Talk:Captain Marvel (film)

Jude Law

There is NO official confirmation he will be that charachter Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Literally the first source linked in his cast entry: Law will be playing Doctor Walter Lawson, a.k.a. Mar-Vell, who becomes a mentor of sorts to Danvers as she tries to figure out her new powers. You’ve been told this before. Rusted AutoParts 20:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

It is one link, and Jude Law said nothing, marvel said nothing and the director said nothing. No official sourcing, variety has been wrong more in the past. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Also there are now a lot of sources that say he will play Yon-Rogg. So I'll hereby remove the non-offical information until we get an official source. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

This is also sourced in the article, “Another key member of the Kree’s officers is Jude Law’s Mar-Vell.” Sources can be wrong and they often are. We are not investigators, it’s not our job to discover the truth, only what we can verify. Remember, WP:Verifiability, not truth. Also we don’t need an official source, only a reliable source. In fact, secondary sources, are often preferred over primary sources.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I tried to make a compromise of sorts with this edit regarding the role, but I understand why it was reverted back. While Triiiple and Rusted are both correct, we should still consider that, while we have this reported role, Marvel has not confirmed or revealed what role Law is playing. Additionally, Scenario, please provide 1 reliable source stating he is playing that character that does not fall under WP:FRUIT and come from an unsubstantiated leak. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I always just chalked that up to Marvel’s general tendency to keep mum on a lot of their film’s details (we are of course still on Avengers 4 trailer watch, which Marvel if you see this PLEASE). It’s becoming apparent that there’s likely going to be a twist given the chronic speculation and the lack of description from Marvel, but as Deadline and Variety are probably some of the best film related sources to cite, it’s why I feel comfortable keeping it as Mar-Vell for the time being. Rusted AutoParts 04:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I with RAP, more than likely this is part of some plot twist. Benedict Cumberbatch went around for months before Star Trek Into Darkness insisting that he wasn’t playing Khan, but of course we know now that was complete bullshit. The screenwriters said that they were changing Danvers’ origin, and Marvel recently retconned her origin in the comics, removing Mar-Vell’s DNA and making her mother an undercover Kree. But this is all speculation without explicit verification from a reliable source. We have explicit verification from two highly reputable sources saying Law is Mar-Vell and until we have equally reputable sources to the contrary, we have no choice but to let the prevailing sources remain. We do not remove sources simply because we feel that they are wrong.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

There are sources of the same believability like hollywoodreporter and Variety that says he won't be playing Mar-Vell. https://nerdist.com/captain-marvel-jude-law-toy-theory-nerdist-news/ - https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/jude-laws-captain-marvel-role-leaked/ - https://comicbook.com/marvel/2018/11/30/captain-marvel-jude-law-revealed-mar-vell-yon-rogg/ - https://news.google.com/articles/CBMiQmh0dHBzOi8vaGVyb2ljaG9sbHl3b29kLmNvbS9jYXB0YWluLW1hcnZlbC1sZWFrLWp1ZGUtbGF3LWlkZW50aXR5L9IBAA?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen - (This sources has even been shared by a marvel employee who has never been wrong with his information when it comes to Marvel: https://mcucosmic.com/2018/11/30/jude-laws-role-in-captain-marvel-is-finally-clarified/ (Here's the tweet: https://twitter.com/ManaByte/status/1068491402630164480 So, I propose we either make it Yon-Rogg or change it to yet to be annouced. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Since this is a controversial topic, I would not be against crediting him in the cast list as Marvel have done for now (just saying he is the leader of Starforce), and also keeping in the production section our line about him reportedly being Mar-Vell. If he does turn out to be Mar-Vell then we can just change the cast list back, and if not then we just need to update the cast list and then add to the production section who he turned out to be. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

None of the sources that Scenarioschrijver20 mentioned are as reputable as THR or Variety.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Adamstom. Also tripllethreat someone who works for Marvel is not as believeable as some new site? Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

If the source isn’t as reliable then how can you trust that the information hasn’t been fabricated, misquoted, misinterpreted, or if they have thoroughly vetted their informant? Is this Marvel insider who they say they are, is privy to such information, or isn’t intentionally misleading the public like Cumberbatch above?—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This marvel 'Insider' is an employee of Marvel who has always been right with his information when it comes to Marvel movie information.

So what will it be? Will we change it to what Adamstom proposed or to the information of someone a million times more believeable than a newssite?

Also this has NOTHING to do with the cumberbatch thing. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Neither. The information should remain as is until we source as reliable as THR and Variety, the two top trade publications in the industry, that states the contrary. And yes, I trust them over some anonymously sourced blog.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The links I sourced are as reliable. Also the marvel employee who's tweet I cited is again a million times more believeable than THR and Variety. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Wait, are you talking about Jeremy Conrad? He is not a Marvel employee. MCUCosmic is not affiliated with Marvel, it’s a blog which according to their own mission statement says that they dabble in rumor.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Still he has been right more than news sites like variety.

Also your precious THR realeased an article in which they say: "and Jude Law’s Starforce Commander who may or may not be the original Captain Marvel, Mar-Vell" So, I still think we should change it to how Adamstom proposed it. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Heres the link: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/captain-marvel-trailer-kree-skrull-explained-1166031 Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Now that's more like it! But the fact that you'd rather go with a blog source over a reliable news organization with a reputation for fact-checking and vetting sources is troublesome, and I'm afraid you're going to have a hard time on Wikipedia. That said, THR backing off their original claim maybe a enough to pull back Mar'Vell but its not enough to add Yon-Rogg or anyone else. I'd like to hear what @Rusted AutoParts: has to say.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It adds credence to the theory there’s gonna be a twist, but still I don’t see this as backing off of their claim. Sounds like a teaser. For now I think Marvell should be left intact as it is still reputable sourced as the case. If the provided THR source worded it as their initial reporting being wrong, I’d have agreed with removal. But since it’s a one sentence blurb, I feel something more concrete (and reliable) is needed. There’s truly no rush. Rusted AutoParts 19:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI, Disney’s official website confirms Law is playing Mar-Vell. - Richiekim (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, CBR.com are claiming that Yon-Rog "has officially been confirmed".[1] --Mondo Beer (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems Favre already added this to the article and I completely glossed over it. While it’s not exactly an official confirmation as they discribe (toys can often be different from the actual film), it is enough as Favre suggested to pull mentioning Mar-Vell until we something more concrete.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you could follow the example of Sigourney Weaver's role at Avatar 2. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: Yeah, I added in regards to the Funko Pop! toy, and no worries about missing it. I was putting in a bunch of content, and we had another editor adjusting the note to, so it was easy to miss. But yeah, that's why I felt it was good to remove the character name at this time. Admittedly, at this point the character could be known by both names in the film, so both can be right. We'll see in 2 months. Also, the Previews World source doesn't show the box, but here's the Funko product on Hot Topic, which does and confirms the Yon-Rogg name. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

This official video describes his role as "Star Force Commander", perhaps someone could add that to the note? 128.84.127.241 (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Vote brigading

Is it worth mentioning? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I came to this article to read unbiased information about the controversy. However there is nothing at all here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete the review bombing part

The part in the Reception about the movie getting review bombed by "internet trolls" has to be deleted since its inaccurate information. The movie hasn't opened yet so its not possible to submit user reviews. The so-called "reviews" are just poll results from RottenTomatoes standard question "Are you interested in seeing this movie?" from where you can vote "Yes" or "No".Jonipoon (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

agreed. Will modify and provide a source to represent these points

We need a controversy section for all that stuff where we can put the internet's misinterpreted take on Brie Larson's comments and their bombing on Rotten Tomatoes Mystic Moore (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Users can leave comments in the audience reviews. Also no need to give this WP:UNDUE weight by moving it to its own section. A simple line is all that is needed.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Modified to more accurately express what was actually happening, what the reviews were expressing, and change the tone to be more objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 20:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You cited an unreliable source as well as editorialized statements (“drastically”).—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain what makes it unreliable and editorial and how it is more so than the original source? There is a consensus that there is no review bombing. As for changing the part about feminism; the people who are complaining have been clear and this is supported by the article that the reason they are complaining is that they perceive Larson's statements to be aimed against white males...not that it supports feminism. The writer of the original source is expressing their opinion that it is about feminism but the actual statements and alternate source confirm they are reacting to specific statements about "white males." Either this should be deleted from the page or reflect the actual stated perceptions of that community.

(edit conflict) Please familiarize yourself with the cited guidelines. Can you explain who is apart of this so-called concensus since your bold change at 15:44 February 25, 2019.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It actually states it in the source provided and the examples of the comments in that post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 23:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think you know what a concensus is, please read WP:CONCENSUS. I’ll provide more helpful links to Wikipedia policies and guidelines on your talk page.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Jonipoon expressed the same view that you can't review bomb the movie on Rottontomatoes because it isn't open to reviews. People weren't reviewing the movie they were expressing why they didn't want to see the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 23:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

That doesn’t constitute a concensus, concensuses take time to develop, besides comments in the audience review section are open.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It is an agreement and thus the begining of one...if you revert, ignore, and refuse to discuss disagreements then the agreement within the talk page should take precednt. Which is why I haven't reverted again is you have support. You want to argue there is no consensus and yet not discuss the disagreement to come to one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 00:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

That’s not how this works. WP:BRD is clear. You made a bold change, it was reverted then you discuss. You do not re-revert while you wait for a concensus to be established.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree I have rerad enough to know that the intent is to generate discourse and you were attempting to force a view without engaging.

Within 2 hours, you’ve got to be kidding. The minimum is usually a week.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You were reverting without responding. If you would of reverted then stated why you were reverting then you might have a point — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 02:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

That’s not a liscense for you to re-revert i.e. edit war.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

exactly the difference is that from my persepctive your choice to not engage and revert means you are the one that started the edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 02:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The R comes before the D in WP:BRD.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with TriiipleThreat's observations. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I am rolling=back on that as well..even the cited article isn't deiscounting that Larson and MCU are promoting Feminism

No Jablonsky2020 (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. This has nothing to do with the film. If the downvotes are because of anti-white statements, then this belongs to Brie Larson, where it is already included. If the downvotes are because of actual low anticipation by viewers, then this may be included together with a low box office if it isn't clickbait WP:Recentism as I've explained at WP:BLPN. Finally, this is only controversial because RT decided to change the feature with a very suspicious timing, and all of this should only probably be covered at Rotten Tomatoes. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 20:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  There are many reliable sources that write about this in direct connection with Captain Marvel. To exclude it entirely ("This has nothing to do with the film") is disingenuous. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Modify the review bombing statement

Current,ly this section says Ahead of the film’s release, the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes experienced an effort to review bomb the film’s page with negative comments attacking the film and its star, Larson, for their perceived feminism

I am looking for a concencus to chnage this with the appropriate source to: Ahead of the film’s release, the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes received a drastic decrease in expressed interest in viewing the film as the film’s Rotten Tomatoes page received negative comments attacking the film and its star, Larson, for perceived sexism and racism

On the bases that Rotton Tomatoes is not open to reviews, people are just expressing their desire to see or not see the movie and the perception of the people complaining is not that they are against feminism but support of feminism through the use of negative idenity politics that targets white males. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 00:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The current description is very inaccurate. --41.132.92.231 (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You are editorializing when you claim it had a “drastic” decrease. Also RedState is not reliable for verifying incontrovertible facts, see WP:RSN#RedState.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Er, uh, "negative identity politics that targets white males" isn't a thing which exists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

>In what fantasy world are Europeans exempt from racism? 86.93.208.34 (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You need to substantiate the claim against the source. Let's try this: Ahead of the film’s release, the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes fan expressed interest in viewing the film dropped from 96% to 27% and received negative comments attacking the film and its star, Larson, for perceived sexism and racism

Seems good and gets irrelevant semantics out of the way. Unless we're gonna keep pretending that losing interest in watching a film is "review bombing" by using a subjective news article as a source. --41.132.92.231 (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

There are numerous sources that discribe this behavior as review bombing.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

doesn't mean that it is factually correct. If you can't review you can't review bomb. You even made a change to the article that identifies that it is the want to see, not reviewing.

That’s based on your own definition of review bombing. Reliable sources, which is what we go by, state otherwise. Also as repeatedly stated these comments were left in the “Audience Review” section.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

No it is based upon the actual definition of what a review iswhich is independent of what someone who wrote an article thinks. Which we now have a concensus of 4 people who agree. If you want to call it "bombing" or "interest bombing" that I would be willing to work with. But citing article's that make a factually false claim based on the actual definitions of words isn't objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 15:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The definition of review is not being questioned. We are defining “review bomb”, which again per reliable sources show a difference. There is no such thing as “interest bombing”.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You still need a more reliable source to verify your claims. BTW, I added RT’s. response.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Again I will say you need to substntiate your claim about the source. The current article cited on the "article page" shows a bias against the groups they are writing about, calling them trolls and hateful, and if any source is unreliable it is the source showing bias through ad hominem.

Per WP:RSN RedState is only “usable as a source for attributed conservative/right-wing opinion”. Whereas, the cited sources in the article are generally accepted as reliable.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

This is completely bias. You literally posted that this morning and now trying to use it as a base for discounting a source. This proves you are not negotiating in good faith. If you continue I will report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 16:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Do as you like, but that's why the noticeboard is there. You are free to comment as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

This is an article that support the inacracy of the statement review bombing and actually points at the current source being used as infactual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 16:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Though this does appear to be from a published author, we still caution the use of WP:BLOGS sources, especially one that describes themselves as "alternative movie news".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Also FWIW, I've posted an invitation at WT:FILM for others to chime in. This is growing tiresome.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since Rotten Tomatoes has deleted the "Interest section" for all movies we can no longer provide direct links to the actual comments to prove that the comments have not been hateful. On the other hand, that will indirectly make all the news articles reporting about the so-called "review bombing" somewhat inaccurate as well. My suggestion is to simply change the current section into something like this that is more objective, that CLEARLY showcases the situation from both perspectives:

Ahead of the film’s release, the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes experienced a massive decline in interest for the film's "Want to See" score. News sources reported this as an effort to review bomb the film’s page with negative comments attacking the film and its star, Larson, for their perceived feminism.[149] In response, Rotten Tomatoes removed the “Want to See” feature, which polled anticipation for the film, as part of a larger re-design of the site. Before its removal, the “Want to See” score had fallen to 28%.[150]

Jonipoon (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Just some general c/e:

Ahead of the film's release, Captain Marvel's "Want to See" score, an audience anticipation poll on the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, had fallen to 28%.[150] News sources described the decline as an effort to review bomb the film's page with negative comments attacking the film and its star, Larson, for their perceived feminism.[149] In response, Rotten Tomatoes removed the “Want to See” feature as part of a larger re-design of the site.[150]

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I find that acceptable in regards to reviewing bombing. My other issue is with the use of the term feminism. Perhaps a more general identifier such as "for thier activism" that way you could just remove the word "percieved" or perhaps "for how they expressed their activism" or maybe even "how they expressed their feminist activism"

I suppose that would be acceptable although it is not how it is described in the source. Also its still POV as to whether or not film is actually pushing activism, or feminism for that matter, so "percieved" is still needed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with the word perceived, however, the way it is currently it reads as Marvels and Larson's percieved feminism.

Maybe, News sources reported this as an effort to review bomb the film’s page with negative comments attacking the film and its star, Larson, for the perception of an expression of feminist activism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 19:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm also fine with TriiipleThreat's new suggestion, however I only have an issue with the "perceived feminism" part. Is it necessary to put it there? Jonipoon (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we need to give a reason for the attacks and that's how it is described in the cited source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I actually don't think precieved feminism is appropriate. Even the current article recogise the feminism support of Larson and MCU. The issue I have is the wording is it indicates that the people's motivation is aimed at all feminism. The complaints are really aimed at comments specifically made by Larson in conjunction with the advertising of the film. I am not sure how you indicate that. Obviously, there are opposing perceptions of the two side, how do you indicate that without villain either side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 21:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Inserting your own research as to what the "complaints are really aimed at" isn't helpful. All material must be verified by reliable sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the current source is biased. That is my point. There are many sources that state the comments that began the backlash. So my research is relevant in the sense that this article is biased. Made evident by the demonising of one side of the issue. While some of the facts can be agreed as valid, the assertion of from opinion piece on what is feminism and a what are the beliefs of a group are that the author states are trolls and haters, shouldn't be taken as valid. You have an author writing outside his expertise, that is a proponent for the comics, making accusatory statements about people criticizing the subject he is a proponent of. I don't see how you can't believe that isn't a bias source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 22:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

We seemed to have been making some progress so before we blow the whole thing by diving deeper into this circular argument, I’m going to go ahead and make the change with the word activism instead of feminism that we seemed to agree to.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Brie Larson's generalizing comments aimed at an entire gender rubbed some people the wrong way. That's all that needs to be said in the "Controversy" section with links. 86.93.208.34 (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that Rotten Tomatoes didn't remove the Want to See feature altogether (which is what the Wikipedia article says right now), but rather changed it so that it only displays the number of people that indicated they want to see the movie (instead of a percentage). Soronast (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

References

"In response"

It should be said that Paul Yanover, Rotten Tomatoes' president, alleges that removing the "Want to See" had nothing to do with Captain Marvel. https://www.cnet.com/news/rotten-tomatoes-president-we-didnt-change-site-to-protect-captain-marvel/ Said this, Yanover has ties with Disney. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fandango-appoints-paul-yanover-as-president-172118141.html --181.93.71.39 (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Ye. Actualy, RT released contradictory statements, but it is obvious this, and Star Wars IX are the direct cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.21.29 (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I know, but the truth is, there is no way to officially confirm it. --181.93.71.39 (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, those early reviewers were being very sexist. It's OK to have a woman as the main hero. Looney Guy

Is the Shazam thing really necessary?

I find it hard to believe somebody would come here looking for Shazam. I get that the Shazam character was known as "Captain Marvel" about 50 years ago, but it seems like a big stretch. Is there any precedent for this type of thing? Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. DC didn’t stop using the name until 2011, and the WP:COMMONNAME for the character is still Captain Marvel. That’s why the article is located at Captain Marvel (DC Comics).—TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Would WP:COMMONNAME change after the movies popularize the characters? Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Cameo

Kindly add cameo appareance by Katheryn Winnick as Sersi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerisecalibur (talk • contribs) 16:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I certainly didn't see her after seeing the film twice.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Call sign

Should we add their call signs like in the Top Gun article? Photon for Rambeau and Avenger for Danvers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.147.197.214 (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Plot note

A first-draft plot is embedded, with much white space between this warning and the plot itself to help avoid spoilers for anyone editing this talk page. Though scores of reviewers and others have seen the film at this time, and premieres have screened in multiple cities, this is NOT to go live on the article page until the film officially opens. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Moving this to the article. We don't censor spoilers just because the movie hasn't opened in the U.S. yet. The movie is currently in theaters around the world. The Ozzy Mandias (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Didn't know it had already opened outside the U.S. ... cool. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Mar-Vell

This article is currently saying that Annette Bening plays Mar-Vell in the movie; do we have a reliable source that backs this up? The cited source mentioned Wendy Lawson as her character, but it does not mention Mar-Vell. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The source is the film itself. YgorD3 (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

So they actually say the name "Mar-Vell" in the film? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they do. The Ozzy Mandias (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Logo

Should we mention that the logo mainly feature Stan Lee's appearances in the MCU? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.147.197.214 (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

End credits

In addition to the mid-credits scene with Steve Rogers, Natasha Romanoff, Bruce Banner, and James Rhodes, there is also an end-credits scene where Goose vomits the tesseract onto Fury's desk. Presumably during the events of the first Thor movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.196.43 (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Release date in China

I added the release date in China and it has been removed. Is there a policy not to add release dates other than US/UK? – NirvanaToday^t@lk 08:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Kree DNA?

The cast description of Carol Danvers still says her "DNA was fused with that of a Kree during an accident". Though that was her comic-book origin story and appears in at least one of the references (all from pre-release articles), the film as I saw it has no mention of her having Kree DNA (though she apparently has blue Kree blood from transfusions during her recovery on Hala); per both the film and the plot section, her powers came from an exploding Kree energy core in her test plane. Isn't the mention of Kree DNA now inaccurate, unless that energy core contained Kree DNA or the blast also embedded in her the DNA of Wendy Lawson/Mar-Vell (consistent with the comics, but there Mar-Vell was male, the original Captain Marvel, and survived the explosion)? I almost changed it myself, but thought it better to discuss it here first. --RBBrittain (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The article has incorrect info that came out before the movie was released. The stuff about Talos should also be edited; he's not leading an invasion and the time he spends as Keller is very short. The Ozzy Mandias (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The Kree engine got its power from the Tesseract, so Carol's powers actually came from the Tesseract. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe Yon-Rogg says that he gave Carol transfusions with his blood. Richiekim (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Project Pegasus

Does Project Pegasus make an appearance in the film? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it plays a pretty huge role in the plot. 24.187.209.35 (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Metacritic syndrome

Hi. Appearently, Alex21 and his dear longtime friend TropicAces, after a couple of weeks, have started to bother me again. This time it is a critic review description about the film which is displayed on the Metacritic's homepage. They think it is not the place, because you can't "source Metacritic up top" and "this should be a fun article to keep an eye on over the weekend lol". They insist to keep the Independent info, which sums up only 4 reviews and only praising words: "entertaining, enjoyable and savvy". So, considering this is a place that summarizes the page, what do you think? Should we help them to make the film look critically acclaimed masterpiece? Sebastian James (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Sebastian James, you wanna try that again while agreeing with WP:CIVIL? Or are you (clearly) WP:NOTHERE? -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I have been WP:NOTHERE since 2012, you have discovered it! Why don't you use your wisdom to try to comment on the subject, not the editor first? It is not needed here. Sebastian James (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

End credits scene

Is there some reason why this scene keeps getting written out of the plot summary? It seems to be one particular editor doing it each time... — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryRarelyStable (talk • contribs) 23:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2019

The picture is borderline pornographic, which is absolutely inappropriate, inaccurate to the purpose and content of the page, and needs to be removed immediately. Not only does it display unwanted content, it is also a major invasion of privacy. Thank you. Alisakinzel (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DonQuixote (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Public anticipation vote from IMDb should be updated : Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2019

This line found under the Reception->Theatrical Run section I think should change from the currently "In late December 2018, the film was named as the most anticipated 2019 film by IMDb, "

To the new: "The film has was named as one of the most anticipated films of 2019 by IMDb [source], " [source] = https://www.imdb.com/list/ls024951332/ Skblackbeard (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The film was the most anticipated film on IMDb per the Variety source currently in the article, and "has was named" does not make sense. NiciVampireHeart 23:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Any source on the claim of "Analysts attributed the low score and sheer number of reviews to online trolling"

Reading the article I came upon on review bombing which stated that "Analysts attributed the low score and sheer number of reviews to online trolling." My point of contention with this sentence is the world Analyst, which suggest that multiple "qualified" individual on review bombing have come to this conclusion after conducting an analysis of the situation. The only source provided has no mention of the word analyst nor any mention of an analysis and the author of the piece is a standard staff writer who has no indication of being an analyst or preform an analysis. I ask that this sentence be further clarified with sources, altered, or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MontclairReality (talk • contribs) 21:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I think even using the phrase "review bombing" is non-neutral hyperbole that overstates and gives undue attention to what is merely lame ballot stuffing (not reviews, not bombs, maybe spitballs?), so I'd say it's all h____sh_t. I also disagree with this ballot stuffing being included under Critical response, I welcome any effort to at least put it a subsection away from serious criticism. It's so lame I hesitate to dignify it by suggesting it even counts as proper trolling.

To address your specific criticism though, the sentence "Analysts attributed the low score" is referenced to the Hollywood Reporter [2] but the article does not contain any actual text to that effect, so if you want to be bold and rephrase the text you could certainly do so. What the article does point out is that the film received more reviews in a matter of days than Avengers Infinity War did throughout its entire run, and I would encourage you or anyone to rephrase the text to more closer match what the source actually says. The mention of "analysts" is a bit of dubious claim or possibly an attempt to make Argument from authority. There are plenty of reviews that judge the film on its merits (and flaws) so this article should stop giving undue weight to the peanut gallery and instead start to carefully include some reasonable criticism without feeding the trolls. -- 109.76.145.159 (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)