable with saying that Marvel plans to debut the MCU Spider-Man in CA:CW.
And may I add that I love the way WikiProject:Comics editors can have such a civilized, respectful, quality discussion, as we've done many times. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm so happy and proud to be in a Wikipedia project with colleagues such as all of you. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think these articles get the best of some of the two better projects on the Wiki, Comics and Film. And we've had a number of us (Triiiple, RichieKim and myself) regularly formatting and creating these issues for a few years now, with other joining in the help and others helping here and there. I agree too that it is always nice to have productive, civil discussions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this recent interview with Feige on Collider is implying that Feige is "not willing" to give up info that Spider-Man will be in Civil War: http://collider.com/kevin-feige-on-ant-man-post-credits-scenes-spider-man-and-marvel-disneyland/
I still believe Spider-Man's first MCU appearance will be in Civil War because of this quote saying Spider-Man will first appear in a Marvel Cinematic Universe film from Marvel Studios: http://marvel.com/news/movies/24062/sony_pictures_entertainment_brings_marvel_studios_into_the_amazing_world_of_spider-man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.79.49 (talk • contribs)
I guess we have a confirmation here from an interview with the writers of the MCU Spider-Man reboot that Spider-Man will be in Civil War. Look for the 6th or 7th paragraph in the article when it mentions that the writers saying they'll visit Marvel Studios to see footage of Peter Parker in Civil War: http://www.vulture.com/2015/07/all-about-chris-hemsworths-vacation-dick.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.138.19 (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page lock.

Can we please lock the page, e vandalism in the last hour has become too much. Thanks! Npamusic (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already requested protection, now we just have to wait.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an eye open for some reliable sources for Leslie Bibb

Given her recent Instagram post it would seem that she's going to be in Civil War, but that's hardly a reliable source. Maybe someone else will run across something more concrete. (someone tried adding her to the page without providing a source, but she probably shouldn't be added until we've got something a bit stronger than a single "#marvel" hashtag) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone should also keep in mind that the hashtag could just as easily mean that she is guest starring in an episode of Jessica Jones. I personally feel that would be a huge win for continuity. - DinoSlider (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as JJ is finished filming, and Civil War is filming it would make more sense for her to be in this film, what with her connects to Tony Stark and all. Npamusic (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen nothing that says it is finished filming. Where did you see that? - DinoSlider (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JJ would make sense (and be and awesome continuity win as Dino said). Also, can guarantee it is still filming, as I've gone by the NYC set recently. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd totally forgotten that JJ was still filming. All the more reason we should wait for a better source than this. (it popped across my radar on reddit, where someone said they'd tried adding it). EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure no one guessed Ant-Man. A good lesson for not jumping to conclusions. - DinoSlider (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, but just to clarify its a viral marketing campaign for the film, not necessarily the film itself.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. - DinoSlider (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great job DinoSlider! And yes, good reason never to jump to conclusions. I've added the info to the Ant-Man page. While nothings come out from any of the reviewers/trades, maybe for all we know she shot some "background" newscast footage for in the film too? Because to me, while a good marketing move, it seems a bit odd to have her be used if she doesn't have some appearance in the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we really hold SlashFilm as a reliable source to confirm Bibb's return? Just general curiosity. Rusted AutoParts 23:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Hurt quotes

Here are some quotes from Hurt about playing Ross again. Since he doesn't have a paragraph since he isn't starring at the moment, hopefully we can find a way to include some of them because they are definitely insightful to Hurt's take appearing again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something in the casting section about him returning? You may have already done this, but could some of that fit in the Incredible Hulk article, like how he thought his version of Ross was just as cartoon as Hulk and Abomination?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think of that for the "THI" article, but that's a good idea. And yeah, casting section may be good. I also have another from IGN to maybe use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not starring role, then we shouldn't give it too much weight. You could paraphrase his comments into a concise statement in the cast section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughts. I'll give a stab at it tomorrow. As always, feel free to change what ever I come up with. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More cast information

Fiege just revealed some more information about Black Panther. Given the recent information about Ross and Spidey maybe we ought to rethink our current position and give everyone a bullet except confirmed cameos like Lee and unspecified roles like Freeman. Once the billing block is revealed, we can readjust the cast section as necessary and curtail any additional information about minor roles. Given Marvel's past, I suspect the billing block will be a lot longer than we think.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like we should treat them the same as the guideline for including them. If the secondary sources deem them important enough to go into detail about them (interviews with actors and whatnot) then we should do the same, just so that we can cover what the sources are saying.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like your idea Triiiple. I think we should give bullets to everyone except Holland, Freeman (as we don't know his role) and Lee. However, I think we should keep the infobox as is until an updated billing comes out. But I do agree that this film will probably be a hefty billing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to this, considering we have no infomation for Baron Zemo, would it not be better if he were in the bottom paragraph, he looks kinda out of place as it is now.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spidey "not" in Civil War?

In this recent interview, Feige has stated, "Everyone takes for granted that he's in it, but I don't want people to have false expectations." What is that supposed to mean? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like its still not a done deal. Perhaps Tenebrae was right, the previous sources were speculating.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a little synthesis here, and playing devil's advocate, why would you have the screen tests in Atlanta and have the candidates test with Evans and Downey, as well as have the Russos sit in if they weren't going to appear? And if it was just insane prep for Infinity War, why not have the screen tests in LA and just have the Russos fly there for the day or so to do? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good questions, and synthesizing/analyzing in a different direction, we could speculate that the Russo want to see the actor and consider whether they want to work with him or do something interesting with the character. I'm sure they don't want to just shoehorn him in for a cameo that looks like pandering and doesn't contribute to the story.
I know I suggested earlier that The Hollywood Reporter reported a highly specific action (Holland appearing on the set). But on further consideration — and taking into account Feige's accurate statement that, "Everyone takes for granted that he's in it" — I think that no one knows at this point if he's going to be in CA:CW or not. I'm thinking the cautious course of action is perhaps not stateting definitively that Spider-Man is in it. Even Feige, who's aware of the trade reports, isn't stating that definitively.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that all Spidey related info be removed from this article, as Feige has strongly implied that the character may not appear in the film. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All Feige has said is that it isn't actually official yet, which is true, but as per usual we have other, reliable sources saying that it will happen, and it is up to us to decide whether we should use those sources or not. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why not compromise? Saying something like Tom Holland, who has been cast as Spiderman in the upcoming spiderman solo film, has reportedly been cast in a cameo role for the film.

And then add on the sources saying he is and the source where Feige notes that it is not official. --Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 11:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Reportedly" is an expression of doubt and should be avoided. Just state what we know to be factual and omit anything that we are unsure about until it becomes clear.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but there is doubt because of what Feige has stated, so should it really be avoided? We have sources stating that he is in the film (reason to believe that he is) and then we have Feige, the head of Marvel Studios, stating that it is not necessarily the thing (a reason to doubt). Either way, we need to find someway of showing that it is not a done deal yet.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, just state what we know to be factual and omit everything else. So we can say that Holland has been cast Spider-Man in the solo film and that Feige would not confirm his involvement in Civil War. The speculation about him being cast is not encyclopedic per WP:SPECULATION: "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content."--TriiipleThreat (talk)
Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm pretty sure those "false expectations" he's referring to is focused on how much Spider-Man is in the film, not if he's in the film. He's saying that everyone takes it for granted that he's in it, not that everyone takes for granted the thought that he's in it. As far as I can ascertain, this is an instance of people reading a little too far in to a quote. As it stands, we have a tremendous amount of sources that say Spider-Man will appear in Civil War, and only one quote that could possibly be interpreted as saying that he may not be in it. That seems like a clear-cut case of WP:NOTTRUTH to me. Sock (tock talk) 15:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should we do something similar to Diesel as Groot in GotG? At that page we do (in filming section): "Also in September, Vin Diesel stated that he was voicing Groot.[source] However, Marvel did not confirm Diesel's involvement in the film at the time.[sources x3]" Then in the post section: "In December 2013, Marvel confirmed that Diesel would voice Groot.[source]" So maybe something along these lines for Holland? We have in the pre section that it was speculated in this film, so I don't believe it would hurt to say something like "In June, Holland was cast as the character for the solo film. Marvel at the time did not confirm Holland's appearance in CW." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sock: Perhaps, but you're reading something in the quote that isn't explicitly stated. Also the LA Times says its speculation. International Business Times calls it a rumor. Time and The Guardian say Holland will "likely" appear in Civil War. It seems sources are divided on this. Cherry picking sources that seem to confirm his involvement would not be WP:NPOV at this point.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Favre1fan93: That is exactly what I was saying in my last response.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You and Favre both make a lot of sense. That said, I know I'm reading something in the quote that isn't stated, but so is everyone else who's saying he implied that Spidey won't be in the movie. It can go both ways. However, I think Favre's/your suggestion make the most sense with making it similar to Diesel's listing. Sock (tock talk) 17:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to edit the page, and then I remembered these comments from Feige a few days after the announcement, "Even though the details of Peter's function in "Civil War" remain vague, Feige says this version of Peter's story will still touch on the idea of him being torn between superhero ideologies. "Does he want to be like these other characters? Does he want nothing to do with these other characters? How does that impact his experience, being this grounded but super powerful hero? Those are all the things that Stan Lee and Steve Ditko played with in the first 10 years of his comics, and that now we can play with for the first time in a movie," he explains. How does this mesh with his comments in LA Times?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like Sock's interpretation might be right. Holland will appear in the film, in a cameo, where he will be seen as being split between Iron Man and Cap but that will be about it, as such in the LA Times quote he could just mean that people are taking for granted that he is going to play a big role in the film instead of a small cameo. But at this point it is best to go with what the sources say rather than inferring from the quotes.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this recent interview with Feige on Collider is implying that Feige is "not willing" to give up info that Spider-Man will be in Civil War: http://collider.com/kevin-feige-on-ant-man-post-credits-scenes-spider-man-and-marvel-disneyland/
In this Collider link, Feige has explicitly stated that Spidey will not appear in the film, and I think it's time we accept it. I just hope the Sony-Marvel deal isn't laid to waste. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He's playing coy. He didn't "explicitly" state anything. Rusted AutoParts 15:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the direct quote is "I'm not even acknowledging that he has any screen time in any movie, except a standalone movie in July 2017." "[N]ot acknowledging" is not "I am denying". Sock (tock talk) 18:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I still believe Spider-Man's first MCU appearance will be in Civil War because of this quote from the marvel.com article announcement saying Spider-Man will first appear in a Marvel Cinematic Universe film from Marvel Studios: http://marvel.com/news/movies/24062/sony_pictures_entertainment_brings_marvel_studios_into_the_amazing_world_of_spider-man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.79.49 (talk • contribs)

Is not stated explicitly in that article, so your belief is original research. It will be announced eventually, and then it can be added with reliable sources. After all, we're not in a hurry. --‖ Ebyabe talk - General Health ‖ 01:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an EW interview with Jon Watts that mentions Spidey's first appearance will be in Civil War. Richiekim (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watts doesn't say that; EW does. He doesn't confirm that, he is just commenting on the fact that there is collaboration between the creative teams, not referring to Civil War in particular. So I believe we haven't really changed our status. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Favre1fan93. Watts in his answer gives only in vague generalities and doesn't mention the Russos or CA:CW in his reply. --Tenebrae (talk)
I guess we have a confirmation here from an interview with the writers of the MCU Spider-Man reboot that Spider-Man will be in Civil War. Look for the 6th or 7th paragraph in the article when it mentions that the writers saying they'll visit Marvel Studios to see footage of Peter Parker in Civil War: http://www.vulture.com/2015/07/all-about-chris-hemsworths-vacation-dick.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.138.19 (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let us hope he is not misleading; it is sometimes common for crew members to spread rumours about things they are involved in, albeit at secondary level. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marisa Tomei in Civil War as 'Aunt May'?

Expected is the key word here. Npamusic (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It says she may, not that she is. (no pun intended). So until now, just appearing in the Spidey film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ruffalo confirmed to return as Hulk?

Tricky is one is, but here is a source. What would Ruffalo be doing in Berlin with Daniel Brühl? Npamusic (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well the source says they went to dinner and a nightclub, but its something to keep an eye on incase he is spotted on set. Also the filming section hasn't been update in awhile. Have they filmed anywhere else besides Georgia so far?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain, but based on that article, shooting has moved from Georgia to Germany. Let's wait and see though, as you've said. There isn't anything other than that article that states they're shooting in Berlin (at the moment). Npamusic (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree something to watch and also agree with both of you that filming section hasn't been updated recently, but that's because there haven't been any article updates. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the Filming section to indicate shooting has begun in Berlin.Richiekim (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin doubling as Romania?

Sources are here: source1 / source2 / source3 / source4. Npamusic (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All sources are unreliable and even if they were, they are speculating that it's Romnia, not stating that it is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2015

The cast list needs updated 82.8.222.161 (talk) 08:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Captain_America:_Civil_War&oldid=675880183"