Talk:Captain Marvel (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Logo

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

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

Suggested sources

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

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

Emily Carmichael and Elizabeth Wood

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

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

Brie Larson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Director shortlist

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

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

Just curious

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

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

Larson reads comics to prepare for the role

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

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

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

Analysis on 1990s setting

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

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

Filming location

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

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

Filming start potentially revealed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Budget

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

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

Move to mainspace checklist

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

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

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

"Minn-Erva" or "Minnerva"

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

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

Filming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Revisit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geneva Robertson-Dworet

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

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

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

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

Rob Kazinsky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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