Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2019

Max Favreau playing young Peter Parker should be under the Phase 1 column rather than Phase 2 as he appeared in Iron Man 2, which is a Phase 1 movie. Additoinally, I haven't seen a source that confirms Paul Bettany will appear in a Phase 4 film, and it appears those appearing in the Disney+ shows are not being included in the Phase 4 column. And, the citation 146 for Paul Bettany does not refer to him anywhere in the article. Feldssa95 (talk) 03:38, 06 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Brojam (talk) 06:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image

There is an Infinity Saga box set comming out soon, should we change the infobox image to that instead of just the Marvel Studios logo? Using the company logo seems odd to me. It doesn't really give much context of the films content.★Trekker (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: "The Infinity Saga"

So this is definitely a thing now, its own thing. I think it's very appropriate to give this "Infinity Saga", which is now explicitly separate from the upcoming phase 4, its own separate article and condense the sections about Phases 1,2, and 3 into the "Saga" article. The Saga even has its own poster/logo now, and it wouldn't really be appropriate to use its image to give characterization to further Marvel films that are NOT in the Saga. Thoughts? District9123 (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The phases are the main way that Marvel has divided the films, and having pages on each phase is much more manageable than one big Infinity Saga page as that would just be what we had before the phases were split off (which was getting way too big). There is also nothing wrong with including the Infinity Saga logo or box set image in this article and stating that it only applies to the first three phases. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. - Brojam (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I would agree as well.★Trekker (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

New Box Office Mojo

BOM has a new look, to say the least. Apparently it now only shows the top 200 films, domestically as well as internationally. It would seem one would have to become some kind of a member of IMDb to access more information (ie rankings and such). Does anybody have more info on this change, and how one would now go about updating rankings of the MCU box office sections, as of today? I would greatly appreciate any intel on this! Cheers! SassyCollins (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@SassyCollins: All I saw about this, was this article from Variety. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Thank you muchly! Any thoughts on what this means for updating the MCU pages (or any other film articles, for that matter)? I'm at a loss. I really enjoy updating the figures and rankings but am not willing to fork up 20 bucks a month to do so! (Also, I haven't the foggiest if those 20 dollars would even give me access beyond the 200 films now accessible). SassyCollins (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't, but you definitely shouldn't pay for a service for the sake of Wikipedia. It might be good to bring this up on at the film project if it hasn't already been. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Accessibility violations on a FL article

Just a note, that this FL has some WP:ACCESSIBILITY violations in the List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Films table. Rowspanned cells should not be created in the middle of the table. The "producers" and "status" are currently not following this. I'd fix this myself, but as I've just been reverted on a draft article, I'd assume this would happen here as well. I'll note that the "Phase #" columns in the middle of the table are also not supported per the same guideline. --Gonnym (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Which guideline are you referring to? WP:ACCESSIBILITY doesn't mention rowspan. Based on [1] you are apparently referring to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility/Archive 6#Row spans in tables. It's a talk page, it was archived with no apparent action, and it wasn't a talk page of the guideline you linked, or any guideline. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing anything about rowspan violating accessibility actual at WP:ACCESSIBILITY. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

This is poorly documented so I'll explain and provide links. In Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Summary there is a breif mention of the accessability problems rowspan cells cause. Furthur explanations can be found on the talk page (short one and very long discussion). At User:RexxS/Accessibility, User:RexxS explains and gives an example of what happens when a user who uses screen-readers encounters such a table - the spanned cells don't get read, so they get only partial information. What for us is obvious, for them becomes unclear. Note that the accessibility issues are all based on WMF Non-discrimination policy which is a global policy. The columns in the middle of the table are addressed here. --Gonnym (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The Infinity Saga bolding

At least two people have disagreed with Adamstom.97 so far that "The Infinity Saga" should not be in bold. I don't see why it should be, there are tons of redirects to this page and the Infinity Saga is not covered in any kind of detail at all. The fact that the main subject of the article "list of MCU films" is not in bold while "The Infinity Saga" is is just distracting and confusing. The Infinity Saga link redirects to a section bellow the main lead, so how is it helpful to anyone that "The Infinity Saga" is in bold? Wikipedia guidelines are supposed to be helpful not just followed to be followed for the sake of it.★Trekker (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@*Treker and Adamstom.97: Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Article_title_terms at MOS:BOLD: The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the title word/phrase of the article in the lead section. This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not. Reading that, yes the bold can be in the lead, but it doesn't have to be. But because we have a MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD situation where the article title proper isn't bolded in the lead, I think we should avoid the bolding of Infinity Saga. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that if we are not going to bold "Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films" then "The Infinity Saga" should not be bold per Favre's points. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Well if I'm reading content above correctly, does the whether the term appears in the lead or not part mean we could bold it in the section? So in the Infinity Saga subsection, we could do "The films from Phase One through Phase Three are collectively known as "The Infinity Saga"."? If I am reading that that way, I say we do that, bold it in the section, not the lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd be fine with doing that as long as that's what is implied by the statement. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that bolding it in the section instead would seem to also follow the MOS. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

They give no examples, so I have no idea if that is the intended meaning or not. I'd support doing it as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2019

In the chart titled "Marvel Studios: The First 10 Years timeline from November 2018" Please update it, add Captain Marvel movie to 1990 timeline and Avengers: Endgame to 2018-2023 timeline. Vansh9 (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - it's based on a sourcebook released by Marvel a few years back. So, it doesn't cover everything but we also can't add any recent stuff because they're not part of the source. Hopefully, they'll release something new soon. Starforce¹³ 03:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Once we get more confirmation...

what do we do about Morbius? Assuming Keaton is reprising his role as Toomes (since the trailer never explicitly confirms this), are they the same character? Would we even mention Morbius here, or is it something we should relegate to the Homecoming/Far From Home articles because it really is only related to the Spidey films? Hopefully some person involved in the film will give an answer, but knowing Sony, we'll get the answer 2 different ways that contradict each other. This Sony/Marvel deal is so complicated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Unlikely but if it really turns out that Sony's Universe references MCU or our Spider-Man jumps to the Sony universe (like Feige alluded), we could add a small section here for related / adjacent universes. If we had an MCU Spider-Man article, that's where they'd go but so far this article is probably the central place for things covering multiple films and phases. The section could potentially apply to the first two Deadpool films since Feige might not want films not produced by Marvel Studios to be MCU canon. That said, it's hard to imagine that Disney would let Sony capitalize on the success of MCU or do anything that could potentially dilute MCU imprint. That's why I'm thinking this is more of a marketing tactic by Sony to make it look like they're connected. Starforce¹³ 01:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Simply, if the film is not branded as a MCU film, it’s not a MCU film. If not we’ll be headed into the Munch Universe territory.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, if it turns out to be connected, at least a mention should be there. El Millo (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Right, but (devil's advocate here) what if its more than just a character showing up elsewhere a ala Munch, but plot lines (and this is all from the trailer) like Mysterio outing Spider-Man, and Vulture in prison planning his revenge. I think some sort of mention to that is needed, and maybe that's just at the Homecoming article, with the Spider-Man: Homecoming#Sequels section changed to "Future" similar to Iron Man 3#Future? We're still like 6 months from Moribus coming out, but just wanted to get some initial thoughts out there so when it comes, we all have an idea of what should happen, for what ever actually is the case. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

If that's the case, then it should have more presence, a section of adjacent films like Starforce said. El Millo (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks likely that Sony's other movies can reference the Spider-Man films, and the Spider-Man films may eventually reference those other films, but per Feige's wording after the new deal was announced he is still considering the two things as separate. Perhaps a section mentioning the references will be appropriate once we have more info, but we shouldn't rush into this and we shouldn't put an MCU label on anything that Marvel Studios isn't explicitly referring to as an MCU film. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, we could probably get a head start on this by creating a section that gives a summary of the Sony-Marvel Studios deals to help explain the inclusion of the Spider-Man films, and then when we get more info on these references they can be added there. Thoughts? - adamstom97 (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm all for crafting a section now to see what something can look like, but in a userspace to get it to something we think can work (as of today) and then consider if we want to implement it or keep it on the back burner. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2020

I want to edit the "box office performance" and "critical and public response" sections to a more simple form. Joan Vicens (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Simpler? How so? Crboyer (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

An edit request doesn't give you permission to edit a page. It's only for suggesting an edit somebody else can perform. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

X-Men

Just curious: Not complaining, but Why aren't the X-Men considered to be part of the MCU? — Ched (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• and yea - I know we have: List of films based on Marvel Comics publications ... just curious about the MCU designation. I'm guessing it involves who was doing the production and distribution end of things? — Ched (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

MCU is for movies produced by Marvel Studios (Disney) that are connected and share the same continuity... and characters from one movie can appear in the other. X-Men movies were produced by Fox and weren't allowed to share characters or storylines with the MCU movies. So, they were their own thing. But now Disney bought them back. So, future X-Men movies will be in the MCU. Starforce¹³ 01:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Marvel Studios created the Marvel Cinematic Universe and define what's part of it. We will follow them as long as they don't make outrageous proclamations like retroactively saying that past X-Men or Fantastic Four films are in the MCU (they haven't done that and aren't saying it about The New Mutants (film) in April). If they did do something outrageous then I suppose we would see whether independent reliable sources followed it. There is no law that MCU films must be produced by Marvel Studios. If they didn't produce the next Spider-Man film but still said it was in the MCU then so would we, at least if it shares continuity. But with multiverses, continuity may not be a clear concept. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I began reading comic books (admittedly mostly DC) in the early 60s, so I've learned that continuity can be somewhat arbitrary. :) Thanks folks. (BTW - any of you good folk happen to be Legion of Super-Heroes fans?) — Ched (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Ordinals in leads

Felt this was the most central location to ask this. Would anyone be opposed to swapping over to ordinals from Guardians of the Galaxy onwards in the lead to note which number film they are? So Iron Man to Avengers would still say "it is the first/second/third/fourth/fifth/sixth/seventh/eighth/ninth film in the MCU", but then with Guardians we would switch to "10th/11th/12th, etc." I was just adding it in to Black Panther II, which currently stands as the thirtieth film, and just in writing that I felt an ordinal would be better. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it definitely makes sense at this point. I'm not too fussed about writing out 1 through 19, but definitely 20 and above would be less cumbersome as ordinals. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I've always wanted to bring this up because it would make it much easier, while still saying the same thing. — Starforce¹³ 02:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I too agree with this. It would be a much easier way to list their order off, especially as it's getting into the later 20s and 30s now, it just becomes excessive, so yes. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

So... starting from Ant-Man and the Wasp? El Millo (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Well per MOS:NUMERAL, only 1-9 should be written out as words, hence why I wanted to start this with 10. But I'm okay going 1-19 written out. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Shall we begin? El Millo (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I was just saying that I personally feel 10-19 aren't too wordy written out, but best to stick to MOS:NUMERAL for simplicity. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and started at Guardians of the Galaxy with this. No opposed if anyone looks it over and feels 10th-19th should be written out again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Organically linking the Phase articles in the lead (or elsewhere)

Spinning off of the ordinals discussion above, when I went through to change each article, I realized that pretty much all of the films (and Disney+ shows) make no links back to the respective Phase articles now that we have them. I know in the past, there was not much support to have in the lead "it is the X film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and Y film of Phase Z" (I'll try to find this discussion), but maybe we can look at it again, or find another spot to place the link? Or as another option, does it just need to be a "See also" link at the bottom of the article? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I've thought beforehand about incorporating the phase mentions in the leads of the articles as a good solution to this, but feel that it would become overly detailed. I'm fine with doing that or putting them in the See also section, but am more lenient to the former. This does beg the question as to how the wording would go as there are also television series in Phase Four, so I think another wording could be "it is the X film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, part of the Y phase of the franchise". Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Past discussion on the matter (in a quick search) are this one from the main MCU archives that stemmed from this discussion on TriiipleThreat's archive. I believe I still stand by what was said in Triiiple's discussion thread, that we don't need to point out overall film number and the number in a phase (especially if it's a sequel and we have all that info too). Maybe if it's like this (as I originally put in my first comment) "it is the X film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, part of the Y phase of films", that could work. In this case, we aren't putting 2 numbers back to back, as was the issue back in 2015 (and we also didn't have the phase articles then...). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: I like using "franchise" instead of "films". For TV series, it could be this (this is the current wording on FWS, bolding is what I'm suggesting): "It is set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), sharing continuity with the films of the franchise, and is part of Phase Four." That works well in my eyes for the TV series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

That all works from my perspective. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree we need to mention the phase in the lead, because the phase is something that most people want to see in the film article. As for the wording, another alternative to consider:

It is the last film of Phase Three of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the 23rd film in the series.— Starforce¹³ 22:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Starforce13, are you suggesting that all articles have their place within the Phase or just the first and last ones of each. That is, would Endgame have it as It is the 10th film of Phase Three... or just as It is part of Phase Three..?

Adding the Phase information would result in: It is the sequel to 2012's The Avengers, 2015's Avengers: Age of Ultron, and 2018's Avengers: Infinity War, the 10th film of Phase Three of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the 22nd film in the series. That's just too much in my opinion. El Millo (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo I should have been more specific - Yes, the position in the phase is just for just the first and last film in each phase. I think that's defining enough. I agree that it might be too much, but I think we still need to find a way to work the phase into the article lead. — Starforce¹³ 22:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

We could use this opportunity to prepare for when more movies come. For one, I think we should just mention the immediate previous film, that would be just Infinity War in the case of Endgame, just Thor: The Dark World in the case of Thor: Ragnarok and so on. Once we do that we could also include which film follows it: It is the sequel to Thor (2011) and is followed by Thor: Ragnarok (2017). That way we would make sure only two other films were mentioned, instead of however many films came before it.

Something we could do is separate its predecessors from its place within the whole franchise. We could just say It is the 10th film of Phase Three of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the 22nd film in the series at first, and then mention in some other paragraph that It is the sequel to Avengers: Infinity War (2018), or something to that effect. Something similar is done in the Harry Potter films' lead sections, the Half-Blood Prince for example. El Millo (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I like your idea of splitting it into 2 sentences - one that mentions its predecessor and successor; and another one that mentions its positions in the phase and in the series. I was trying to think of something like this. This way, we provide sufficient info without having unnecessarily long, messy confusing sentences.— Starforce¹³ 23:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

My only issue with your predecessor/successor wording Facu-el Millo is that at least for sequels, that's usually something to cover in the last paragraph of the lead, so to me, it would be weird to see info on the next film so early in the lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that we should be mentioning the Phase in the lead. Phases may mean something to us, but in general they do not have much of an impact on the individual films and any discussion of them. The fact that the films are set in the MCU is always a major part of discussion and that is why it is so prominent in each article. Like, is there any reason for mentioning that Winter Soldier is part of Phase 2 other than because we classify it that way? I also think we should avoid trying to cram more stuff into the opening paragraph of the leads given we are already listing the production companies, number in franchise, and any previous films in the immediate series before we get to the actual film's cast and crew.

I think there could be an argument for including the Phase in the second paragraph of the lead for significant reasons (i.e. there is a bit of discussion about how Black Widow is the first Phase Four film so maybe it makes sense to mention it there). The other thought that I have had, which I am not sure about myself yet, is maybe including it in the last paragraph of the lead since the Phase each film is part of is pretty strongly connected to when it was released rather than when it is set or anything, so something like Black Widow is scheduled for release in the United States on November 6, 2020, beginning Phase Four of the MCU. Thoughts on that? - adamstom97 (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I also doubt if it's important enough for the lead, but I think that if we decide to include it, then we must think of a way for all of them to include it. This arose mainly because it seems most of the articles don't mention the Phase anywhere in the article, not just in the lead. Maybe we could mention it in the Release section, or in Production or some other place instead of the lead section. I still think that, Phase mention or not, we should go with just the immediate predecessor (and maybe successor) instead of all previous movies. El Millo (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Well that was something I thought about too, was that many of these articles do no mention the Phase at all in the body, as was a bit hesitant to say we should go back in to put mentions if there isn't a natural way to do so. I also thought the lead mention could go near the release info. Regardless, at this time, the majority of the film articles and upcoming D+ articles do not link to the Phase articles and readers should be able to navigate there in article, not just with the nav box. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Good thinking. I propose that, if we put the Phase mentions in the release sections as to not clutter the leads, it could go this way for the films: "Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings is scheduled to be released on May 7, 2021, serving as the third film in Phase Four of the franchise." As for the television series, it can go as follows: "The Falcon and the Winter Soldier is scheduled to debut in August 2020 on Disney+, serving as part of Phase Four of the franchise,". I feel this attributes the phases more towards the release schedule rather than part of the placement in the lead which would get easily overstuffed (although I am in agreement with the proposed changes to just mention the predecessor and successor films in the lead as was suggested). We can also easily mention the Phase inclusions of the films and shows in the Production sections for when they were announced just for added navigation throughout the articles. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm okay with this proposal too because they're technically "released in phases". So, yes, it makes sense to include the phase in the lead sentence about the release date. As for the wording, I would probably leave out the word "serving" and simply say... "released on date as part of Phase X". — Starforce¹³ 17:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe Trailblazer101 is talking about putting the mention only in the release SECTION and not doing anything in the lead, while Adamstom.97 was talking about just doing so in the lead where we mention release date. I think both changes can happen, I just wanted to clarify (please tell me if I misinterpreted anyone). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we are on the same page about the lead, and I'm not against Trailblazer's release section change. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

If possible, we should include it in BOTH the lead and the release section. In the release section we could also include citation. But I think at the very least it needs to be in the lead because it helps easily determine where the film belongs.— Starforce¹³ 21:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm also behind the placement by release info in both the lead and in the release section. Just looking over some articles, I don't think adding the phrasing in will be as simple as we suspected. It's not hard by any means, but let's take GotG for an example. I think the lead will have to become this:

Guardians of the Galaxy premiered at the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood on July 21, 2014, and was theatrically released in the United States on August 1, 2014, in 3D and IMAX 3D. It is part of Phase Two of the MCU. The film became a critical...

While the release section would be:

The world premiere of Guardians of the Galaxy was held on July 21, 2014... In its sixth weekend, Guardians of the Galaxy was playing in 69 territories, its most. Guardians of the Galaxy is part of Phase Two.[ref to support]

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I am generally against including stuff like 3D and IMAX in the lead unless it is specifically noteworthy, so my preferred approach would be to use this as a chance to get that stuff out of there and just have something like Guardians of the Galaxy premiered at the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood on July 21, 2014, and was theatrically released in the United States on August 1 as part of Phase Two of the MCU. The film became a critical.... The release section will probably vary more than the leads so just whatever works for each article there. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I like this one. It fits more naturally. El Millo (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Adamstom.97's proposal too and I agree with his suggestion of getting rid of IMAX and 3D. Almost all movies are released in IMAX and 3D now, which makes it less noteworthy. We can still mention the formats in the release section. — Starforce¹³ 03:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm good with that. Also, as suggested above, for films starting and ending phases, do we want the wording to be theatrically released in the United States on [date] as the start of/the end of Phase X of the MCU and have all films in between use "part of"? Or just have every film use "part of"? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I think I would say something like ...released on... as the first/last film of/in Phase X of the MCU. — Starforce¹³ 19:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I think saying first/last makes sense, and we should stick to part for the others rather than giving the number in the phase as those don't really mean much I feel. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yup! We're on the same page. — Starforce¹³ 20:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we have settled on consensus to include the Phase in the release section and in the summary of the release info in the lead, and we can use first/last for the films that begin and end the phases but otherwise we just want to say "part" instead of a specific number. Pinging to confirm that everyone is happy: @Favre1fan93, Trailblazer101, Facu-el Millo, and Starforce13. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

...and getting rid of the release formats in the lead. We may need confirm the predecessor/successor thing as well. El Millo (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That all works for me. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The release/Phase stuff yes. @Facu-el Millo: I think we need to discuss more about the predecessor/successor change, because I'm at least not fully behind that adjustment at this time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Also if an article does not already have Phase info (some do), we can pull the sources we use for the film table headers to source which Phase each film is in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: the idea was to just list the immediate predecessor and successor to each film, within their saga, meant to avoid it getting more and more crammed with each film, having every film mention just the one before and the one after instead. With franchises within the MCU getting longer and longer, right now we are mentioning three other films—three successors in the case of fourth films, three predecessors in the case of fourth films. When we, probably, get to a fifth Avengers or maybe a fifth Thor, it will be just too much. Cutting down on that and just mentioning the immediate ones seems better to me. El Millo (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure I get the intent. But I think as I mentioned earlier, I'm not too sold on having a sequel listed so high in the lead. If you look at the lead as reflection of the article, the sequel info is one of the last sections, and we normally place the info as the last sentence in the last paragraph of the lead. Perhaps there's a way we can reduce listing all the predecessors but still keep the sequel info at the end. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. El Millo (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I think I would like to approach that bit as more of a case-by-case thing, because I think Iron Man is a good example where it makes sense to list both Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3 at the end of the lead. How about we just start implementing something like this for franchises where there are more than three films? For instance, I think it makes sense to just include Ragnarok in the first paragraph of Love and Thunder since it is clearly going to be more of a direct sequel to that film. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that saying that a third film is a sequel to the second film already implies that it is also a sequel to the first film. It would be redundant to mention both the first and second films. Now that goes for predecessors. As Favre1Fan93 pointed out, sequels have their own section in these articles, so I guess it's okay to mention all sequels at the end of the lead instead of just the immediate one. El Millo (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That may be true, but we shouldn't have to force readers to go hunting in other articles to find out that Captain America: Civil War is the third Captain America film, for example, when that isn't really necessary. Especially when that franchise, the Iron Man films, Guardians, and even the Ant-Man films are being generally considered as traditional trilogies unlike Thor and Avengers which are obviously in a different boat. That's why I think we should use a case-by-case basis when franchises go beyond a standard trilogy. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a reasonable way to separate them. El Millo (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I think I'm following your logic. I can make the Phase adjustments, if either of you want to implement this on any necessary articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I have made the change that I was thinking of at Avengers: Endgame and Draft:Thor: Love and Thunder if you guys want to take a look. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

We could do without the 'direct', but I'm just nitpicking now. El Millo (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I was just trying to justify why we didn't have the others, but not too worried. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Averages

Please remove the averages (again) from the Critical and public response table. Averages not notable, meaningful or helpful to readers. See also Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(film_series)#Average_row -- 109.79.75.247 (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Now I see they were only recently re-added (the most recent edit at the time of writing). Please direct the editor to the discussion about these kinds of Averages. If they are still included in other articles they should also be removed. -- 109.79.75.247 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit request completed [2]. Thanks. -- 109.79.75.247 (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead

What the hell is a "television event series"? " eight announced television event series " ?? Why not just "eight television series"? 86.145.13.11 (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

First of all, as Steve Rogers' iconic character eloquently put it, "Language!" Your questions may be earnest, but if you are uncivil, uncouth, impolite, disrespectful, discourteous, etc. in the substance or tone of your queries, you're not going to get very far or last very long as a contributor on Wikipedia. And I say that as a 14-year contributor here, so you'd be wise to take that under advisement. Secondly, to your actual question, if that is how the cited sources describe them, then that is the reason the terminology is used. If you can find reliable sources that meet Wikipedia standards and use different terminology, then those can be used. But the employment of the term in question may be due to the fact that the series described herein have not been directly connected to the MCU linearly up to now, but that the Disney+ series that will be released hereafter are deliberately connected to the continuity of the MCU. Hope that helps. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Phase One, Two, and Three article images

This seemed like a central location to discuss each of these. Facu-el Millo recently uploaded an image for Phase Three consisting of two collections Marvel has released for the films of that Phase. Based on the packaging and certification stickers, these are for regions outside North America, which since Marvel Studios did not release a Phase Three box set in North America, is fine in my eyes. Facu-el Millo then updated the images for the Phase One and Two articles to match the box set of the Phase Three articles. I restored those versions, and Brojam re-reverted me to the files Facu-el Millo added. The reasoning for my reverting of the Phase One and Two articles is both those specific box sets (the briefcase for Phase One, and the Orb for Phase Two) are discussed in each article's home media section. Particularly for Phase One, there was a whole lawsuit against Marvel for the design of the briefcase, and having these visually represented in the infobox is informative for the reader. Yes, they are not consistent, but that is only because, as mentioned, Marvel did not release a Phase Three box set similarly to Phase One and Two. Additionally, pinging TriiipleThreat as the original uploader of the Phase One image. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

"Marvel Studios did not release a Phase Three box set in North America" is this true? Has anything been announced? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

At the conclusion of Phase Three, they only officially announced the Infinity Saga box set for release in North America. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Then I would have to agree with you. Versions mentioned in the home media releases trumps consistent versions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

In the case of Phase One, I think it's reasonable to have the briefcase, since its mention is of importance and it also contains images of the main characters similar to the cover. In Phase Two though, the Orb is not as important, given that there was no lawsuit or controversy of any kind, and it doesn't provide much recognizability, it doesn't work "as primary means of representation". So I would say the briefcase if okay in Phase One, but for Phase Two the cover is better. Isn't it possible to have both be used in the article? One as primary means of representation and the other pertaining to a particular section. Many articles have, for example, a non-free image in the Visual effects section, even though they already have a poster in the infobox. El Millo (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we should aim for consistency; and then if there are images relevant to certain sections, then add them to that specific section for context. So, I would keep Facu-el Millo's images in infobox and place the briefcase one in Phase One home media section.— Starforce¹³ 17:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Policy #3 of WP:NFCC is minimal use. So we should not use two non-free images when one will suffice. Therefore we should use the one with the strongest rationale and in the case of the Phase One article that would be the briefcase image. Phase Two, I think can be left to editor's discretion, unless a case can be made for one over the other.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat is right. We must minimise use. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, whereas the briefcase of Phase One caused a lawsuit, the orb of Phase Two did not. The mention of the shape in which the box set came isn't nearly as noteworthy for Phase Two as it is for Phase One. Now, regarding representation, Phase One's briefcase has the faces of the main characters quite visible and in a similar fashion to the actual cover, while Phase Two's current image isn't nearly as recognizable as the box set cover, with the main characters present. So, Phase One's image is good for both representation of the subject in general and for relevant information in a section, whereas Phase Two's image isn't really good for any of them. El Millo (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with having the Suitcase and Orb images for the first two Phases and then the international image for Phase Three. The first two are noteworthy and have discussion in the article, and if we are keeping them all consistent then that would mean Phase Three has no image. Obviously we don't want that when there is one out there, so we can use the international image instead of none. No need to try make the first two consistent. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

But I think the one for Phase Two is not nearly recognizable enough to be in the infobox, and the discussion on the Orb itself is minimal. That's why I suggest having the cover image on Phase Two. El Millo (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Infobox images should be something that quickly helps people identify the subject of the article. The current Phase 2 image looks nothing like MCU-related. You would have to look closely to know that it's MCU. To a random observer, it may look like just a bunch of books and a fruit bowl. Otherwise, we're giving something mentioned passively WP:UNDUEWEIGHT over recognizability of the entire article. — Starforce¹³ 18:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. - Brojam (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93, Emir of Wikipedia, Starforce13, Adamstom.97, and Brojam: anything to add to this discussion? Particularly regarding the Phase Two, I think there are more (arguments and editors) in favor of changing it to the cover. El Millo (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

"Blade (2022 film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Blade (2022 film). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 14#Blade (2022 film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe crossover films

I see this category has recently been created but is it necessary as most of these films have some sort of crossover element, thus making it virtually indistinguishable from Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe films?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It might differ from that category if we narrowed the definition of crossover in this case to only apply to the Avengers films, which are proper crossovers without a clear protagonist. Still, it might not be worth it. —El Millo (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why this is useful when we already have Category:Superhero crossover films to already define such crossovers, as there's really nothing notable warranting a separate category for the MCU films that have crossovers in them, which much of the franchise has. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I was just about to come here to start a discussion about this category. I agree with Trailblazer, that if we have to define what makes it a crossover, when the entire franchise is based off of weaving together crossover elements, we shouldn't have the cat. And if we just wanted it to be for Avengers films, we already have Category:Avengers (film series) to group those. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to inform my fellow editors here that as of a few days ago, there is a deletion discussion of this category in question. I was going to go and remove it from the pages it is in, but think some of our points here could be addressed there as well to provide a smoother deletion with formality. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It was deleted. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Where's Venom?

2018 Columbia Pictures with Marvel Studios & Marvel Entertainment released Venom but it's missing in this list. It is definately a Marvel Movie & belongs in any Marvel Movie Listing It should be between 'Ant-Man and the Wasp' & 'Captain Marvel' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:BCF2:5A00:31BE:33EE:B5A9:7195 (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not an MCU film. Marvel Studios didn't make it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It's in List of films based on Marvel Comics publications where it belongs. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Ant-Man 3 release date

Both Douglas and Pfeiffer revealed the date to be 2022. Since it is listed as 2022 here and there is October 7, 2022 slot so I think that film is in that slot. I am not saying it is in that slot but it is possible so please add that but make sure that it is hidden until they officially confirm the date Kohcohf (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Kohcohf, is this WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH? -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

100% OR. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Blade

Mike210381 Blade_(character)#Film - here is the source about title (Blade, the Vampire Slayer). Lado85 (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

See Draft talk:Blade (upcoming film) Mike210381 (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The Mutants

The Illuminerdi, reported that the mutant-centered movie will be titled The Mutants according to this. Is this good enough to update the mutant movies description and title? I don't read Illuminerdi often I'm not sure how reliable they're as a source. Thanks. — Starforce¹³ 00:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The Illuminerdi is an unreliable source. —El Millo (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, that's what I thought. We'll wait until there's a more solid confirmation from a reliable source.— Starforce¹³ 01:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Add order Number

Is it possible to add a number column to the table with all the films? It would be nice to not have to count each film if you wanted to figure out which film was the "x" number released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.215.152 (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

If that is too difficult, you could click on the film article as it will say so in the opening paragraph. These aren't really the same as a TV series so I don't think it would be appropriate to add a number to each one, plus that raises the possibility of arguments about which order to base the numbering on. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Release order would be the simplest order. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm in support of adding release order number to the table as well. It's not a large table column wise, and the release order number is a common thing that people look for. So, I don't see why we can't do it here. I think it's overkill to have to open individual articles just to reference something so basic.— Starforce¹³ 22:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this actually necessary? They're still ordered, and I haven't seen this done for any "film series" article: see Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, the DCEU, the X-Men films, Transformers, Twilight, etc. —El Millo (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not absolutely necessary but I think it would be an improvement and doesn't hurt to have. I think the argument here is that MCU has a lot more films than any other franchise where the release order matters. If it's a small number, it's easy to see where the film is positioned in general. If a franchise is comprised of disconnected films or disconnected trilogies, the overall order doesn't matter much. But when you have dozens of connected films the order matters. Since the film number is useful (otherwise we wouldn't include it in the lede paragraph of each film), it doesn't hurt to include it here either. — Starforce¹³ 06:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

This is complicated by the factor that there is release order and timeline order. The timeline order is official promoted on Disney+ and is not just some fan construction. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Lou Ferrigno as cast member

I've now had to twice (1, 2) remove references to Lou Ferrigno as portraying the Hulk in the 2008 film, The Incredible Hulk, starring the great-yet-unyielding Eddie Norton.
I am not sure why the person reverting did so, because - quite clearly, there was only one person 'hulking out' in the film. True, Lou Ferrigno was in the film. And true, Ferrigno did portray the Hulk in the 1970's tv series. But nowhere in this film was Ferrigno ever referred to the Hulk. Or even confused with the Hulk.
Unfortunately, the link that the reverter seems to be dead. Also dead is Roger Ebert, who may have mentioned that the actor portrayed the character in the tv series and was included in the movie as a nod to fans. I am presuming that whoever initially added it failed to actually read the source with even a little care.
I'd also presume that the Clever Little Fellows who keep reverting the info have failed to, y'know, check the article for the movie; Ferrigno has a "cameo as a security guard that Banner bribes with pizza". All it takes is just a little more work, folks.
So, Lou Ferrigno did not portray the Hulk in this movie. At all. Its a clearly observable fact. The link that was most likely misread is in fact dead. Any reference to Ferrigno as the Hulk in the MCU should be removed.
Thoughts? I specifically welcome Facu-el Millo and Gonnym. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It says that he voiced the Hulk, not that he played him onscreen. The source is dead, but it's archived, and Roger Ebert being dead doesn't have anything to do with anything, he still is regarded as one of the most prestigious film critics there is. It seems you haven't carefully read either the source or the table in this article, since you missed the very clear Voice of Hulk: Lou Ferrigno at the table in the source, and you missed the ^V (which stands for a a voice-only role in the {{MCU cast indicator}}) next to Ferrigno's name in our table in the article. Lastly, you might want to try exercising assuming good faith, instead of just presuming that other editors failed to actually read the source with even a little care. —El Millo (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the source being dead, there are other sources for this, for example this one from Yahoo! which also states that some of his voice was used in The Avengers as well. —El Millo (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, lets unpack that a bit, Facu-el Millo (and feel free to weigh in when you're able, Gonnym). Okay, so it appears that Ferrigno did in fact lend his voice to the sound mixer when creating the voice of the Hulk...but so did three other people (Christopher Boyes and two New Zealanders). Since we are able to definitively say who's voice makes the Hulk, we should probably mention them in both the tables and text.

As an aside, if you felt I was dispensing with AGF, I must offer you my apologies. I was under the clearly mistaken assumption that information about the Hulk movie in this article would have already been clearly made in the Hulk movie article. When I didn't see that, and instead was treated to edit summaries instead of discussion, my willingness to offer AGF waned a bit.

Perhaps - as an aid to both of us in our editing exploits - you might consider the possibility that an edit summary with a revert (and definitely for a second revert) might not be a satisfactory approach to resolving a problem.

Lastly, can someone confirm that Ferrigno appears in the credits as voice talent for the Hulk? That's going to conclusively resolve any future discussions about this point, and there is no way that Ferrigno would be left off the credits of the film if his presence was more than just a cameo as a security guard. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I was under the clearly mistaken assumption that information about the Hulk movie in this article would have already been clearly made in the Hulk movie article but it is. See The Incredible Hulk (film)#Cast. --Gonnym (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Pay closer attention to the text of both the article and the source; they don't say what you have been implying that they are saying. In all fairness, its a pretty shite source, tbh. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

In my country, The Incredible Hulk is on Netflix. At approximately the 1:46:15 mark, the credits for the cast begin. Edward Norton is listed first, credited solely as "Bruce Banner". Lou Ferrigno is listed ninth, credited as "Voice of The Incredible Hulk". Ferrigno's voice appears to have been used as part of the sound mixing for the rest of the films, but it seems that he fully voiced the Hulk in this film in particular. —El Millo (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

As was noted before, "the sources say otherwise". Thr Hulk's voice is a composite of Boyes, Ferrigno and the two Kiwis. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

No. That was for The Avengers, as it's clear in the Yahoo source, where it was all part of the composition of the sound of Hulk. Ferrigno actually provided the voice for The Incredible Hulk, per the Ebert source, the Yahoo source ([... He] did lend his voice to previous Marvel "Hulk" movies in 2003 and 2008), and the film's own credits. Voicing the character on his own isn't the same as his voice being used as one of many in the sound mixing. —El Millo (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

In this list, as evidenced by the division provided by the {{hr}} in the "Phase One" column for the character, we're listing Norton and Ferrigno for The Incredible Hulk, and then just Ruffalo for The Avengers. So Ferrigno's inclusion is just for TIH, where his voice wasn't part of a combination of different sounds, but at the very least the main voice for the Hulk (I guess some other sounds may have been used as well, but that's not important), given he was credited for it, whereas in the rest of the films he's not. If we compare the credits, we can see that in TIH, Norton is credited as "Bruce Banner" and Ferrigno is credited as "Voice of The Incredible Hulk", but in the rest of the films (I looked at The Avengers and Thor: Ragnarok as samples), Ruffalo is credited as "Bruce Banner / Hulk" or "Bruce Banner / The Hulk" and Ferrigno isn't credited at all. —El Millo (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I must point out - again - that that is not what the sources are saying. They are saying that Ferrigno's voice was mixed with that of three other individuals, and that at no point was it just Ferrigno's voice being used for that of the Hulk. Ferrigno's wasn't the "main" voice; it was a blended source of all four people, as the earlier examples were discarded for sounding too monster-like. I am thinking we have to both credit and note (Boyes at the very least in the table). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Read the source again, the mixing of the voices refers to The Avengers, not The Incredible Hulk. [... He] did lend his voice to previous Marvel "Hulk" movies in 2003 and 2008 in the Yahoo source makes it clear that the mixing of the voices isn't referring to The Incredible Hulk. That article is all about The Avengers, with TIH receiving that passing mention only. The interview refers to Christopher Boyes, who didn't work on The Incredible Hulk, he worked on The Avengers and later on Avengers: Age of Ultron, so he can't be referring to The Incredible Hulk as the film where his voice was included. —El Millo (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's yet another source that mentions Lou Ferrigno as the voice of the Hulk in The Incredible Hulk. As you can see, it makes no mention of any other component of the character's voice for that film except for Ferrigno. So we have multiple secondary sources (Ebert, Yahoo, IGN) and the primary sources which are the film credits, and none of them credit anyone other than Ferrigno for Hulk's voice in The Incredible Hulk (2008). —El Millo (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo is correct in his descriptions. Ferrigno provided the Hulk's voice in The Incredible Hulk, and by Avengers, his voice was blended with others, particularly Ruffalo's. So for the table here, it is formatted correctly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Time Variant Loki

Moved to Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors (The Infinity Saga) § Time Variant Loki

 – - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Related films

Marvel has been referring to the new Deadpool film as a new sequel to Deadpool (2016) and Deadpool 2 (2018). Its also been noted even on the Sony Universe of Marvel Characters page that there is a new deal that results in Venom (2018) and its future films to share a continuity with the MCU's Spider-Man films. Of course these films don't fit into Marvel's phase plans (Phase One, Two, Three, and Four) as they were made under seperate studios and projects at the time and therefore aren't part of the Infinity Saga arcs. I propose that a new "Related films" template for films that have some ties and effect in the MCU franchise but aren't part of the complete MCU picture.

Related films

Film	U.S. release date	Director	Screenwriter(s)	Producer(s)	Status
Deadpool films
Deadpool	February 12, 2016 (2016-02-12)	Tim Miller	Rhett Reese & Paul Wernick	Lauren Shuler Donner, Simon Kinberg and Ryan Reynolds	Released
Deadpool 2	May 18, 2018 (2018-05-18)	David Leitch	Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick & Ryan Reynolds
Sony Pictures Universe of Marvel Characters
Venom	October 5, 2018 (2018-10-05)	Ruben Fleischer	Jeff Pinkner & Scott Rosenberg and Kelly Marcel	Avi Arad, Matt Tolmach, and Amy Pascal	Released
Venom: Let There Be Carnage	September 24, 2021 (2021-09-24)	Andy Serkis	Kelly Marcel	Avi Arad, Matt Tolmach, Amy Pascal	Post-production
Morbius	January 21, 2022 (2022-01-21)	Daniel Espinosa	Matt Sazama & Burk Sharpless	Matt Tolmach, Avi Arad, and Lucas Foster

— Preceding unsigned comment added by K-popguardian (talk • contribs)

Do you have a reliable source that these films art part of the MCU? Simply talking about them doesn't count. Feige, or some other creative from Marvel Studios or one of the films has to explicitly state these films are part of, related to, or otherwise tangential to the MCU to warrant such inclusion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm still looking for a reference where Marvel refers to the new deadpool as Deadpool 3, but I have this from the Sony Universe, where Feige himself mentions that the MCU Spider-Man can officially cross over between the MCU and SCU as a part of the new contract: — Preceding unsigned comment added by K-popguardian (talk • contribs)

Please indent and sign your comments with ~~~~. The Sony deal source does not make any mention that Sony's film's are in the MCU. As of my response today, these films have not been stated to be MCU films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

How bout we wait till these films come out and see if they make any reference to the MCU? And even if the new films do, it doesn't suddenly make the first two Deadpool films tie-ins. Spanneraol (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, even though the new Deadpool is confirmed to be in the MCU, we don't know for sure if Ryan Reynolds will be playing the exact version from the first two DP films (where the laws of time travel were different) or a different version. Same think goes for the returning Spider-Man roles. "Reprising a role" is a misleading term because it can also be used when playing a different version of the same character. So, media and even actor commentary should be taken with a grain of salt. We have to wait until the films come out and get a solid confirmation from Marvel Studios. Anything else is just speculation.— Starforce¹³ 22:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

References

"Based on" parameter on films' articles

Hi. There's been a bunch of edits recently regarding the change of the |Based on= parameter on infoboxes that makes me think we should come to a consensus on where we take these from exactly. —El Millo (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Favre1fan93 and IronManCap:. —El Millo (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Added my thoughts on Talk:The Avengers (2012 film). IronManCap (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

My thoughts there as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2021

There is a link to Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings you forgot to add at the top of the page. 74.15.88.254 (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the mention in the last paragraph in the lead,  Not done: per MOS:LINK (specifically here), once something has been linked in an article, it generally does not need to be linked again, and that film is already linked slightly above in the lead. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 18:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

"Story by" credits

We do not include story by credits in the overview tables, and we usually don't include them in the leads of the articles, but we do for Captain Marvel (film) and Black Widow (2021 film). I honestly think the wording for those is fine, but wanted to bring it up here to see if we wanted to go with consistency for that or not. I had a look at all the articles after Favre1fan93 removed the story writers from the lead of Eternals (film). - adamstom97 (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't expand tables, but I think we should be consistent in article leads. Are Captain Marvel and Black Widow the only films we currently have them on Adamstom.97? I know there was a past discussion (somewhere) that resulted in the removal of the story info, notably in Ant-Man's case with Edgar Wright. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I had a look through the articles and only found those two with story credits in the lead. And I agree on not including them in the tables. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I would be in favor of not listing them in the lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I have removed them. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Seeing your edits, I think putting story contributors in the second paragraph is the way to go. That way they are still in the lead, but are not in the first paragraph. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Name of Table

What will the "Upcoming" films table be named once Black Widow is released next month? Will it just be "Post-Infinity Saga" or changed to "Phase Four" until Phase Five films are added? Or "Current" films. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It's been a while since we last had this situation, but from memory I believe we would split into a table for Post-Infinity Saga / Phase Four and keep Upcoming films separate. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

FRom what I recall, the idea is to move Black Widow to its own Phase Four section transcluded from the Phase Four article, with the rest transculded to an "Upcoming Films" section. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Similar to what was done at the List of TV series, there will be a new level 3 heading "Phase Four" with just Black Widow under it (transcluded from Phase Four), with the "Upcoming" staying exactly as is (sans Black Widow). Every new release will follow the same pattern: move from the "Upcoming" table, to the "Phase Four" table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Reduce recurring cast table

I suggest we change the requirements for inclusion in the Recurring cast and characters table from two billing credits to three. That would result in getting rid of: Sharon Carter, Phil Coulson, Dave, Julius Dell, Frigga, Korath the Pursuer, Kurt, Cassie Lang, Darcy Lewis, Luis (at least until he's confirmed for Quantumania), Maggie, M'Baku, Karl Mordo, Kraglin Obfonteri, Christine Palmer, Jim Paxton, Ramonda, Ronan the Accuser, Brock Rumlow, Thanos, Taneleer Tivan, Valkyrie, Janet van Dyne, and Volstagg. —El Millo (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree this should be changed from two to three billed credits. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Mostly agree, not sure about removing Thanos though. How about just three appearances, regardless of whether they're credited or not? Also, Phil Coulson is credited in multiple films. IronManCap (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

And Rumlow was credited in three films too. IronManCap (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

This isn't about being credited or uncredited. It's about being in the billing block. Rumlow (Frank Grillo) appeared in Winter Soldier, Civil War, and Endgame, but he wasn't in the billing block for Endgame. Coulson (Clark Gregg) was only in the billing blocks for The Avengers and Captain Marvel. Thanos (Josh Brolin) was only in the billing blocks for Infinity War and Endgame. —El Millo (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, my bad, should've checked the FAQ. In that case, Agree . IronManCap (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I mostly agree with this. – ChannelSpider (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done after agreement and no opposition for three days. —El Millo (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Director of Marvel's Avengers (2012) is not written (Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2021)

The director of Marvel's Avengers (2012) is not written, who is "Joss Whedon". Please write it or give me a chance to write it. Maaz Tajammul (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Already done He is listed on the table. Please check again. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

T'Challa/Black Panther/Chadwick Boseman missing

In the section Recurring cast and characters, Black Panther is missing from the list. At first I thought that major heroes that have their own movies were excluded, but all the others are there. I searched the document and found no references to Chadwick Boseman. Is this an oversight or was he excluded by design. If was by design, perhaps an explanation of why he's not listed there. Also I should add: if this list is intended to exclude characters with their own major movie, the list becomes confusing to me. I understand why Phil Coulsen was excluded. Perhaps we're getting hung up on having a perfect set of rules for the table, instead of considering its efficacy to casual readers.

Jeremy D. Kaplan (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

This table is only for characters who have appeared across multiple Phases. Boseman only appeared in Phase 3. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Should we be adding disney plus exclusive sale column as part of the boxoffice

Since the black widow is supposed to have additional virtual exclusive launch. I think we should add a disney+ or digital exclusive column at box office table— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.74.92.154 (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Related films (again)

Now that No Way Home has been revealed and shows various connections to the past Marvel films, including fully returned villains, I want to bring up something that I had previously brought up: The idea that films that share some relations with the MCU, but aren't part of the MCU itself, should be put in a separate category called "Related films".

In this case, the first films to go here would be the past Spider-Man films as they're shown to share connections with No Way Home but aren't part of the MCU since they came out previously detached from it.

Related films

Film	U.S. release date	Director	Screenwriter(s)	Story by	Producer(s)
Sam Raimi Spider-Man films
Spider-Man	May 3, 2002 (2002-05-03)	Sam Raimi	David Koepp		Laura Ziskin and Ian Bryce
Spider-Man 2	June 30, 2004 (2004-06-30)		Alvin Sargent	Alfred Gough, Miles Millar and Michael Chabon	Laura Ziskin and Avi Arad
Spider-Man 3	May 4, 2007 (2007-05-04)		Sam Raimi, Ivan Raimi and Alvin Sargent	Sam Raimi and Ivan Raimi	Laura Ziskin, Avi Arad and Grant Curtis
Marc Webb Spider-Man films
The Amazing Spider-Man	July 3, 2012 (2012-07-03)	Marc Webb	James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves	James Vanderbilt	Laura Ziskin, Avi Arad and Matt Tolmach
The Amazing Spider-Man 2	May 2, 2014 (2014-05-02)		Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Jeff Pinkner	Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, Jeff Pinkner and James Vanderbilt	Avi Arad and Matt Tolmach

- K-popguardian (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

We don't need a full table for past films that have no bearing on the MCU. All of this info is covered in prose in the "Sony's Spider-Man Universe connections" section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Fantastic Four in Upcoming table but Blade not?

Sorry if this has been brought up before - it's been a while since I've been here. But why is Fantastic Four in the table of Upcoming films? It doesn't have a release date like all the other entries in the table, and it seems to be in a similar stage of development to other films underneath, like Blade. We even know more about who's working on Blade than on Fantastic Four --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Fantastic Four was announced as part of Phase Four, while Blade was not. —El Millo (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The "upcoming" table is separate from the "Phase Four" table so it does not need to include only phase 4 films. Blade should be in there as it does not say "upcoming phase 4 films" just "upcoming". Spanneraol (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Venom

Venom 1/2 is in the MCU, please add it on there thanks 113.211.208.110 (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

No they're not. The mid-credits scene of Venom 2 literally hinted that they were transported to the MCU via the Multiverse. That doesn't automatically retroactively place the two films in the MCU (same thing for Spider-Man 2 and Deadpool in the future). InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Actors in Phase Four tv shows need gray boxes removed

The table showing which phases various actors are in with their respective characters does not reflect the Disney+ tv shows. Marvel studios considers WandaVision, Loki, Falcon and Winter Soldier, etc., to be part of phase four. The actors/characters in the relevant table should not have gray boxes on the right side of the table under phase four. Their participation in phase four is a concrete fact, not speculation. P,ease edit the table to reflect these actors/characters being in phase four. Thank you. 2001:5B0:51DC:A5A8:843F:4FD6:FB45:2CA2 (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This is not a phase article, it is a films article, so the table is correct. The table you're looking for is at Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Four#Recurring cast and characters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Typo:

Singular form of “films” in the discussion of box sets is a typo. 2600:1012:B003:73A4:35B8:F634:1A9F:5C13 (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2021

Can we please number the list of films.

Like, 1) Iron Man 2) The Incredible Hulk 3) Iron Man 2

like this for the entire list.

Thank you. Qwaszx69 (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Request to number the list of films

In the films section, Can you please number the list of films. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon4anon (talk • contribs) 08:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Rename Future section to In Development

The name "In Development" better reflects the intention of including films that have been greenlit, and under active development but does not have a release date yet. As another data point, thhe DCEU article names it "In Development" as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phileo (talk • contribs) 16:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

"Future" is the better section name because it covers all content beyond Phase Four (or unknown to be in the phase), as well as generic future film info for the MCU. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 December 2021

Remove the 'next' at the beginning of the 'Untitled Spider-Man: No Way Home Sequel' entry 49.178.131.138 (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 January 2022

Add Spider-Man 4 as one of the films being developed by Marvel Studios JLMJXD (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Blade pre-production

If Blade already started casting and it's filming in a matter of months, shouldn't it be in pre-production? JDA 78 (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Blade

Blade really should be in the chart as it has a director and writer and will begin shooting soon... in fact in all likely hood it will be released before Fantastic Four, which hasn't even been cast yet... since phase 4 is more nebulous perhaps the upcoming films chart should not be just a phase 4 chart and just "upcoming" .. they can be placed into the proper phase when they are released. Spanneraol (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Spanneraol: I've made a recent edit that I think addresses what you were asking about. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I like it.. I wouldn't include the "untitled mutant film" though as I don't think that's an actual movie.. as they haven't actually said they are making a mutant movie.. the original quote was just that they didn't have time to talk about mutants.. not that anything was officially in the works. Spanneraol (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I am concerned with how confusing this format is at both TV and film articles. For both articles we have a "Phase Four" section and then an "Upcoming" section that includes both Phase Four and non-Phase Four projects, with a breakdown of only the non-Phase Four stuff in the same section, but there is only a link to the Phase Four article in the first section. And the TV one adds more confusion by including a prose summary of Phase Four in the Phase Four section that includes series in the Upcoming section. I think it would make more sense to have a "Phase Four" section with all of the confirmed Phase Four projects in it and then a "Future" section with all the non-Phase Four projects in it. The first sections' tables would match with the tables in the Phase Four article with a status column which I think makes perfect sense (and I think having that consistency will be clearer for readers as well). - adamstom97 (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Sorry, I've been off for a bit. I still thought there was a use differentiating between what has released and what hasn't, but I think you could be right, that it may just be simpler to put all of Phase Four in its heading, and then "Future" section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully the status column can be enough differentiation without needing to split the Phase Four info over two sections. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: When I have a moment, I'm planning to make this change as you suggested, but this also applies to the TV series list, and how we present that material. I think we should talk through changes for that before making this switch. For example, we have prose for the Marvel Television series along with their tables, but do we maybe not need the Phase Four prose? I think that will help. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need to change the prose at the TV list, if we put all the upcoming Phase Four series into the existing Phase Four table then all the Phase Four prose will already be with the Phase Four series and all the Upcoming prose will already be with the upcoming series. Or am I missing something? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

For Marvel Studios at least, having the prose at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series#Phase Four below the table now just feels reductive and repetitive if we switch that section to be the fully set of Phase Four series. We don't do that with the films tables here, so that's why I'm questioning if we need it at the TV list (for Marvel Studios only). That prose would fit more for Marvel Studios in the "Development" section like at the films list here, but we aren't really set up to do that smoothly at the TV list given what we're doing with the Marvel Television sections. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we could do without that short prose at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series#Phase Four below the table, since we already link to Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Four#Television series as a main article, and the relevance of that text isn't comparable to the relevance of what's listed at #Development, it's more like routine announcements of some of the TV shows. —El Millo (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh sure, if we thinking of it as too repetitive then I don't have an issue with just taking it out. We have the Phase Four article linked as well as all the TV articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I've implemented the change in this article. —El Millo (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

... and at List of MCU TV series as well. I hope I understood what was being proposed correctly. —El Millo (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like you got it right! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled mutant-centered film

Feige never specified that it's going to be a film. It might be a show. I think it should be removed from the list of upcoming films until we receive more information. --Caciulacdlac (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Since no one is commenting on this thread and someone restored it when i tried to delete it, how bout the people who want to keep it explain why that should be in there? There is no actual movie announced, no writers or anything.. the quote doesn't even talk about a movie it just says that sometime in the future they will do something with mutants.. it definitely should not be in the table until there is an actual film announced with at least a writer involved. Spanneraol (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The three sources we have, Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, and IGN, quite reputable sources, all interpreted as a film being confirmed. I think we include it in the table because we include every project confirmed to be a film there, but I wouldn't be against removing it based on that we have no writers or director attached. —El Millo (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Speaking regarding putting it in the table, this was in the past why we never had "in development" films in the table. But given the change, I feel it is acceptable to include projects that have been confirmed (officially or through reliable sources as happening), regardless if there are creative members on board. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that a particular film has never actually been confirmed.. all of those sources quote the original press conference where he essentially said "we don't have time to talk about mutants".. and his later quotes are all just "when we get around to them they will be different than what fox did".. in none of those sources does he actually confirm a film is in development. Spanneraol (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Venom, Raimi and Webb Spider films should be added to list?

As of No Way Home, the characters have officially lived and breathed in the MCU. Should those movies be added to the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F04:C117:D400:F191:A46A:21CD:4702 (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. If they are not produced by Marvel Studios, they don’t belong on the list. Rcarter555 (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning that the MCU is not a term that has been used by Feige as referring to the production details, but to the narrative unity that the story. If the deal between Disney and Sony would be modified in such a way that the future Spider-man films would be solely financed and produced by Columbia, the character would still be part of the MCU. There is a point to be made that the MCU is comprised by films depicting only characters original to the current universe, however I have a feeling that they will start marketing their films as being part of the Marvel Cinematic Multiverse. 2A02:2F04:C117:D400:F191:A46A:21CD:4702 (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Then we can have that discussion when and IF Sony or any other studio starts marketing their films as part of the MCU. They have not done so yet and your "feelings" are irrelevant. Rcarter555 (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Lua error?

This page seems to have some Lua script error... have no idea what that is but hopefully someone who knows can fix it. Spanneraol (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if it's because of transclusion? I can't seem to find it either, so I'm going to make a post on Wikipedia talk:Lua. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)