Talk:Captain Marvel (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Review summary up top

The review summary up top is sourced and the cited reviews in body represent the overall reception to the film (pretty good, not great). Certain users (most with just a dozen to a hundred career edits) seem determined to make no explanation reverts/removals (possibly to fit their narrative with a film like this).

Just figured I’d open it up in here to (a) help in case someone finds themselves in a 3R rule case, (b) gauge the room to see if the current wording is sufficient. Aight, cheers! TropicAces (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Um, it takes two sides to make an edit war. And those of us who've stayed out of it haven't failed to notice who those sides are. How about you both follow standard protocol and talk it out here on the Talk page? —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but since when are you in charge of deciding whether a review roundup is considered "good" or "great"? I can't speak for others here but I for one am not trying to fit any personal narrative, I am however instead using basic logic to determine that a movie with a rating above 80% does not warrant for the negatives of it to receive as much attention as the positives do.

Also just to be clear, I did in fact provide a detailed explanation for every time I made an edit for this article which is more than I can say for the individuals who constantly reverted my edits without any just explanation.

Furthermore, I implore you to kindly find me other articles on Wikipedia of movies with a 80%+ rating which follow the same pattern of compulsively adding literally the whole quote of the negative part of a review even though all the positives were not mentioned and then we can continue this discussing in a way that is fair and just.

KingNJB (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I wish you people wouldn't do this, it would be better if you avoided summarizing like this in the lede. Editors get very argumentative about minor details in the intro which is why it is a good idea for the intro to summarize what is actually included in the article.

At least this time it is clear the quote is from the source referenced at the end of the sentence. Vaguely attributing quotes to "some" is weak and not good enough if you are writing for an encyclopedia, a longer quote would be slightly less bad "some reviewers found themselves wanting for more nuance, more clarity, or more excitement." I think removing it from the intro would be better though.

I would disagree with KingNJB though, I think negative reviews often offer greater insight and have more interesting things to say than positive reviews, and although I liked the film I think it is important that diverse opinions from critics be included. Even the positive reviews will usually mention a few small details that they didn't like even if they give an largely positive review. (I do think the ballot stuffing trolls have been given undue attention already though.) -- 109.76.145.159 (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The score on Rotten Tomatoes has been at about 78-80%, which is the percentage of reviews that are positive, while 6.8 is the average rating. So to get a good cross-section, you would need 2 "2/5 star" reviews, 3 "3/5 star" reviews and 5 "4/5 star" reviews (though some critics use other rating scales, or none at all). Anywikiuser (talk) 22:51, 10 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)

I gather somebody vandalized the poster that this page uses by replacing the image with one of Brie Larson naked. I believe the user responsible has been banned from Wikipedia. Let's keep an eye out, though; sometimes vandals come back. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Kudos

I just want to give a shout-out to all the WikiProject Comics editors, who I truly believe write the best, most professional-reading, most throughly RS-cited current movie articles in Wikipedia. I've made only small contributions to this article, so this is a compliment going out to all the editors I've worked with over the years and the one who follow their leads. Wikipedia has become more stressful than enjoyable for me, but on occasions where I feel OK to stop in, seeing articles like this make a proud to be part of the WikiProject Comics community, even peripherally these days. Congrats on a great article. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The Russo Brothers directed the mid-credits scene

https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/captain-marvel-15-spoiler-facts-directors-anna-boden-ryan-fleck/ Can anyone actually capable of editing this article put this in, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.167.147.99 (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This counts as an edit request, doesn't it? Could you be a little more specific on what text you want added and where?—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

That URL just redirects to the Empire homepage. Searches there on "Anna Boden" and "Ryan Fleck" turn up no results.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Just add in the Russo Brothers below the main directors and just put a citiation there saying Mid-credits scene only; Uncredited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.167.147.99 (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

"Just add in the Russo Brothers" and say what about them? "Below the main directors", do you mean in the body of the article, the lede, or the infobox? (Because I'm not sure if this information is notable enough for the lede or the infobox, and if it goes in the body it needs a complete sentence.) —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.167.147.99 (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't personally think this is notable enough information for the infobox; especially since, given the content of the scene, I'm pretty sure it's just an excerpt from Avengers: Endgame. I won't quibble over it if someone else disagrees and makes the change. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

typo found,but article protected

3rd paragraph of plot section, S.H.I.E.L.D is missing the "L.". My thanks to whoever corrects it. 73.44.198.102 (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

"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

"Sexist" huh? Well it's pretty strange we didn't see that same sexism during Wonder Woman's release. So who are all these "sexists" that crawled out of the wood work for Captain Marvel but not for Wonder Woman?2601:49:1:5316:E88A:F5E5:4108:C889 (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably the same ones that "crawled out of the woodwork" for Mad Max: Fury Road, Ghostbusters, The Force Awakens, the Thirteenth Doctor on Doctor Who... It may or may not be a factor that Wonder Woman has a male love interest. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

My Edit in the “Post Production” section

Yesterday I made an edit in the “Post Production” section of the Captain Marvel (film) article. I added a sentence at the end with information on the two companies (Stereo D, and Legend3D) that did the 2D to 3D stereo conversion on the film. I was not able to put a footnote to prove the veracity of my addition because there were no links found on the internet to substantiate the information. I watched the 3D version of the film on Monday, and sat through all the ending credits specifically to see which company or companies did the 2D to 3D conversion. The credits specified that stereo conversion was done by Stereo D and Legend3D. These bits of information appeared in seperate sections of the end-credits roll. The logo of Stereo D appeared with other logos very near the end of the end-credits roll. I can’t prove my assertions because it would have been illegal for me to photograph or video any part of the film to use as proof. Since 2D to 3D conversion is one of the major and most time-consuming jobs in post-production, I just wanted to document the two companies that did the stereo conversion. I hadn’t done any Wikipedia edits for about 10 years, so I’m not current with Wikipedia procedures. I hope an experienced editor will understand all that I’ve written herein, follow proper Wikipedia procedures, and restore my addition. I think it’s very important to indicate stereo conversion for 3D versions of films in the “Post Production” section. More than 50% of 3D films are actually shot in 2D and converted to 3D in post-production by companies like Stereo D and Legend3D. Of course, some films (like AVATAR or PROMETHEUS, for example) are shot using actual 3D camera rigs. Please feel free to email me at ronkert@yahoo.com to discuss. Thanks, Ron Kert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronkert (talk • contribs) 22:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Critical Response section non-factual.

the section claims 58,000 reviews were deleted when in fact Rotten Tomatoes has confirmed with The Hollywood Reporter after the fact that these were not reviews, even in the article presented by THR where they continue to attack reviewers. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/captain-marvel-rotten-tomatoes-audience-score-sandbagged-by-trolls-1193280

We have identified a bug in the post-release functionality for the movies that have released into theaters since our product update last week. The quantity of user ratings (which is displayed directly below the audience score and is intended to only include the quantity of users who have left a rating or written review after a movie’s release) had included both pre-release and post-release fan voting.

These were not reviews as many sites non-factually reported but were the old removed scores that were not removed when the previous "Want to see" scores were removed or hidden, and this section needs to be updated to reflect the facts rather than media spin on either side. An encyclopedia should strive to provide facts around a subject rather than one view of the story; whomever this person is that wants to skew the facts. Not saying anyone on WP has done so intentionally. So whenever this becomes unprotected enough for someone with better writing prowess than myself, this should be edited to show factual information about the error of the Rotten Tomatoes website around this movie. shadzar-talk 03:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Project Pegasus?

Shouldn't the Project Pegasus be mentioned somewhere by name in the article, since a good portion of the film takes place there or involves it? 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:EC2A:AD59:8F97:77DE (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I would say so. I note that in the movie it's not an acronym as I believe it is in the comics.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Tenebrae. See also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 12, and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 17. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

No Box Office Drop-off?

I'm wondering why there was no mention of the box office drop-off from the monday after its weekend debut, which was a larger drop-off than even Superman v Batman? 2601:49:1:5316:8554:CCA0:BE28:65C8 (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

By all accounts, it has not significantly dropped-off in terms of making money, and in fact it continues to make a whole lot very quickly. Nice try. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you just say "nice try" to an objectively provable and cited piece of criteria about the film? Do I need to subject this article to an NPOV dispute? 2601:49:1:5316:FD82:A55:7724:1CCE (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a biased source that clearly has a bone to pick, wanting to express only the negative aspects of the film as evidenced in this post. Sources don't typically focus on a single day's performance, especially a weekday like Monday, as that's not a good barometer to measure how the film is doing. Instead, a better indication are weekend-to-weekend drops, and as reported in the following neutral sources, that hasn't been a significant issue: Forbes, IndieWire. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

You state that the source expresses a negative aspect of the film, but you include articles about trolls and sexism of which very little of the reviews have expressed any sort of sexism. In fact, I don't see a single mention of even the word "drop" or "drop-off" in the entire article, which makes the article itself seem biased against any even remotely perceived sleight against Brie Larson or the character, which is not what this site stands for, and there should be some mention of the weekend to weekend drop off. I'm including an alternate reference to the weekend to weekend drop off to promote some idea of the actual box office doings of the movie rather than some perceived biased agenda being put to work on this article, as I have no been convinced it has been thanks to Adamstom. 2601:49:1:5316:FD82:A55:7724:1CCE (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

"...you include articles about trolls and sexism..."

"You" must be referring to the general community, as "I" haven't contributed much, if anything, to this article. After scanning the box office section, you're right that there is no mention of the 55% dip from the 1st to 2nd weekend. However, as you can see in the sources I provided above, the 55% dip is about average or what is expected from a decent blockbuster. Because this isn't anything out of the ordinary, it doesn't need to be a focal point in the article. I would be OK if someone wanted to add the 55% figure into that section, but I'd also be OK with leaving it out. It's not absolutely necessary here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The point is trivia anyway. Alaney2k (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The source provided by OP, Cosmic Book News, is hideously biased. We should be sticking to a normal, reliable sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2019

Regarding "Deadline Hollywood estimated the film had a total production and advertising cost of $300 million, and would need to gross $750 million worldwide in order to break-even.[2]" The "would need to gross $750 million worldwide in order to break-even" part is incorrect. It does not need to gross $750 million in order to break-even because, as written in the same sentence, the total cost is $300 million. The article simply states that it would have passed the break-even point (i.e. $300 million) by the following week because it would likely earn $750 million (which turned out to be true) which, shockingly, is more than $300 million. GradmiralThrawn (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@SassyCollins: Not reversing your recent edit because, as it stands, it could be read either way, but the above is the rationale for how it was. The article's actual words are

By the end of its first week (or less), film finance executives are saying that Captain Marvel will hit $750M global-plus (even if it’s front-loaded) and pass break-even in its theatrical cycle based off combined net production and global marketing costs of $300M.

—which, again, could be read either way.—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@VeryRarelyStable: Cheers! However the article is read, fact remains that the film, while being predicted to hit 750M at the box office, would at that point cover the predicted costs of 300M for Disney. Theaters take a cut (let's say about 50%), taxes need to be paid, etc. What would be left of the predicted 750M would then be more than 300M, passing break-even. That is what the article is trying to state. SassyCollins (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Review bombing location

As stated in one of the previous discussions, giving this information its own section with its own section header gives it WP:UNDUE weight by “prominence of placement”. I am open to other ideas of where to place this information but I think the critical response section is the best fit as it contains other Rotten Tomatoes information as well as other audience responses from CinemaScore and Postrak. @Bverji, Jonipoon, Sjones23, Tenebrae, IUpdateRottenTomatoes, and Krimuk2.0: —-TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

i say location ok but name need to change. "critical response" is professional critic only in other film article. IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I just had a look at the article for the first time in a while, and found it strange that this was just chucked at the end of the critical response section. I understand that it has an RT connection, but this info isn't really about actual critics and putting it here makes it seem to me like it is about actual critics disliking the film, which is not the case. My suggestion would be to have some sort of section dedicated to the backlash the film has received in general by this segment of the audience, with counter-arguments to balance it out. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Review bombing is definitely critical response. The problem is that this wasn't review bombing. wumbolo ^^^ 16:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we need a reliable source on that statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryRarelyStable (talk • contribs) 02:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

"Critical response" referes to response from professional critics. It doesn't mean "negative response" like some seem to assume based on the words.★Trekker (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Microediting

Very minor grumble, but when people find a number of punctuation and/or grammar flubs that need fixing, can you please do a bunch of them at once, instead of deleting one comma at a time and clogging up everyone's watchlist? Hadassah16 is the one who's done this most recently, but not the only one. Just as a courtesy to those of us who prefer to read changes edit by edit. Thanks. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Cast section

Just wondering why the cast section is suddenly formatted the way it is. Is there consensus for this? SassyCollins (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Its something to do with Template:Cast list break, which is currently under discussion. @Favre1fan93, Jc86035, and SMcCandlish: --TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yup, Template:Template for discussion is effecting the output.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat and SassyCollins: I've fixed it. It was caused (as usual) by Twinkle's insertion of a blank line. Jc86035 (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Thank you muchly! SassyCollins (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

"featuring" vs. "based on"

@All Hallow's Wraith and Hijiri88: I believe that the sentence "Captain Marvel is a 2019 American superhero film featuring the Marvel Comics character Carol Danvers" is misleading, since we generally consider the comic characters and film versions to be separate, and saying the film features the comic character suggests that it is the comic version that is appearing here. This case stands out even more than usual due to the significant changes made from the comics when adapting them for the film. Additionally, "based on" is the terminology actually used in the film as well as the infobox here, so it is objectively applicable and also would be consistent within the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I strongly prefer the wording of "based on", as this is only one new incarnation of the comic book character. I think that the meaning of "based on" is fairly clear here, and it makes good sense in the context.Hadassah16 (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

So is anyone going to argue against my thinking here? Or have anything else to add? - adamstom97 (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Pakistan release

According to this April 4 source, it was scheduled for release in Pak on April 5. This April 9 source mentions it already released there. Anyone may update the article to reflect this, or just remove the existing info if it's no longer relevant. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Plot summary

@TriiipleThreat: My version may have been a bit overwritten, but I still take issue with some of the underexplaining and confusion that the current plot summary has. Specifically, here are some issues that still need to be addressed:

• As far as I can tell (I've seen the film a few times now) Keller is never referred to as the director of S.H.I.E.L.D., only as Fury's boss.
• "keep tabs on her" seems a bit informal, but I won't fight on that one.
• "After Fury informs S.H.I.E.L.D. of their location, a team led by Talos disguised as Keller tries to capture them" - this doesn't make much sense unless you have seen the film. We can cut down a little on my version, but I still think we should explain a little of the thought process here for those who don't have our context.
• The plot summary does not use the term "energy-core" correctly, and gets itself quite muddled with it. We need to be clear that there is an energy-core, which we also call the Tesseract, and then an engine that it powers.
• "Danvers destroys a Kree bomber, forcing Kree officer Ronan the Accuser and his squadron to retreat" - it doesn't make sense to talk about someone retreating when we never said they have arrived
• The last paragraph is also problematic: it discusses information that you will only know if you have seen Infinity War (this needs to be kept in the note and out of the plot summary for this film), it includes "appears and demands to know Fury's whereabouts" which is unnecessary as we do not put that much information on a single line of throw-away dialogue, and it says the post-credits scene is set in 1995 which I do not believe is stated in the film or any sources that I have seen.

I am happy to work on a compromise here before updating the article if you want. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• • No qualms about boss
  • "After Fury informs S.H.I.E.L.D. of their location, a team led by Talos disguised as Keller tries to capture them" - this doesn't make much sense unless you have seen the film. Makes sense IMHO - Fury was instructed to “keep tabs” on her. He does. When they show up, they try to capture them.
  • Okay, let’s replace “destroying the engine's energy-core” with “destroying the engine” and “the Tesseract, the power source of the energy-core” with “the Tesseract, the power source of Lawson’s engine”
  • it doesn't make sense to talk about someone retreating when we never said they have arrived the movie doesn’t show their arrival either, we just accept that they’re there and are made to leave.
  • The last paragraph is also problematic: it discusses information that you will only know if you have seen Infinity War That’s why we have the note but if you want to remove the demanding bit, so be it.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Those are good changes so far. Responding to your comments:

• We go from Keller saying "keep tabs" on her to wanting to capture both her and Fury. We give no explanation for this change in behaviour. A simple note that Fury discovers that Keller is Talos solves this issue.
• Actually, the movie quite clearly shows the Accusers arriving through a jump-point before launching their attack. Again, it isn't hard to say that they arrive to help fight the Skrulls and then leave when she destroys one of their ships.
• Yes, but the point of the note is that it is for the out-of-this-film stuff. The actual plot summary needs to be about this plot. My version is borderline with this, but it is still a lot better: In a present day mid-credits scene, Fury has activated the pager, [See Infinity War for more] and it is being monitored by the Avengers when Danvers arrives. I think that is pretty good for avoiding the other information that we already know.

Also, my point about the post-credits scene being set in 1995 still stands. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Talos always wanted to capture Vers. This was true from their first encounter to their attack at the Block Buster. So his behavior hasn't really changed. He was just able to get Fury to do his leg work for him. Anyway how's this for compromise: "After Fury informs S.H.I.E.L.D. of their location, a team led by Talos disguised as Keller tries to capture them, but they realize the deception and escape in a cargo jet..."
• That might be true (its been awhile since I last saw it) but it stills seems rather forced to include their arrival immediately followed by their retreat. I think readers are smart enough to understand that since they are present, that they arrived at some point.
• In a present day mid-credits scene, Fury has activated the pager reads as if Fury activating the pager is shown on screen during the scene despite the note. Keeping the pager (not Fury) as the subject of the sentence and Fury's activation as a descriptor of the pager solves this.
• Sorry, forgot about the 1995 part.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• The behaviour change is him trying to capture Fury, who last we heard is following his orders. How about "After Fury informs S.H.I.E.L.D. of their location, a team led by Talos disguised as Keller arrives. Fury discovers Talos's ruse and helps Vers escape in a cargo jet..."? That explains the change clearly in even less words than we are currently using to not explain it.
• With that logic, we wouldn't need to explain that she lands on Earth—we could just talk about her being on Earth and let the reader figure out the rest from there. Or we could take out the bit where Starforce arrives and just jump to them connecting her to the SI, since the "readers are smart enough to understand that since they are present, that they arrived at some point."
• In a mid-credits scene, set in the present day, the pager, which Fury activated prior to his disintegration, - none of this is shown in the film. The present day bit is suggested, the Fury bit is (weakly) suggested, but the disintegration bit is complete OR. My suggested version includes only the elements that an audience member might assume from watching the film, that the scene is apparently in present day and that Fury has activated the pager. Anything else we add needs to be in the note and preferably sourced. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Fine
• Or we could take out the bit where Starforce arrives We do. Starforce is never said to arrive. Goose’s arrival isn’t mentioned either. We just state that they‘re at the laboratory and cargo jet, respectively.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• Just leave out the disintegration bit then, but it does play into Danvers questioning Fury’s whereabouts.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the wording for Starforce and Goose is less confusing than that for Ronan, but I won't keep arguing it. And as far as this film is concerned, Fury could be in the next room. We only know the disintegration stuff because we watched a different movie. Regardless, I think we did a job working through to a compromise here. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

There's a link to a pirated/filmed version of the film at the very top.

It is pretty clearly a copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnTheBanksMSU (talk • contribs) 13:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe this has been sorted. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Future

The article says « Further information: List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films » but the said article does not include information about the future of Captain Marvel as far as I can read. Hektor (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead: "criticized for its plotting and lack of originality"

Where did similar  ^  wordage appear before it was included in the lead? In the Hindustan Times: "critics praising Brie Larson’s performance, but noting the convoluted plot and lack of originality". I think the lead statement should be rephrased or it could be considered WP:PLAGIARISM. Pyxis Solitary yak 13:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary, thanks for chiming in. Please join the discussion above regarding the summary statement. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Audience response

What's the point of WP:UGC if its going to be selectively ignored?. The "81,000" reviews from audience members in the Critical response section is nonsense and I'd like to see anyone prove to me that this amount of reviews exist on Rotten Tomatoes. The section is nothing more than WP:UGC and in this instance users just using the ratings system on the website to add or subtract from the reported percentage. It should be removed from the article as there's no justification beyond one or two users wanting it there on a whim. Esuka (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The section covers an issue that was widely reported on, and is included here with critical discussion. The fact that it is user generated is the whole point; we are discussing a particular issue to do with user-generated scores. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

But the guidelines clearly state that its not acceptable to do this. Where also are these 83,000 reviews? Have you even looked at Rotten Tomatoes? The page clearly states "Add your rating", and "Add a Review (Optional)". Saying there are 83,000 reviews is factually incorrect. Esuka (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

You are absolutely right that it was factually incorrect, and I have edited the page to reflect that these are ratings, not reviews. AutumnKing (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The "audience response" section's existence does need more discussion in my opinion. This was brought up in an earlier discussion about overall critical response and was drowned out. It really needs its own thread. To recap, here were earlier comments:

First, is there even enough content here to justify an "audience response" section? I'm not sure we really need a dedicated section. While there was some coverage of the trolling that went on before the film's release, as well as RT's change in policy that resulted, I don't see why we can't condense all that into 2-3 sentences and lump it in at the end of the "critical response" section. Anything more than that feels like a violation of WP:DUE. We need to keep in mind that "audience response" statistics from sites like RT, MC, and IMDB are not generally permitted per MOS:FILM#Audience response. At The Last Jedi, it took an entire drafting session with multiple editors as well as an RfC to approve its inclusion there. It should be understood that coverage of the audience response needs to cross a particular threshold before we give it prominence on Wikipedia. In other words, that section should have probably been discussed before its creation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I stand by my earlier comments, and I see no evidence this was discussed before its inclusion. Considering there is a guideline that opposes its inclusion by default, we need a strong consensus here to justify this occurrence as an exception to the general rule. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The content that is included in the audience response section is critical commentary and discussion of the effect the response had on RT (which is noteworthy). You should not remove it because the MOS does not "generally permit" related content. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Critic summary

@KingNJB: I have searched the archives of this talk page and at no point was this issue already discussed at length. It is very clear that current line about the critical response does not meet the standards of MOS:INTRO, MOS:LEADREL, and WP:UNDUE. It is also objectively silly–"entertaining", "enjoyable", and "savvy"? Come on! I have provided an actual summary of the content in the article which is what the lead is for, so please discuss improvements that you think can be made to that wording rather than reverting to the non-compliant version. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

No offence to you, but I don't see how your opinion here (or mine for that matter) is valid and could be considered more important than those whose literal jobs are to write reviews for movies. Our job here is to report news as it was written and source verifiable pages when editing, not to completely ignore professional opinions or opinions from verifiable sources and just do whatever we want. Most, if not all Wikipedia pages for movies include a sourced review roundup in the top section of the movies into. Never been have I seen just one person's opinion being displayed as is. Furthermore, there is a talk section in the archive entitled "Review summary up top" wherein two people agreed that keeping the roundup the way it was was the best option and two separate people thanked me for reverting my edits. So to me it looks like I have the numbers and evidence on my side. --KingNJB (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my opinion (the summary I wrote is not what I think about the film), it has to do with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. We source content from the professionals in the body of the article, and then we summarise that section in the lead to give readers a quick idea of what it says. We should not be adding a completely new prodessional opinion to the lead that is not covered in the body and does not reflect what is there. Some articles may do that, but we should not copy them just 'cause. And that previous discussion did not go into any details about the actual issue, it is just two editors kind of giving their argument, an IP editor half supporting your position, and another couple editors making vague comments. As far as I can see, no one has provided any reasonable, policy-supported argument either way. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I think either approach can work for the first sentence you edited. Using a cited summary for the lead summary seems fair unless it is not representative. Do you not feel it was objective? Not sure how important the comparison is to other superhero movies. Your first sentence is basically ok as you described. But, I think editors will want to discuss the second sentence you edited. If you could link the review-bombing and how RT changed because of this film, I think that would be appropriate for the lead. It's only one poll, though, that was negative, no? So I would not word it like you did. Not an easy bit of work to fit it into one sentence. Alaney2k (talk) 04:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I mean I would not say it was because of Larson's feminism, that the review-bombing occurred, that is sort of backwards. It was alt-right or whatever. And since it was before the film came out, it was certainly not audience response. Alaney2k (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

"The film was review-bombed by those who objected to Brie Larson's politics. It led to a change in the methods of review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes." Alaney2k (talk) 04:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not that I don't think it is objective, I don't think it is representative of the actual section we have here in the article which is what the lead is supposed to be summarising. As for the second bit, the Larson stuff is just what the article says. Again, my opinion is irrelevant here. Either way, I stated when I made the change that I am happy to discuss better wording for this. I am just against adding information from a new source in the lead when we are supposed to be summarising the section that already exists. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

There was no "new source". The lead section has had the review roundup that is currently sourced for the past month. The review roundup in the article literally mentions nothing about the review bombing part which by the way has already been given due attention in other sections of this article. You keep saying it has nothing to do with your opinion yet not only did you write something in the lead that was unsourced, but it was also completely unreflective of what the actual review roundup said about the film. KingNJB (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I can see that you are not new to Wikipedia, so I'm not really sure why you don't know this, but in Wikipedia articles the lead section is a summary of the rest of the article. They don't need citations because they are just summarising content that is sourced in the body of the article (although citations can be included if something in the lead is repeatedly questioned). They generally should not introduce content that is not in the body, and they should give relative weight to each section of the body when summarising (usually around a sentence per section is a good starting point).

Now knowing this, you should be able to see clearly that what you are doing, regardless of how long it has been in the article, is not how leads work here. To be clear, you are providing new content in the lead that does not reflect the body of the article, and you are ignoring a whole section that should be reflected in the summary. My version summarises both sections as they are in the article (which is not my opinion as I went solely off the sections as they currently are and I had no hand in writing those, and it's also not unsourced since the content in the body is already cited).

I am not saying that my summary is the best one possible, but it is a much better start than the version you prefer. Suggestions have already been made to improve on my wording, and with a bit more input we should have something pretty good to go off. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Whatever is stated, the review bombing/response should not be apart of it per WP:WEIGHT.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Was this not the movie which made RT change its user reviews? Setting off a backlash itself. Alaney2k (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Dosen’t matter. Guidelines expressly advise against giving minority viewpoints positions of prominence.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

And if the viewpoint itself were the end of it, that would be reasonable. However, the point here is that this minority viewpoint caused people to take actions – the review bombing (or anticipation score bombing, if we want to be pedantic) – which in turn might be argued to have had further consequences – the changes to Rotten Tomatoes. That's a notable event which readers may come to this page specifically to find out about, which in my book weighs in favour of including the incident in the lede even if we don't dwell on the minority viewpoint itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryRarelyStable (talk • contribs) 03:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

If the concern is Rotten Tomatoes changing its site, then wouldn't it be more pertinent to the lead of the Rotten Tomatoes article. It seems this movie is doing just fine despite the hullabaloo and does not seem to be be defined by it, which is what the impression of placing it in the lead would give.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – Just so others are aware, the previous talk page discussion is at Talk:Captain Marvel (film)/Archive 2#Review summary up top, which from the looks of it, never reached any kind of consensus. Also, adamstom97 is correct that lead sections should be a summary of content that appears in the body of the article. If it's not in the body, then it shouldn't be in the lead. The review round-up source only assesses 5 reviews, and long before other reviews were released (the article is dated March 5th). I tend to agree that we should not be introducing this source and relying on its assessment in the lead. It's far too limited in scope. With that said, there are plenty of other concerns...
  First, is there even enough content here to justify an "audience response" section? I'm not sure we really need a dedicated section. While there was some coverage of the trolling that went on before the film's release, as well as RT's change in policy that resulted, I don't see why we can't condense all that into 2-3 sentences and lump it in at the end of the "critical response" section. Anything more than that feels like a violation of WP:DUE. We need to keep in mind that "audience response" statistics from sites like RT, MC, and IMDB are not generally permitted per MOS:FILM#Audience response. At The Last Jedi, it took an entire drafting session with multiple editors as well as an RfC to approve its inclusion there. It should be understood that coverage of the audience response needs to cross a particular threshold before we give it prominence on Wikipedia. In other words, that section should have probably been discussed before its creation. Furthermore, I disagree with the version of the lead that mentions the audience response/controversy. Professional critic response heavily outweighs unscientific audience polling, which has no place in the introductory paragraph. Putting it in the lead at Last Jedi was shot down numerous times.
  Going back to overall critic response, here are some other sources to consider:

"Captain Marvel received fairly positive reviews...but its critical reception hasn’t been as strong as some other high-grossing Disney-Marvel entries." – NY Times

"...reviews for the movie have been generally mixed...many of the reviews coded as “fresh” or “rotten” by the critic aggregation site have a bit more nuance." – Boston Globe

"with critics praising Brie Larson’s performance, but noting the convoluted plot and lack of originality" – Hindustan Times

"The early critical consensus seems to be that Captain Marvel is standard superhero movie fare, nowhere near as good as Black Panther or Thor: Ragnarok, but pleasing to anyone looking to see a (female!) superhero kick serious butt." – FanSided

The overall reception was "fairly positive" with plenty of criticism surrounding plot elements, pacing, and originality. Many reviewers said that while they liked it overall, they didn't love it. If we're going to summarize in the lead, it needs to be more balanced for sure. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I think people should not confuse 'should' with 'must' when they read the MOS. However, The Independent-based sentence is not consistent with the critical response section. Alaney2k (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The uphill battle, or onus to attain consensus, is on the editor(s) who wish to include audience response statistics, not the other way around. While guidelines are not policies, they hold a strong consensus. Only a strong local consensus would override that. Call it "should", "must", or whatever you'd like. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

How's this? RT's round up states: "The reviews say Captain Marvel doesn’t break any particularly new ground for an origin story and feels like a decidedly mid-tier Marvel effort, but it boasts plenty of action, breezy humor, and an easy chemistry between its leads, all while carrying the significant weight of lofty expectations on its shoulders. It may not crack the upper echelon of the studio’s offerings, but it’s an entertaining standalone film that makes the most of the Marvel formula. So we could something to the effect of The film received praise for its action, humor, and chemistry between the starring actors but was criticized for its lack of originality.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that is a good example of how to summarise something Triiiple, but I still don't think it reflects the actual critical response section that is in the article at the moment, and that is what the lead needs to be summarising. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, it's been a few days now so I would like to get some momentum going here to finish this up. As far as I can tell, there is a general feeling that we can improve the reception summary in the lead and that the audience response stuff should not be included. To help us come up with the better wording, that still represents what the article currently says, I have provided a run down of what we are summarising below (positives and negatives, with number of critics holding that view in parentheses):

• + Larson and Danvers (6)
• + Other cast and characters (2)
• + Directors (2)
• - Unimaginative/bland (1)
• - Just another Marvel movie (1)
• - Message conveyed better by casting than the film (2)
• - Old fashioned superhero movie (1)

Basically, our summary should come from these in some way. How about something like The film received praise for Larson's performance and the direction of Boden and Fleck, but some compared it unfavorably to other Marvel films. Just a suggestion to start us off. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

For the paragraph in the lede, there's probably no need to include negative comments, because there's a strong majority for the positive reviews. 78.33.33.241 (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

RT is only 78%, MC is 64, and there are plenty of negatives mentioned throughout the section as I have laid out above. We need to reflect this in the summary, not see that there is more positive than negative and just ignore the latter. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

We're talkin about a single sentence summary in the lede. It doesn't need to encompass what every critic said, just the overall view. 78.33.33.241 (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Cpotisch went ahead and made a change to this (presumably without seeing this discussion). Does anyone want to make any changes to their version based on my breakdown above? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@adamstom97 Apologies, as I didn't realize this was already being discussed here. My main reason for rephrasing the summary is that as far as I can tell, Captain Marvel was the only notable film article on Wikipedia where the critical summary in the lead is primarily made up of those sort of quotes. In all other articles, the summary is something in the format of:

"[Blank] received [moderately/mostly/generally] [positive/negative] reviews, with praise going toward the [blank], but criticism going toward the [blank].”

I think vague terms such as "savvy", "entertaining", or "enjoyable" are neither encyclopedic nor helpful in summarizing the critical consensus.Cpotisch (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The current wording is "The film received mostly positive reviews, with particular praise toward Larson’s performance." That works fine, I would support it. 78.33.33.241 (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency, I went ahead and made these changes, which takes into account some of the concerns brought up in this discussion and adds the necessary backing/support in the critical reception section. Here's what the lead says now:

"The overall reception was positive, with critics praising Larson’s performance, but it was received less favorably than other Marvel films for its pacing and lack of originality."

I think it's an improvement over what was there, and if further changes are needed, I'm open to them. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, TriiipleThreat believes this wasn't an improvement and has reverted to a version that he/she believes is the "standing consensus". The problem is that the standing consensus is actually this version: diff. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

As I stated eariler in this thread, I agree a more balanced summary is needed but per long standing consensus across MCU topics we do not include phrases like "The film received mostly positive reviews". Such phrases are highly prone to edit wars with people fighting over the modifiers like "mostly", "generally", "fairly", "mixed to positive", etc. Also its a bit of OR as there is no definitive source or sources on the subject.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The idea that we can't say "positive" is not the local consensus in this article, and if it is, please point me to the discussion. I've been very active on film articles and at WT:FILM, so let's stop pretending that there's some kind of unspoken consensus on summary statements. Editors are split on this, and if we are citing sources that use it, then it's perfectly acceptable. Furthermore, you are ignoring a big point I brought up. If you are going to invoke WP:STATUSQUO, then you better be reverting to this version of the lead if that's how you want to play it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

And for clarity, I didn't use the phrase "mostly positive". I'm against "mostly" as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

My mistake that was Cpotisch, not you. Very well, if we want to go back to previous version so be it, I was trying to preserve some of what you created. Like I said, I agree with you in part. Also it should also be noted but I see no comments regarding the film's "pacing" in the cited sources. And for the record since I haven't posted in this discussion in an while, I'm also okay with Adamstom.97's suggestion The film received praise for Larson's performance and the direction of Boden and Fleck, but some compared it unfavorably to other Marvel films.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I think adamstom97's proposal earlier was a good start, but this latest proposal was an evolution of that. If we're going to summarize reception in the lead, then first and foremost, readers need to be made aware that the overall reception was positive. Then we can go on about what was praised and what was criticized. Since you are dropping your initial opposition to the change (and taking into consideration a point brought up by Pyxis Solitary below), I've restored it for now. Let's tweak it from here if needed instead of working backwards. "Pacing" by the way is in reference to "convoluted plot". A complex plot has bad pacing, so it's another way to describe it without plagiarizing the source. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, there is no definitive source or sources for this type of characterization. NYT, and the Hindustan Times say some things and other reliable sources (like Nerdist, and Gamespot for example) say other things. Just present what was actually said and readers can form their own opinion from there. Also plotting and pacing are not the same thing. Plotting has to do with writing, while pacing has more to do with editing. There are other ways to state this without plagiarizing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the most definitive aggregate sources we have are RT and MC, both of which have concluded the overall reception was positive. We gather that from MC's "generally favorable" summary and RT's "certified fresh" rating. So the positive statement is well-supported. For the praises and criticisms, we can look at the other sources like NYT, Hindustan Times, or others that are assessing overall reception (the problem with the Nerdist and GameSpot examples is the limited number of reviews they're looking at, and neither is cited in the article). If you'd like to replace "pacing" with something else that doesn't plagiarize, go right ahead. "Plotting" grates harshly on the ears and seems vague. I'd opt for a better choice of phrasing there. We may also need to consider a replacement for "lack of originality" to avoid quoting Hindustan Times. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's another suggestion: "Although reception was positive, it was less favorable than other Marvel films, with critics praising Larson’s performance but finding elements of the story unsatisfactory."

I realize "elements of the story" is a bit vague as well, but it may solve more problems than it creates. Plus restructuring the sentence as a whole may provide more clarity. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I still prefer something like what Adam wrote maybe combine the two:

The film received praise for Larson's performance and the direction of Boden and Fleck, but some compared it unfavorably to other Marvel films, finding elements of the story to be uninspired.

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The NY Times specifically states, "its critical reception hasn’t been as strong as some other high-grossing Disney-Marvel entries". This isn't the same thing as claiming, "some compared it unfavorably to other Marvel films". The two phrases "less favorable" and "unfavorable" are not synonymous. Also, the quantifier "some" is a bit weaselly and should be avoided when possible. Remember, we are already talking about overall reception here, so quantification isn't necessary. I'll reiterate that "positive" (or a similar phrase such as "generally favorable") needs to be a part of any summary statement if we're going to have one in the lead. Several examples of where this can be seen: Man of Steel, Terminator Genisys, and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Fine, change “unfavorably” to “less favorable”. To the second point: obviously there are many other articles that do not include such phrasing so to say that it needs to be a part of any summary is disingenuous.The film received praise for Larson's performance and the direction of Boden and Fleck, but was compared less favorably to other Marvel films with critics finding elements of the story to be uninspired.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't notice this discussion when I posted my comment below about the wording in the lead. (My mind automatically skips long debates, so I apologize if what I stated was already discussed.) I'm only interested in pointing out that the guideline against plagiarism is black-and-white. There are no grey areas in Wikipedia when it comes to editors committing copyright violations. If the lead, or any other section of the article, is going to include wordage taken from secondary and primary sources it must be distinguished with quotation marks plus originating source ... or either (a) rewritten as an original composition, or (b) deleted entirely. Pyxis Solitary yak 02:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

"...obviously there are many other articles that do not include such phrasing..."

The examples I gave were for reference only, showing how this can be achieved effectively. They weren't provided to justify "positive" (as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument here). The inclusion of "positive" is warranted on an entirely different merit, as explained earlier regarding RT and MC summaries. In situations where the reception was neither positive or negative, I would agree that including "mixed" is unnecessary. But when it's clearly one or the other, then neglecting positive/negative or favorable/unfavorable is a disservice to readers. They shouldn't need to scroll to the reception section to find out one of the most important pieces of information surrounding critical reception, especially when it could have been presented front and center in 1-2 words. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

If you set aside content for a minute and examine grammar in some of the proposals, you'll find issues. For example, "direction of Boden and Fleck" is an awkward choice of phrasing. The structure of "was compared less favorably to other Marvel films" seems a bit clunky. And finally, "uninspired" is the wrong tense here. I don't think we're as far apart as you're making it out to be, but here's where I'm at:

Although it was less favorable than other recent MCU films, overall reception was positive, with critics praising Larson’s performance but finding elements of the story uninspirational.

This is my attempt to address the grammatical issues. Also notice I dropped "Boden and Fleck" altogether. The sources that analyze/aggregate overall critical reception do not conclude that critics praised Boden and Fleck. Some reviews clearly did, but the aggregators did not. Larson's performance was a commonly-praised aspect, however, so I retained that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that by 'uninspired' they actually mean 'unoriginal'. El Millo (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Is that the only part you'd change? If so, that means we're close. We could easily change "uninspirational" to overly complex and unoriginal, another way of rephrasing "convoluted plot and lack of originality". --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I see that a decision on this has still not been made. I think many of the suggestions given here since I last commented were good. I would support this addition: The film received praise for Larson's performance and the direction of Boden and Fleck, but was compared less favorably to other Marvel films with critics finding elements of the story to be uninspired. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

So then do you disagree with the grammatical issues I brought up two posts ago? I suppose I can live with uninspired, but I don't think "the direction of Boden and Fleck" should remain. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with the use of "uninspired" as the way it is being used is its literal definition (a quick google supports this). As for "the direction of Boden and Fleck", we need to have more positives or it sounds like the overall response was negative, but it doesn't have to be that exactly if you have a better suggestion that is supported by the current reception section. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Summarizing our critical reception section as though it is a summary of all critics is a problem. Remember, the examples in the article are chosen at random and are not necessarily the most prominent. We cannot assume they are an adequate representation of the 400+ reviews that exist. We have sources that do that for us (RT, MC, NYT, HT, etc.), and Boden and Fleck's choice of direction was not mentioned/praised in the assessment performed by those sources (only RT and HT have summary statements we can look at). I understand the desire to balance, but that doesn't override the greater concern of adhering to verifiability. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"was compared less favorably to other Marvel films" suggests that the critical response for the other Marvel films was more favorable. However, The Hulk (2003) rates 62%, The Incredible Hulk (2008) is at 67%, Thor: The Dark World (2013) is 66%, Spider-Man 3 (2007) hangs at 63%, and Iron Man 2 (2010) is at 73% on Rotten Tomatoes. And if you pick one and read what some critics had to say about it ... Tim Robey @ The Telegraph said about IM2: "there’s a near-complete visual disconnect between our flying tin man and Robert Downey Jr ... more can be less, too. Not so much a case of too many cooks as too many new ingredients." Deborah Ross of The Spectator wrote "If there were any new ideas, I failed to spot them, as did my bone marrow, which slept through most of it anyhow." Tom Charity @ CNN said "The whiz-bang stuff here -- while never less than slick -- doesn't produce anything we haven't seen before." All this is just to remind us that in the eyes of many critics, other Marvel movies have sucked. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point. We don't want to imply all Marvel films. In my last suggestion, I had actually inserted recent: "...less favorable than other recent MCU films". Also by specifying MCU, we eliminate 2003's Hulk and the Sony-Marvel films such as Spider-Man 3. The source actually states, "...hasn’t been as strong as some other high-grossing Disney-Marvel entries", so perhaps there's still a better way to rephrase what we're saying. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: Summarizing our critical reception section as though it is a summary of all critics is a problem. Then you need to take that problem up with Wikipedia's MOS, specifically MOS:LEADREL. The lead needs to accurately reflect the body of the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There's no need to. WP:V and WP:NOR trump the MOS, every time. A summary statement about overall criticism is required to represent the consensus of reviews from reliable sources, so that means all 400+ aggregated reviews that RT and MC have taken into account. You can't only summarize a hand-picked bunch that just so happen to be in the article; that is a form of WP:SYNTHESIS, since those reviews are speaking on behalf of only the reviewer that wrote them. I think you know full well that this has been discussed many times at WT:FILM, and if we were to begin a new discussion there, the consensus would be to remove the summary statement from the lead altogether if editors cannot properly attribute the claims being made or agree on phrasing. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems we’re close. To Pyxis’ point about “compared less favorably”, to Gonein60’s point about Boden & Fleck, and to Adam’s point about balance, I suggest: The film received praise for Larson's performance, but critics found elements of the story to be uninspired.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this is balanced and satisfies all concerns brought up in this thread: "Overall reception was generally positive, with critics praising Larson’s performance but finding elements of the story uninspired". The other proposal doesn't tell the reader anything about overall reception. They could read that and think critics were mixed. This one adds needed clarification that reviews trended positive. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It doesn’t need to. Besides while RT’s pass/fail score was overall positive it’s average score was decidedly more mixed. I stand by my earlier comments on this matter and I cannot support this with that phrase included. Let’s see what others have to say about The film received praise for Larson's performance, but critics found elements of the story to be uninspired.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Every review is mixed to some extent, so that's irrelevant. What is relevant are the overall assessments from RT and MC, which are "certified fresh" and "generally favorable" respectively. Also, we have a source that says the overall reception is "fairly positive". So we have the main two aggregators in agreement, and we have a 3rd-party in agreement as well. It is baffling to me that you still think this isn't supported. By the way, "generally positive" is a gentle way of saying more positive than negative, which is a fact. It's not like we're saying "overwhelmingly positive" or "mostly positive". A lot of compromise was needed to reach this point. It would be a shame if it ended at this juncture. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

We haven’t needed it 22 other closely related film articles, including ones with way more positive reviews than this one. I see no reason that this article should be any different. Yes, it would be a shame. So let’s just include the parts that we can all agree to, which is what I suggested.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The argument that something shouldn't be considered or implemented on the basis that it hasn't been done before is a weak argument. It's your opinion, of course, but the point you're making about trends in other articles doesn't add any real weight here. Try to avoid making WP:OSE claims and instead focus on the information in this thread. Taking new ideas and circumstances under consideration is at the root of policies like WP:CCC. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I decided to take a peek at other MCU articles, and it turns out your OSE claim is actually invalid. At the time of this writing, the following articles all include an overall reception statement (i.e. mixed, positive, etc.):

Thor: The Dark World – "The film received mixed reviews from critics..."

Avengers: Age of Ultron – "The film received generally positive reviews from critics..."

Iron Man 2 – "The film received generally positive reviews..."

Iron Man 3 – "...while reception to its plot twist was mixed"

That's embarassing, Triiiple. I thought you were pretty certain. Funny thing is...I didn't even check them all! There could be more. Looks like we do have some precedence after all, although I still maintain that arguing along those lines is a weak approach. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Embarrassing? This isn't personal. Besides one was a recent change and another isn't discussing overall perception. I never said we cannot discuss positive and negative aspects of the film, in fact I've saying the opposite. There is enough information currently in the article for readers to draw their own conclusion without us having to spoon feed it to them. The problem is as I've saying that is that there is no definitive source on the matter. We should not cherry pick sources to our liking. There are other reliable opinions out there including the Los Angeles Times, New York Magazine, Entertainment Weekly, Boston.com, etc. Even RT is more mixed when start diving into it. I've suggested a compromise that I think should work to everyone's liking. Accept it, leave it or wait for others, I grow tired of circular arguments.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"...one was a recent change and another isn't discussing overall perception"

One was a recent change, sure, but that's an example of another editor's desire to include it. The other example you're discounting is about overall perception of the plot twist. Why is that handled differently than overall perception of the film (one is allowed, but the other isn't)? Seems like a double-standard if you're defending it. Don't forget, I only checked a portion of the MCU films. After looking at another one, I found this in the editing history: diff. So it looks like The Avengers had it too at one point, and what's even more striking here, is that you supported leaving it in. You modified another editor's addition and left in, "The film received positive reviews". That seems to counter your stance in this discussion, and that was from just two weeks ago!

"...readers to draw their own conclusion without us having to spoon feed it to them"

Why have a summary statement then? You are spoon-feeding that as well. I don't buy it.

"...there is no definitive source on the matter. We should not cherry pick sources to our liking."

You complain of circular arguments, yet you've repeated this "definitive sources" challenge several times now ignoring the responses you've been given. So I'm going to give this to you again. RT and MC are definitive sources. If they weren't, then they wouldn't be in every critical response section of every film article. We also wouldn't have summary statements in other articles that are primarily based on RT and MC, ever. Yet, consensus established at other articles have allowed it time and time again. As for cherry-picking, that's exactly what you're doing here. RT and MC stand out above the rest, and both indicate "positive" results. The problem with the examples you've listed above, is that they only take a handful of reviews into account. The NYT source I provided evaluates RT's assessment. Here are others that do the same thing: MovieWeb, CinemaBlend, Entertainment Weekly, SlashFilm, Newsweek. These sources are looking at RT's assessment (and MC's in some cases) and interpreting it as "positive" for us. Notice my EW source contradicts your EW source, and they're by the same author! The difference here is that mine is from a later date.

Here's the kicker, the main head-scratcher you've pitched... You were originally fine with "compared it unfavorably to other Marvel films", but where did this piece of information come from? It came from the NYT source, the same source that says reception was "fairly positive"! So you're actually cherry-picking what information we're allowed to glean from within a particular source. It is OK apparently to believe NYT's assertion about how unfavorable it is compared to other MCU films, but it's not OK to believe their assessment that overall reception was positive? This kind of hypocritical nonsense is what drags out discussions like this.

"I've suggested a compromise..."

Yes, that's been happening on multiple fronts. Others have made suggestions as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't forget, I only checked a portion of the MCU films I don’t buy it, you’re obviously diving way deep into this. Also my reversion of one edit, doesn’t mean I’m in support of another.Why have a summary statement then? No one is suggesting to throw the baby out with bath water, we can still provide information. RT and MC are definitive sources. They are not. They’re reliable sources whose opinions are highly regarded but they are not end-all-be-all. Their are other reliable sources with their own takes, some of which are even more reliable from a journalistic standpoint. Why bother including other articles like NYT or the Hindustan Times then. As for my earlier examples, they’ve included a sample of quotes. It does not mean that those are the only sources that they’ve looked at. Those are just the only sources that they’ve included. This kind of hypocritical nonsense is what drags out discussions like this. I never said NYT wasn’t reliable and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE not everything stated in the article can or should be included. What we can’t do is choose information that only leans in one direction.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

One of the reasons for diving deeper in the first place has to with an unfounded claim of yours that 22 closely-related films weren't using summary phrases like "generally positive". Yet, there are. And if you weren't busy challenging/removing other editors' attempts to add them, there would likely be more examples. I'm beginning to wonder why you're even going through the trouble of picking apart RT, MC, and other sources. It's not like you'd want "generally positive" in the lead even if you believed the phrase was verifiable.

Going back to RT and MC for a moment... These are definitive in the sense that when it comes to review aggregation, RT and MC are the major players in the game. They are cited the most by reliable sources in terms of gauging how a particular film was received. Sure, we encourage the use of other reliable sources, such as magazines and books, to complement them when providing summary statements, but that doesn't diminish RT's and MC's importance to overall assessment. In this situation, RT cites a 78% approval rating. In other words, roughly 360 out of 460 reviews were more positive than mixed or negative. They've also assigned their "Certified Fresh" rating, which is defined as "a special distinction awarded to the best-reviewed movies". It is clear that in their view, they believe this is a positively-received film. MC actually states "generally favorable" in their summary, so there should be no question about their conclusion. The 3rd-party sources I provided also look at these aggregator sites and interpret their findings for us, which were consistently identified as positive.

Now let's look at the examples you've provided. The LA Times source is a tweet dated March 5, several days before the film's release. You're talking about a small sample of reviews available at that moment in time. The sampling available to Boston Globe's Kevin Slane wasn't much better, as his article was published only a day later. As for the New York Magazine source, here's a quote, "Captain Marvel also overcame mixed reviews from legitimate critics". This is saying there were mixed reviews from legitimate critics, not necessarily that critics in general had mixed opinions. We have to be careful how the intended meaning is inferred here. And finally, the EW source contradicted itself days later as pointed out above.

Considering this breakdown of the sources, I'm not sure how anyone could walk away believing that the overall reception was anything but positive, or at least more positive than it was mixed or negative. I know you won't agree, Triiiple, but this is intended for others that make it this far and/or decide to weigh in (god help them). --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the "entertaining", "enjoyable" and "savvy" statement

Apparently we're having problems deciding on a good replacement, but can we all at least agree that the existing statement in the lead is a disservice to the quality of the article? I propose we remove it for now, as having no summary statement is a better alternative to having this one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Replace it with something banal, like "The movie received mostly positive reviews and the acting of Larson, Jackson and Mendelsohn was reviewed favorably." Alaney2k (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

As you can see, your edit was reverted by TriiipleThreat, who is apparently locked into protecting a bad summary statement while the discussion above commences. I, however, think we should remove the statement altogether until a consensus above is reached. Having nothing in the lead is better than what we have now. Anyone else agree? --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I’m fine with removing it all together, but the placeholder cannot contain parts that are contentious or contain original research.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Let's get at least one more editor to agree before we do so. Alaney2k, what say you? --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

What was contentious? I tried to make it as bland as possible??? Alaney2k (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of the reasons behind the revert, finding a suitable placeholder will just lead to another lengthy discussion. One is enough! Do you agree that removing the statement altogether is better than leaving it as is? --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

No. I think there should be something. You guys can prattle on ... :-) Alaney2k (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

This whole discussion has become a bit of a silly mess. I support Triiiple's suggestion of The film received praise for Larson's performance, but critics found elements of the story to be uninspired. That gives a good overview of our section and the overall critical response, but also lets the content speak for itself. It also removes the stupid summary that is currently in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that the critical reception has been strong enough that there's no need to over-emphasize the negative minority. If the RT rating was in the 60-70% zone then there would be a good argument for the wording to the effect of "It was praised for [good points] but [bad points] was criticized." A good example of wording is RT's own consensus, which on the surface doesn't mention any negative comments, but mentions "Marvel formula", a subtle note that even some critics who liked it thought it was a bit formulaic. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

"I would argue that the critical reception has been strong enough that there's no need to over-emphasize the negative minority"

Yes, I completely agree. Thank you for weighing in. This was the general gist of my view above. Triiiple's proposed statement gives equal weight to the positive and negative aspects. But that is misleading, because we know from aggregate sources that the positive outweighs the negative. "Overall reception was generally positive" needs to be in the statement if we're going to have it in the lead, because readers can't immediately look in the next sentence or two to see what aggregate sources are saying. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

A very good point that's easily lost on many. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The majority of critics have not found "elements of the story to be uninspired". The reviews provided by Rotten Tomatoes are mostly positive. Facts are shaded when a generalized statement is based on selected reviews that fit the desired narrative. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

That was taken from the the Hindustan Times article which states, The embargo has lifted on reviews for Captain Marvel, with critics praising Brie Larson’s performance, but noting the convoluted plot and lack of originality. It should be that this article is only summarizing the "first reviews" and may not be representative of later reviews. So how's this? The film received praise for the performances of the cast, particularly that of Larson. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

A generalized statement that parrots comments from a source is not a good idea (WP:PARAPHRASE). I think the new, succint phrasing would be best. About the Hindustan Times article: it was published on 6 March 2019. Pyxis Solitary yak 15:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Highest-grossing superhero film

CM reached the ninth position worldwide at the box office before being surpassed by Endgame. The lead currently states 10th. Should this be updated (11th...12th...etc.) perpetually or should the highest achieved ranking be stated here (plus 24th WW overall)? SassyCollins (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

It should be kept at ninth to give historical context. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I concur. The film attained the rank while competing with other films during the pre-Endgame period of time.
CM became the ninth-highest-grossing film, and remained in 9th place, until the release of Avengers: Endgame. Pyxis Solitary yak 14:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC) ; edited 11:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Deleted scene backlash

Somebody should write a controversy section and include the deleted scene where Captain Marvel threatens and robs a man who offered her help. That scene has been de-platformed worldwide due to the negative response for encouraging violence against men. We can include this together with other controversies like the Rotten Tomatoes debacle as well. Of course, it will be difficult to cite this video, since it's no longer available online. 98.248.88.165 (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Notable controversy and backlash, if it exists, would be indicated by coverage in independent reliable sources. Do you have sources for this? - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, my mistake. The deleted scene itself was not removed, but rather the videos from social media users criticizing the scene were removed. The scene itself can still be found online, along with the expected criticism and dislikes.[1][2] 98.248.88.165 (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there prominent coverage in reliable sources? Talk forums and social media posts do not qualify. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0 and GoneIn60: Please don't feed the trolls. In the future, if an IP shows up on this page and says the film is "controversial" for "encouraging violence against men", just blank their comments. As a man, I personally find the claim that a scene in which a hero uses violence against someone who is sexually harassing her is "encouraging violence against men" incredibly offensive, since it equates "men" with sexual harassers, but my opinion isn't really important. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree this should be collapsed, and I disagree this is obvious trolling. It can be interpreted as such, but that's just an opinion. We give editors a chance to provide reliable sources to back up their claims. This discussion didn't drag out into some page-long, distracting rant, and I find it rather odd that a DFTT warning was added almost 2 months after the last reply. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: Not a warning so much as a request. I was expecting this page to be GA nominated sometime in July (see my previous edit summary) and came here to check what was up. I was a little surprised to see the most recent talk section had been opened two months ago, and when I read that section it seemed clear to me that the OP was part of the same sexist troll band that had been bashing this movie since months before it was released, but I couldn't blank the section because other established Wikipedians had replied, essentially humouring him, so I figured collapsing was the best solution. And FWIW, User:VeryRarelyStable appears to agree. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but since the discussion lasted less than 2 days and died, these actions seem somewhat unnecessary. Collapsing is usually a tool to discourage an active off-topic discussion from continuing. We're already taking up more space in the last hour than the previous discussion did in 2 months. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2019

According to Box Office Mojo, The Lion King passed Captain Marvel's $1.128 with $1.196 at the Box Office. CJMinor620 (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done El Millo (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)