Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Sandbox for the Avengers film

This is just a notice that Fandraltastic and I have created a userspace draft for this film and that anybody who wishes to contribute may do so. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Until the start of priniciple photography this article fails notability guidelines for future films. As those guidlines state and is in the case for this film the media coverage and likelihood of a high-profile release does not guarantee that it will be immuned from setbacks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, but this meets the GNG by itself, based on the RS coverage, so failing NFF doesn't mean it can't have its own article. Since the redirect is contested, feel free to start an AfD on the topic, and I'll be happy to abide by the community consensus on the matter. Jclemens (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD not required for redirects. This happens with almost every major release media coverage is not enough. There is nothing exceptional about the coverage of this film that NFF should be overidden. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD is an appropriate stop for a disputed redirect, and I've taken this there. NFF is a SNG, which does not override the GNG. I'm sure you're correct that there may be plenty of such coverage for other major releases, but I disagree with the forced redirect, in that it directly contravenes the GNG. We agree that there's plenty of RS coverage and that principal photography has not yet started; we disagree whether NFF takes precedence over the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Leave it or Wait for it

I would leave the page instead of wait for the film come out. Lg16spears (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

categorization

Other film projects are categorized into film categories, so what's wrong with doing it here? 76.66.193.119 (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe you referring to other films, this is a non-film as it has yet to enter production.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

We have an entire category of films in various states of non-production Category:Unfinished films. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit different. Unfinished films are films that have started production but have for various reason never been completed, upcoming films are films that are currently in production and unreleased films are films that have completed production but have not been released.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Several articles in the category have not entered production, like Sprockets, which didn't even get to the screenplay stage, or Concentrate (screenplay) that never entered production. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe those are probably incorrectly categorized.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

We have a guideline at WP:NFF where we would usually merge details of a project to a broader article. However, this article is essentially being treated as a sub-topic due to the level of detail. That is why it is not formatted as a film article, being without the infobox, for example. The categories are for films only, and films are usually "almost certain to take place" when they start filming. At this point, this is just a project that is not guaranteed, and there needs to be a distinction between films and plans for ones. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems like there should be a Category:Proposed films then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.193.119 (talk • contribs) 10:09, August 2, 2010

This article is a rare example of being on its own, and we would not have enough non-film articles to populate such a category. It would be better to add more high-level categories. I'll take a stab at it. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind we are working without much precedent here so try to bare with us. As Erik stated a few more generic categories might serve for the time being.--TriiipleThreat (talk)

The categories he added look good. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! We can include film-related categories if filming does begin. We've seen too many planned films, even for major franchises, just never take off despite all the excitement (Jurassic Park IV, as one example). Erik (talk | contribs) 14:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Rename?

Can we at least rename this page something like "The Avengers (2012 film)"? That sounds like a more official page title than "The Avengers film project." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.4.185 (talk) 04:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The article was at The Avengers (2012 film) before, but it was moved here because we rarely have stand-alone articles about films that have not even started production. This is more an article about recent history than an article about an upcoming film. If production does not happen, then we would continue treating this as history. If filming does happen, we will change the format to that of a film article. That's why the current article does not use a film infobox nor film-related categories. If filming starts, we can move it back to the original title. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be about recent history, but nevertheless the recent history of a film. There are dozens of articles on wikipedia about films in development, so why does this one have to be different? --Boycool42 (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that there is no film actually being made. The dozens of articles about upcoming films are those that have already begun filming and are on their way to being released. We use the start of filming as a threshold because until filming starts, anything can happen to delay the project. For example, Jurassic Park IV has been in development hell forever. Films like Shantaram (film), Ant-Man (film), and Spider-Man 4 have been planned for a while, but nothing actually happens. (All these are sections in broader articles as part of the pre-filming threshold.) The recent Batman and Superman films had various unsuccessful projects before them for years. Here, we're trying to avoid the "(2012 film)" label because it's still just plans that may not be realized by 2012. No one has directed, no one has performed, etc. If filming begins, we know with pretty strong certainty that there will be something tangible, and we can restore the original article title. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Almost none of the films in Category:Upcoming films have reached production. Guess what! None of their articles are titled "The ________ film project". Double standard? --Boycool42 (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF.-5- (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I get that. But this is like titling the Obama article as "John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt"!--Boycool42 (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL since there is no film, there can be no film article. However there are enough reliable sources on the development of this project to statisfy WP:GNG on that topic alone. That is why article is named what it is and there are none of the usual film identifiers.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Boycool, I used to complete a lot of tasks for the future films department of WikiProject Film, making sure such articles were merged or deleted where applicable. I was away for a while, so there might have been some backsliding. I'll review the articles in that category to see if they stand up to scrutiny. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that when you search for "Marvel's The Avengers" on Wikipedia, there is a redirect to this page. Isn't "Marvel's The Avengers" the official title of the film, not simply "The Avengers"? Even the trailer on the official site is called "Marvel's The Avengers." The most recent press release on Marvel's site also calls the film "Marvel's The Avengers." Should we changed the main title of the article to Marvel's The Avengers? I have a conflict of interest working on this page (Marvel/Disney is one of the clients of my employer), and I don't want to make any major changes without first getting feedback. I fully under Wikipedia's WP:COI guidelines, so I always tread with caution in these situations. What are everyone's thoughts on this? I think both titles could work, but I'm naturally biased towards changing it to "Marvel's The Avengers." --TravisBernard (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The film logo in the trailer simply says "The Avengers" with Marvel logo above it, (if you notice there is no apostrophe s). Besides the WP:COMMONNAME is "The Avengers" even if the official name is "Marvel's The Avengers".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I was not aware of WP:COMMONNAME. It's always great to learn something new. --TravisBernard (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

General Ross

Is General Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross scheduled to appear? If so, will he be portrayed by William Hurt? --Boycool42 (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Doubtful, as his page doesn't list it. --98.247.142.237 (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Image use of File:The Avengers 2012 logo.jpg

I am not sure about the use of this non-free image without an infobox and would like a second opinion on the matter.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Although we aren't yet including an infobox (because "it's not a film"), the image does emphasize points in this article on "recent history". But, I could be biased. --Boycool42 (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Assuming we have a good FUR and are simply using one relevant FU image, I don't see what the problem is: if you could use once it with an infobox, does the lack of an infobox invalidate the informational/identity component of FU? Jclemens (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Navboxes

There are too many. More space is devoted to navboxes than content. Surely the 'Joss Whedon', 'Marvel Comics films', and 'Avengers' boxes cover it without the 'Captain America', 'Iron Man', 'Thor', 'Hulk', 'Hawkeye', 'Black Widow', and 'S.H.I.E.L.D.' boxes needing to be tacked on? - Tanetris (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The boxes themselves are shelled propperly so taking up too much space is not an issue. The main character boxes are supplied for readers navigating through articles on that particular character. However we could do without Black Widow, Hawkeye and Shield as they are in a supporting capacity. On a side note the Black Widow box is currently being discussed for deletion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That would certainly be a help. I still don't see the necessity of navboxes for each main character either, though. Most of the links in each box are not related to this film project, and the ones that are are already in the Avengers navbox or the Marvel Films navbox. If someone wants to explore a particular character more in-depth, the Avengers navbox contains links to each one's main page, and it's easy enough to go from there. If someone's coming here from another page related to one of the characters and wants to go back, not to put too fine a point on it but most browsers do include a back button. - Tanetris (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The links in the navboxes do not have to be about this film project but rather subject of each navbox. The Avengers box is for the team as whole while the character boxes are for each specifically, so someone reading about The Hulk can come here from the Doc Samson article then go directly to the Leader article without having to go back or elsewhere (which is the point of navboxes). Is there some overlap? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

MCU

Can The Avengers be listed in the "followed by" section on the other MCU films' articles?? In each respective series (Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, and Captain America), this is the next sequel. It isn't uncommon to do this for crossovers (see Freddy vs. Jason). --Boycool42 (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Being in the same universe does not automatically make it a direct sequel even though the films might share characters and plot elements. That being the case if you are going to label this is a sequel it needs to be expletively stated by a reliable source. For instance how do you know the next direct chapter of the Iron Man franchise is The Avengers not Iron Man 3?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Jon Favreau has said so on numerous occasions that have mysteriously been removed from wikipedia. --Boycool42 (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Please provide find them and pay close attention to what wording is used. Favreau has already stated in numerous sources that he intends to make the Iron Man franchise into a trilogy consisting of a third Iron Man film (Iron Man 2#Sequel already states as such). The Avengers for all we know might be more of a spiritual successor or companion piece to these films and not a true sequel meaning that it follows the events of the earlier works but does not directly build upon the plot lines therein (though it might have indirect consequences). Also be aware of the can of worms that is will no doubtly open, for instance is Captain America: The First Avenger the direct prequel to everything, is The Incredible Hulk the direct sequel to Iron Man and the sequel or Side story to Iron Man 2.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --Boycool42 (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Filming

Has anyone announced when production starts? --Boycool (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ruffalo replacing Norton

I have to agree with Oknazevad's edit here. We do not need to note agencies unless there was an event that required explicit identification of them. Otherwise, it is assumed that actors land roles through agents or agencies. Without any real context, such as strife between agencies, the mention of the one agency does sound like a press release. I would prefer for it to be removed. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe its a wording issue, but to me it offers insight into the process. Without it seems there was nothing more than Marvel offering him the part and he accepted. Personally I think naming the agency is also irrelevant but its does give the since that there was some negotiations and back and forth taking place since a deal was "reached".--15:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think naming the agency seems unnatural. What about "Ruffalo's agency"? Like I said, unless there was a specific reason to identify the agency, such as an event, we're not compelled to identify it. I've referenced a lot of Variety and The Hollywood Reporter references, and they go on and on about agents and agencies because that's the nature of the business. It's less relevant for this film article and probably more relevant at the actor's article (as some change agencies throughout their career). Erik (talk | contribs) 15:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Reform

I believe it's time to add an info box and set the page up like a regular Wikipedia film article. Any thoughts? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 9:17 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Per previous consensus and WP:NFF that time will be if and when the film starts principle photography.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree about not changing it yet. Filming is supposed to begin in four months, which is still a long way off. Once filming begins, it's an indicator of all resources invested in it. It's far more likely for a film to be made once it has actually started filming. Before then, it's indefinite. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

We could at least rename it to The Avengers (2012 film). Rusted AutoParts (talk) 15:21 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Again per previous consensus and WP:NFF once the film starts principle photography there is a higher likelihood that film will be completed and released on the projected date and thus less intrusive on WP:CRYSTAL. As WP:NFF states there is no "sure thing" production. Until then remember there is no deadline.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. We have to remember that we cannot declare this topic as a definite film. Justice League collapsed even though there was a cast ready to go. When filming does begin, it's near-certain that the film will be completed. Before then, we err on the side of caution. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Citing The Hollywood Reporter

As can be seen by the "dead link" tags in this article's footnotes for The Hollywood Reporter, it's crucial that we add a WebCitation or some other archive link for Hollywood Reporter citations since they're only available to the general public at the original URL for a limited time. They then go into a subscriber archive with a different URL and may or may not be searchable. (You know how internal search engines are.)

An archive link is a snapshot of the page as it appears that day. If the URL changes or the article goes away, the cited information remains available. It doesn't seem useful to have "dead link" appear after every Hollywood Reporter cite a month or two after we give it.

Using http://webcitation.org takes less than 60 seconds once you've done it a couple of times. If we believe in Wikipedia as a lasting source of information and not a news site for the latest on this Marvel movie or that, it's critical that we archive our citations. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Maria Hill

The Variety article that reports that Cobie Smulders has been cast does not name Maria Hill as the character. However this earlier Deadline article does name Hill when Smulders was considered the front runner for the role but only with speculative terms such as "I'm hearing that" with no mention of from who the author is hearing. Is this enough to state Smulders is playing Maria Hill or should we continue to wait for something more concrete?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noted that The Hollywood Reporter, another source being cited by the blogosphere does not name the role either.--TriiipleThreat 13:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is fine to leave out the name until we get confirmation. The character Maria Hill is not notable enough for her own article, and I think that defining her role as a SHIELD agent is enough for now. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thats fine but for clarification she does have her own article, Maria Hill.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say:

On February 7, 2011, The Hollywood Reporter said [Cobie Smulders]] was in final negotiations to play "a key member of the espionage agency S.H.I.E.L.D.",^[1] for which the trade magazine had previously said Morena Baccarin would be screen-testing.^[2] In a talk-show interview on February 2, Jackson had described the role as that of his "sidekick".^[2]

That's pretty much what the two articles say concretely; the latter articles includes a vague "also said to be vying for the part," without saying who's saying it. Hope this helps. P.S. Remember, for The Hollywood Reporter citations, we need to use WebCitation.org or some other archive, since THR links go away in a week or two. --Tenebrae 17:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What about the inclusion of the character name, Maria Hill?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see it given anywhere in those sources. It's possible they're making her blond and casting her as Sharon Carter — actresses change hair color all the time, and Sharon Carter would provide a love interest for modern-day Captain America — and it's also possible the character may end up named Maria Perez or Maria Cohen etc. for diversity reasons. It's also possible they may change the name to Sharon Hill to combine characters. Or it's possible they may not like the name Maria and change it to Paula Hill or some such, like the 1970s Hulk series changed Bruce Banner to David Banner. Anything can happen between now and production. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: the budding edit war, with two editors both reverting [User:Rusted AutoParts]] on this issue, I've left a note at User talk:Rusted AutoParts. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

How is this for compromise:

Smulders, whom Joss Whedon once considered for his unproduced live-action Wonder Woman film, was selected from a short list of potential actresses that reportedly included Morena Baccarin, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Jessica Lucas.

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "reportedly" is considered a weasel word, the idea being that we're either including something concrete and verifiable in the encyclopedia or we're not, and that we shouldn't equivocate. I'm just not sure at this point what [User:Rusted AutoParts]]'s overdetermination is — we're not a news source here to report every rumor. -- Tenebrae (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was afraid of that. Should we also remove the contested names from the Pre-production section?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed contested names there, but yeah, we really shouldn't include anything not reliably confirmed. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I added Winstead and Lucas because Jackson confirmed they screentested. I provided a source confirming this. But are you just gonna keep reverting my edit to keep it to your liking? It gets frustrating when i added sourced material and you claim it's from another source that said reportedly. Honestly, i think this is how children act. You want it the way you want it so you remove all material not added by you. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:58 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Its called thorough editing. Tenebrae has already explained this to you but I'll deconstruct these points again. Jackson did not confirm that anybody screen-tested, in his interview he did not mention any names. Infact the interview took place before the screen tests were held. The source you posted specifically reads, "We got the news via Collider". Collider reads "Heat Vision reports that actresses screen-testing for the role include Morena Baccarin (V), Jessica Lucas (Cloverfield), Cobie Smulders (How I Met Your Mother), and Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World)". However Heat Vision only states, "V star Morena Baccarin is on that list", the rest are just "said" to be vying for the part. Grabbing headlines is only half of citing sources, the rest is tracing back to the original report and understanding the language that is actually used.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Cobie Smulders is MARIA HILL!

HOW MANY SOURCES DO YOU NEED TO BACK-UP WHAT EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS!?

THERE, PROOF THAT SHE'S PLAYING MARIA HILL IN THE AVENGERS, NOW STOP CENSORING EVERY GOD DAMN MENTION OF MARIA HILL! I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF YOU CLOWNS DENYING IT'S MARIA HILL BECAUSE YOUR MAD AND WANTED SOMEONE ELSE LIKE SHARON CARTER. IT'S FRACKING MARIA HILL, DEAL WITH IT AND LET US CONFIRM IT FOR EVERYONE ELSE ON WIKIPEDIA!!!! WolfRisingSun (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Whoa calm down there buddy, nobody is denying anything, we all share the common interest of fact checking before anything is added. In response to the sources you cited, the first five all cite the same Variety article that makes no mention of the name Maria Hill. You might have something there with the Fusedfilm.com article, as it doesn't cite any article. If Fusedfilm.com checks out to be a WP:RS, I'm sure nobody will be against adding the info.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that all the references go back to Variety. It seems very likely that Maria Hill is her role, but there is no need to rush and mention it. If it is true, it will be outright confirmed in the near future. Filming has not even begun, so we have a lot of time here. Wikipedia is the tortoise here, slow and steady with its article development and content verification. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

What say you about the fusedfilm.com article?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is referencing the Variety (or The Hollywood Reporter) without mentioning it, which can happen. The website's credentials don't seem to indicate that it knows more than the other sources listed above. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Very well. The statement, "The actress is now said to be signing a nine-movie deal for future projects.", does indicate that they are citing somebody else, and Variety mentions the same deal in their article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, guys. Work deadlines were tight today. I haven't had time to look too closely at fusedfilm.com, but I can tell you this: By using the WP:WEASEL passive voice "Now it is confirmed..." without saying "So-and-so confirmed....", it's not saying anything. We can't definitively state it's Maria Hill based on a vague and unattributed assertion. (And besides, I've heard she's playing Sharon Carter....!) --Tenebrae (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

We could put it as "But it is widely believed that the character is Maria Hill or Sharon Carter". Or would would this qualify for WP:WEASEL?

Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:15 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As Erik stated we can afford to wait till we get an official confirmation. Remember there is no deadline.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Tony Stark's Hulk Cameo

Wouldn't his cameo in The Incredible Hulk count towards the amount of Marvel films Downey Jr. has been in? Should there be a mention of this? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:31 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Who knows? The cited source only mentions IM2 and The Avengers.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Avengers (film project) → The Avengers (2012 film) — As filming has begun, it is time for the page to be recreated as a film article rather than an article about a potential film. Fandraltastic (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support per WP:NFF.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Support To be honest we don't really need a request or a seven day consensus for this. We should just do it per WP:NFF. ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Support Principal photography has commenced. Jclemens (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - agree with Jhenderson777. Once principal photography has begun, the name change automatically kicks in. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Support as the "not a film" argument is invalid. --Boycool (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Conditional support - I think I'd like to see a couple more references that filming is underway, but otherwise it's procedural. Hopefully this will be the last of these so-called "film project" articles for a while... --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh - and what's with these "Survey/Discussion" things? Isn't it all discussion? Makes it seem like a straight poll. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Comment how about we hold off on the redirects until after this passes? With articles it may not be an issue, but other pages... it can cause problems. - J Greb (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Don Cheadle

I thought Don Cheadle was appearing as War Machine. Is this not yet confirmed or did he quit? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:46 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Don Cheadle's nonappearance is covered in the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Jane Foster

See Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe#Natalie Portman as Jane Foster in The Avengers.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Badassdigest

An editor who reverted my removing of this source, which misread a Zak Penn interview with Collider, said Baddassdigest is a reliable source and does original reporting.

Here is what Badassdigest itself wrote. Boldface added:

This is not really a news story, but I feel compelled to run it anyway, just to clear some things up. Late last week Zak Penn – good guy, director of some really funny mockumentary films, and one-time writer of The Avengers – did a little bit of press for his new TV show Alphas. Of course The Avengers came up, and Zak was a little vague when discussing it, citing an NDA (you can read all of his comments here). [link to the Collider page, which did an original interview with Penn, which Baddassdigest did not]

At minimum, we should link to the original source of a claim — not to some site taking another person's reporting. Secondly, if you read the Collider interview, Zak Penn never says he didn't do writing on The Avengers script — just the opposite. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

But the article goes on to present information which is original reporting, that Zak Penn's entire draft was dropped and Joss Whedon rewrote the script from scratch. It is not a misreading of Collider's information, but rather a clarification and expansion upon the interview Collider conducted. -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hold on. Let me reread it.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. What I read is Devin Faraci stating, "Zak Penn is not credited on The Avengers. The only name on the script is Joss Whedon, who did a page one rewrite."

How does he know this? He doesn't say. Where did he see the script that's being locked down so tightly that Zak Penn can't talk about it? Did he see the absolute final version of the script?

What he states contradicts what Zak Penn indicates in the interview. His claim is just not reliably sourced, and honestly, Badassdigest.com is not Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, who would never make such a claim without offering proof of having seen the final draft.

To our brethren editors: What do others of you have to say on this? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

THR and Variety tend to never source their claims either. The source of the claims for the trades are those intimately involved with the project. Agents or producers or the scripts themselves. Why are you holding Badassdigest.com to a higher standard? Devin Faraci has been involved in the film community for at least a decade and I've never seen its RS status questioned until now. -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

THR and Variety actually do source their claims, even if it's a blind source. Faraci, with no attribution, makes a huge, remarkable claim that, if true, would be important movie news reported in all the major trades, yet it's not. The policy is, exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

We've each said our piece. Let's let other editors weigh in. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we wait until the film credits are released. It could be that Penn is credited as a story writer and not on the screenplay itself.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Black Widow

Marvel's recent official press release announcing the start of principal photography and the cast list has Scarlett Johansson's Natasha Romanoff character specifically listed as Black Widow. Is her not being referred to as Black Widow in an entirely different film really reason enough to exclude her code name from this film's page? -Fandraltastic (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You bring up a reasonable point. My take is that historically, Marvel tends to do that: I think it's even referred to Obadiah Stane as Iron Monger in some old press releases and in merchandising. I would say that for an encyclopedia, which optimally has unimpeachable facts, there's still a grey area here since we don't know what the filmmakers themselves — the only real authority — call her. We can certainly state what we do concretely know, that Marvel calls the character Black Widow though it is unknown if she is referred to as such in the movie, but that seems like a low-grade fact at this point. For an encyclopedia, as opposed to a news source, I think it's always better to wait until we are absolutely, 100 percent sure of something. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Johansson was even referred to as Black Widow in the DVD extras and promotional materials for Iron Man 2, but the consensus in that article has been only to use what appears on film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

But as the film has not been released or even previewed yet wouldn't official press releases be the very best sources of information? Is it better to assume a codename is being excluded from the film itself than to go by what we are told? For instance, we have no clue if Clint Barton's Hawkeye codename will be specifically mentioned. But as it has been used in press releases and for promotion it is reasonable to include it in the article. I would think the same would apply to Black Widow. If the codenames are not included in the film itself, after release, would seem the best time to remove them from the cast list. -Fandraltastic (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Another good point, I think I might be inclined to agree with you. Perhaps we should get some more opinions.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hawkeye has never been in a Marvel movie, so the only thing to go by is the press release. Natasha Romanoff is the established name of the character in an existing film, so unless we have incontrovertible proof that her name has been changed, we can't assume that it has. Marvel has a history of using shorthand in its press releases that have not proven true onscreen. We know for a fact the character is named Natasha Romanoff, whether she gets a code name or not in the new film. We don't know absolutely that she'll be called Black Widow in the new film. An encyclopedia needs to go with what is absolutely known to be true, as best we can.

Rushing to put in something that is not definite for the sake of newsiness is not how Wikipedia works. There's Wikinews for that. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

These are all very good rationales, I think my head just exploded.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not an issue of rushing. This is an entirely new film, that she was never specifically referred to as "Black Widow" within a different film is not relevant to this article. As you say, all we can do is go with what we absolutely know to be true; at comic-con the character was referred to as Black Widow, in press releases the character has been referred to as Black Widow, in conjuncture with this film the character has never not been referred to as Black Widow. Until the film comes out and proves otherwise I'd heavily lean towards reflecting all of that rather than assuming otherwise.

But I believe we both have expressed our views, let's let others weigh in.-Fandraltastic (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you've commented thrice and I only twice, so to respond to the above: The films are all acknowledged as part of the same Marvel Cinematic Universe, which is different from completely separate, discrete films.

Re: "has never not been referred to as Black Widow": In debate and law, this is asking to other side to prove a negative, the corollary being, "Prove she's not being referred to as Natasha Romanoff".

We know her name in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is Natasha Romanoff. That doesn't change even if she's called Black Widow. So we can say Natasha Ramanoff with certainty, which is what an encyclopedia strives for.

However, I suggest a collaborative compromise. We can absolutely say with certainty that, "Marvel press releases refer to Scarlett Johansson's character as Black Widow, though the filmmakers have not confirmed the film's character names." Is this a fair compromise that addresses both our needs? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The compromise is too wordy for my taste but since I have no opinion here, I'll defer to whatever is decided.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: 3x vs 2x comments: refer to the conversation that is directly above this one, in which you commented more times than I. The idea in both is that both of our opinions have clearly been expressed, and that a drawn out argument is not really helpful. I was not counting the specific number of replies.

In terms of her character not being specifically referred to as Black Widow in a different film and that being a part of the same universe- again, I refer you to Barton. He is not referred to as Hawkeye in the film Thor. That does not mean he will not be referred to as Hawkeye in the Avengers.

Stating that "Marvel press releases refer to Scarlett Johansson's character as Black Widow, though the filmmakers have not confirmed the film's character names" seems counterintuitive, as in this case Marvel are the filmmakers. At this point there is no Avengers film to view so that a conclusion can be reached. We can with certainty list the characters as they are listed in the press releases and know that they are thoroughly sourced, or we can exclude the information based on a different film. At this point I'd rather others weigh in as our two viewpoints on this issue seem to be polar opposites. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's the idea of compromise — that people with opposite views can find a way to state things that address both their concerns. Nobody gets everything, but everybody gets something. Compromise is a valuable endeavor, and I'd hate to see a good, concerned and clearly collaborative editor like yourself not consider working with the wording and trying to find common ground. I've done this a lot, and I know two honorable editors working in good faith can do it now. I do hope you see that I respect your opinion and your willingness to discuss.

I didn't realize Clint Barton / Hawkeye was in Thor — the press screening in the U.S. isn't till next Tuesday. Can hardly wait! --Tenebrae (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

And the fun of crafting a "future film"/"film project" article on comics...

IIRC the consensus with previous films is to limit the plot and finalized (screen credits) cast to what is in the film - hence no "Iron Monger", "War Machine", or "Black Widow" in those sections of completed and globally released films. But, in the "Production" and "Critical commentary/response" sections, if the "codename" is in a cited quote or used in a cited source and paraphrased, it's OK - so "War Machine" crops up in there. We just don't get to drop the codename in if we feel like it.

What does that mean for this article?

Well... We shouldn't have a plot section as such, so no issue there.

Spamming press releases whole cloth into the article is really against guide lines, but if those and what news articles there are on the production and cast use the codenames, then at present, there shouldn't be an issue since these will eventually be condensed into the "Production" section. Keep in mind though, we shouldn't be applying the manes, if the source cited uses "Barton will sport..." we don't get to change it to "Hawkeye will sport..." or even "[Hawkeye] will sport..." And some of. possibly most or all, the name dropping will be condensed out after the film's release.

As for the cast list... There really shouldn't be one at this point, at least not one in the "Actor - Role" table format. So the "Casting" would fall under the "Production" formatting. Again, there is something to keep in mind: IF "Hawkeye", "Black Widow", or any of the other code names aren't used in the film and/or credits, those are going to get yanked in the final cast list in the article. - J Greb (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify this no longer a film project, production has started and this article should be treated like any other.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

After doing some more thinking I think the article should remain as is, we know for a fact that Natasha Romanoff is correct, but are uncertain about Black Widow and I think it best to err on the side of caution. If Black Widow is used on screen we can add it at that point.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Cast order

Until the credits are released (poster, website, etc.) the cast should be listed in film release order as to maintain a neutral point of view. As of now we do not know how signifact each role is compared to the others. Cameos and characters with out much information can still listed in prose at the bottom of the section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to use alphabetic by actor since the "news releases" also imply a priority/ranking. - J Greb (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Very well, as long as we are all on the same page.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

October 2011 revisit

Marvel has released a press release containing the starring credits, I have updated the page accordingly with these credits in order as they appear first followed by the remaining actors by their surnames.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't Johansson's character be identified as the Black Widow? The press release mentions that character name. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Black Widow has been used throughout Marvel's marketing campaign, not only for this film but also IM2, so I dont think this really changes anything. Maybe we can do something like what I did for Hawkeye and say "known in the comics as "Black Widow".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The press release calls them Hawkeye and Black Widow, though? In absence of the film (and it's going to be very annoying if their names never come up in it), we should use this reliable source. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact that were dealing with an unreleased film does muddy things up but on the other hand we do have precedent as this the sixth film in a shared universe. If nobody else objects I won't challenge it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Synopsis

The Avengers synopsis on the casting calls in New Mexico give a bit more information on the synopsis... "A superhero team called “The Avengers” do battle against two separate alien extraterrestrial humanoid life forms. The Avengers are a superhero team, consisting of a group of Marvel Comics heroes aka “Earth’s Mightiest Heroes”. The aliens that The Avengers will fight are called “The Kree” and “Skrulls”. These two extraterrestrial races become embroiled in a war for ages that ultimately makes its way to Earth, and the Avengers unite to intervene with all their power and might combined."

Here's one of the many sites you can find this synopsis on... http://www.geekmodern.com/?p=120

And also mentioned in the link above, a newspaper in New Mexico reported this: ”‘The Avengers’ script will blend ‘Iron Man’, ‘Thor’, and ‘Captain America: The First Avenger’ story lines as the Avengers battle with two alien races, the Skrulls and the Kree.” JAR Head 13:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Geek Modern does not seem to be a reliable source so the authenticity of this casting call comes into question. What is stated in the article comes directly from Marvel.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur. I've removed this reference for now for the following reasons: Geekmodern.com, first of all, was not the source of the story. We should always go to the original source. In this case it was a site [which I can't even link to since it's apparently blacklisted) called Before the trailer dot com 2011/03/the-avengers-open-casting-information-in-albuquerque-on-march-25-and-26/ , which is run anonymously/pseudonymously and gives only first names and geographic regions -- there's no address, and no indications that this is anything but a self-published hobby site whose information may or may not be accurate or even made up: Wikipedia has a long history of being hoaxes. If this casting notice is real, why doesn't it appear in Bckstage or elsewhere? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I also thought it was strange that Marvel was so deliberately vague in regards to the story in their press release but so specific in the casting call that would have gone out to hundreds of potential actors and extras.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanos to appear in the film?

According to this website Thanos will be making an appearance in the film. Can anyone verify this? Josh (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No attribution is given in the source, so as of now it is just rumor.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Series?

Has there been any information pertaining as to whether or not this is intended to be a one-shot film, or the start of an Avengers series? I ask because the absence of founding members like Pym/Wasp who would lead into things like Ultron/Vision/Scarlet Witch, is pretty alarming. DB (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything definitive.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Avengers.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Avengers.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Teaser trailer in Captain America: The First Avenger

I do not think that a teaser trailer playing after the ending credits is anymore notable than a trailer playing before the opening credits. WP:FILMMARKETING is pretty clear on mere mentions of trailers. If this scene is actually apart of Captain America: The First Avenger it should be mentioned there in the plot section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The use of the trailer in Captain America is highly unusual in that it is connected to the plot of the film and seeks to interlink the two films together into a continuous narrative (like the teasers in the other MCU films), and is thus noteworthy and not in violation of WP:FILMMARKETING. Why shouldn't the Captain America trailer be included in the article, when the Comic-con trailer is? Richiekim (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I am iffy on the Comic-Con trailer as well, but the emphasis is on the Comic-Con promotion not the trailer itself. Also are we talking about a stinger or an actual trailer that happens to air after the ending credits. Your wording suggests that latter. If it is in fact a stinger than it is apart of CA:TFA and should be mentioned there in the plot as with Iron Man (film), Iron Man 2 and Thor (film).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

According to this, it is a stinger not a trailer. Melrose, Kevin (2011-07-22). "Captain America Post-Credits Scene Leaks, Teases The Avengers". Comic Book Resources. Retrieved 2011-07-22. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Thor movie article mentions the stinger from Iron Man 2 in the marketing section. Another reason why the Captain America stinger should be mentioned in the Avengers film article. Richiekim (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Again WP:OTHERSTUFF, but atleast that also contains critical commentary.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Merely stating the existence of the trailer violates the guideline. Marketing should be accompanied by a real-world context i.e. analysis or critical commentary, or third party observations about its reception, otherwise it is not encyclopedic information. Betty Logan (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the case of this trailer is unusual enough to warrant a mention. First, a post-credits trailer is rare if not unprecedented. Second, it is unusual for a post-credits scene to seamlessly change to a trailer. Third, the scene/trailer was leaked online, resulting in it being removed from press screenings. --Boycool (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As Betty Logan stated inclusion of the trailer is fine as long as it is accompanied by critical commentary otherwise it is in violation of guidelines.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I really think there should be a more detailed outline of this trailer in the article. Saw Cap'n A the other day, and considering the audience reaction, and also considering the expectations surrounding this film, someone really ought to outline what is presented in the trailer! There is A LOT of info there, and unfortunately most of it flashed by too fast for me to get most of it. --98.247.142.237 (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Righetti

Most of the sources reporting about Amanda Righetti trace back to this article which gives no attribution to where the information originated, as such we should treat this as a rumor until a more definite confirmation is made.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

She's the very last person in the official cast credits of Captain America: The First Avenger: "SHIELD Agent ... AMANDA RIGHETTI". She has, I think, two lines, playing the fake nurse in the present-day room where they're trying to acclimate Rogers by pretending it's still the 1940s.

It's just a bit part, no more notable than "Stark’s Engineer ... KEVIN MILLINGTON", "Manager Velt ... PATRICK MONCKEBERG" or "HYDRA Lieutenant ... PETER STARK". --Tenebrae (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And, in fact, the article cited doesn't even say she's going to be in The Avengers specifically, and simply speculates — wrongly, as it turns out — that she's playing a major role when it's just a bit part. I'm removing her from The Avengers article since there's no reliable-source citation that she's in The Avengers. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's your citation. ^[1] Scroll down and tell me the name that comes up between Tom Hiddleston and Lou Ferrigno. Then kindly bring my edits back. I mean no disrespect, but I know more on this subject then you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidorulz (talk • contribs) 17:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source, please see WP:IRS on identifying reliable sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, it has been removed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey me again. that thing I mentioned before is back. Once again, not my doing. I recommend you keep an eye on that page.-- Guidorulz

Disney vs Paramount

Disney is the studio which will distribute The Avengers, NOT Paramount. The teaser poster with the Paramount logo is not sufficient proof, whereas there are multiple sources that reported that Disney bought the distribution rights from Paramount. Richiekim (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This might be an error, this same exact teaser poster was uploaded by Marvel on their website. --WikiEditor44 (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the Paramount logo also appears on Marvel's official website for The Avengers. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The logo could mean anything for all we know it could just be left over from Disney's deal when they secured the rights from Paramount. The press release cited in the premise does state Disney is the sole owner and distributor. The point is we shouldn't make any rush to judgements and wait for a reliable source to explain it's significance.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It is possible that Paramount is still involved in some minor capacity (since they were, in fact, developing the movie before Disney came on board) and that the Disney and Paramount logos will run before the film, but it's all speculation at this point. We should wait for an official answer from the studios before we list Paramount as a studio, although it is curious that the Paramount logo is on a brand new teaser poster for the film. It's also possible that Marvel Studios, which is now owned by Buena Vista, will actually handle distribution instead of Walt Disney Pictures.TheLastAmigo (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I highly doubt that Marvel Studios will distribute the Avengers themselves. Pixar, like Marvel Studios is a subdivision of the Disney Motion Pictures Group and every Pixar film has been distributed by Disney. Richiekim (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Then why else would they not put the Walt Disney logo on a brand new poster, but just the Paramount and Marvel Studios logos? Don't tell me that it was because the poster was done before Disney acquired the rights to The Avengers. It's not that hard to switch out logos, and I highly doubt that Disney's marketing department would be that stupid. Touchstone Pictures is also a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group and they distribute their own movies. TheLastAmigo (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, the teaser poster is circumstantial evidence. Mistakes happen, and Marvel/Disney probably didn't think the logo was that big a deal. Do a Google search on the Disney/Paramount deal, they overwhelmingly state that Disney purchased all rights to the Avengers and its characters (Cap, Iron Man, Thor, etc) from Paramount. Also, Marvel/Pixar are smaller production companies who only output a few movies a year as opposed to distributors like Walt Disney Pictures and Touchstone who who have much larger budgets and release dozens of films a year. 146.95.136.192 (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I believe I found something that explains why the Paramount logo is on the poster. In an article published by the Hollywood Reporter on 10/18/10 (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/disney-distribute-marvels-avengers-iron-31061), "Paramount insiders say the studio will receive its usual 8% distribution fee for “The Avengers” and an increase to 9% for the third “Iron Man” — a sweetener of gratitude for launching the franchise so successfully." Maybe Disney is distributing, but the Paramount logo will still run (along with the Disney and Marvel logos) in front of The Avengers and Iron Man 3 and be included on the posters and trailers as part of the deal.TheLastAmigo (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That same article that you brought up also says; "In completing this agreement, Disney will now leverage these two highly anticipated films across the multiple global platforms of the Walt Disney Co.,” Disney Studios chairman Rich Ross said. “We appreciate the tremendous momentum that Paramount established with these iconic Marvel characters and look forward to propelling the brand even further in the coming years.”" Meaning, (to put it bluntly): Thank you Paramount for your work, we will take over from here. The title of that article also states an indisputable fact: Disney will distribute Marvel's The Avengers and Iron Man 3. The distribution fee for the films proves nothing. Paramount and Disney made similar deals about collecting distribution fees when Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America were released. Most of those film's grosses went to Disney. However, those films were completely under Paramount's distribution control. This film's distribution will be completely handled by Disney. Also, to add on what User:146.95.136.192 said; Marvel Studios (along with Pixar, WDAS, etc.) is a production house, whereas Walt Disney Pictures and Touchstone are film labels. But to reiterate what others have said, the poster could have simply been an error, nothing more but to wait what the respective parties have to say about this. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm clearly not disputing that Disney will distribute The Avengers. All I'm saying is that it is possible that they will still run the Paramount logo in front of the films and include it on promotional material. I never once stated or even suggested that Paramount would distribute the film. However, generally if a studio stands to make money off of a film and had something to do with the production (it is indisputable that most of the pre-production on the film was done at Paramount before the rights were sold to Disney), they will include the logo of the studio in promotional material and run it in front of the film. Warner Bros. is distributing The Hobbit, but I am certain that they will run the MGM and New Line logos in front of the films and include them on promotional material. They put the Paramount logo on the promotional material for Watchmen and ran it in front of the film, even though Warner Bros. was the distributor. And let's not forget that they ran a teaser for The Avengers at the end of Captain America, which was distributed by Paramount. I'm sorry, but I just can't believe that they would make a mistake like this when they've had all this time to develop promotional material for the films. I think that there is more to it than they accidentally put the wrong studio on the poster. Paramount is probably involved in some way, although it is definitely not distribution. They just launched the official website and the Paramount logo was on there too (on the left hand side, which is generally used for studios involved in the production, not distributors, which are listed on the right hand side -- which is, coincidentally, the Marvel Studios logo). Regardless, I'm just speculating and have not suggested that we list Paramount as one of the studios. If you read my first comment, you'd see that I even said that we should wait for official word from the studios.TheLastAmigo (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct, I also saw the official website for The Avengers and was even more perplexed to see the Paramount logo on that site with no regards to Disney. Nevertheless, this is indeed massive confusion for us editors. I apologize for antagonizing you in any way whatsoever (I overlooked your thoughts). Let's all hope we can get a confirmed announcement about who exactly is going to be identified as distributor. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It's all good. I didn't feel especially antagonized, lol. But I hope they clear this up as well.TheLastAmigo (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment from a fellow editor: It gladdens me to see a discussion like this on Wikipedia where the participants exchange ideas, even conflicting ones, in a mature, civil, respectful manner. I hope this conversation serves as a model to all us other editors. It really shows the best of how Wikipedia can be. My sincere compliments. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I was wrong. According to the trailer, Paramount will be associated with The Avengers.Richiekim (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Again like the poster, the trailer only has Paramount's logo. It doesn't state in what capacity the company is involved. We have reliable sources stating Disney is sole distributor so the article should remain as is for now until we have reliable clarification.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This IP edit, actually brought something to my attention. Maybe we have been looking at this entire thing wrong. The wording here might suggest that Paramount is a co-producer with Marvel Studios not a distributor.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that it's fairly obvious what is going on here. Due to the placement of the Marvel Studios logo on the right hand side of the poster as well as the fact that it's also the studio listed first in the trailer (followed by Paramount) means that Marvel Studios is no longer just a "production house" under the Walt Disney Motion Picture Group, but a full fledged "film label" like Walt Disney Pictures and Touchstone Pictures. Thus, Disney is going to distribute The Avengers under the Marvel Studios label and Paramount is a co-producer. Also, I don't think we're going to get official confirmation from Disney because they probably don't think it's an important enough issue to clear up.TheLastAmigo (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what "film label" means. It's usually either a production studio and a film distributor. My take on it is that Marvel Studios is the production studio (as a division of The Walt Disney Company), and that one of the Disney-division distributors (Touchstone Pictures, Walt Disney Pictures, etc.) will distribute. My guess is that since Paramount originally had the distribution deal that they retained a financial interest in negotiations with Disney when Disney bought Marvel.

In any event, we're an encyclopedia, which has to be exact, and there's no deadline. It'll all be evident when the film comes out. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Very true. Should this edit be kept?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that it should. It's very obvious that there was no mistake on the poster and that Paramount is involved somehow, regardless of who the distributor is. The trailer is proof of this. The logo is going to run before the film and is included on both the poster and the trailer. Warner Bros. distributed Watchmen, but the Paramount logo ran before the film and it is listed as a Paramount film (in addition to a Warner Bros. film) on Wikipedia. I think the same precedent should be kept in this circumstance as well. TheLastAmigo (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Still as Tenebrae pointed out we should refrain from adding Paramount as either a distributor or a producer until it can be explicitly verified.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with that. TheLastAmigo (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed in the trailer that the word MARVEL was above the The Avengers title, and not MARVEL STUDIOS'. (which could be seen on recent Paramount releases.) I wonder if that implies a new brand name, or just a minor re-design detail. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And we have an answer

Why Par, not Disney, gets 'Avengers' credit--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Aw.....I was just about to announce it. Anyways, there's our answer. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So I figured right? Cool! :) --Tenebrae (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Now what?

Should we list Paramount as a distributor? Woofygoodbird is of the opinion that we should because "We must honor the deal in which Paramount will be credited, too". I respectfully disagree, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not bound by the legal arrangements made between to independent companies, only what happens in the real world. Paramount is not actually doing any distribution and we have several reliable sources to back this up. However as a collaborative project and for the stability of the article, it is important we reach a consensus and stick to it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, though I think we could add a note explaining the matter and have a footnote within that note referencing the article linked above. Erik (talk | contribs)

They aren't the actual distributor. TBH I'm not sure what purpose it serves the reader to know who distributed a film but when it does matter, thinking Paramount did it basically leads to a fallacy unless a reader reads the entire article including a paragraph about some back-room deal. Paramount is not the distributor. You could list both, listing WD as uncredited but I don't particuarly like that idea as it still gives the impression that Paramount was teh distributor. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep Walt Disney Pictures as sole distributor, but do leave the footnote concerning Paramount's "credit". That should be enough. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Viacom is involved as well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.60.235 (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

both! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.60.235 (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Australian release date

I don't know if this is true. The Australian release date of April 25, 2011 was announced here, here, and finally here. --WikiEditor44 (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing, I do not know if it is true either but the sites you have posted appear to be self published blogs. If true I do not doubt that we will hear official word from Marvel/Disney or published by a more reliable source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Haven't been able to track down April 25 public release, but I did find a newspaper that ran AP photos of the April 17 world premiere, if that helps: [1]. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I see you have been working too hard lately, all these articles are starting to run together. We're talking about the Avengers release not Thor. :) --TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Like Erik (talk | contribs) 13:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Our esteemed colleague does however raise a good point that might bring some validity to this story. Thor did premiere in Australia before it did in the US, so it is possible that The Avengers might as well. Still, I think we should for some more reliable sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 revisit

Still haven't seen anymore about Australia but there are rumors of possible premieres in Moscow and Milan. Neither of these have been confirmed so we'll continue to wait for more info.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Will The Skrulls Appear?

Theres tons of internet buzz that the Skrulls will appear, does anyone know if this is true, or if not who the men in stop action suits will be, as seen in many photos and videos on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.94.99 (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Villain?

Do we know who the main villain is going to be? The article doesn't seem to mention this, and it's a pretty big feature of a comic book film. Surely it's not Tom Hiddleston as Loki? No other actors playing villains seem to be listed. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

While rumors remain rampant, what is mentioned in the article is the most reliable information made available.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

3D Release

Now that it has been confirmed that the film will be released in 3D, should we add this to the release section? --TravisBernard (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Skrulls in film?

About this....I don't need to go anywhere online to know that while Marvel Comics may have created them, Marvel Studios does not have the rights to them. Fox Studios does. So there won't be any in this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidorulz (talk • contribs) 00:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's correct. According to this: [2], Fox only owns the Super Skrull, but Marvel Studios owns the rights to the Skrull race. Why did you bring this up, anyway? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The Skrulls will not be in the film, as confirmed by Kevin Feige of Marvel. --TravisBernard (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

2012 protection

Given the track record of the last few weeks I've semi-protected the page. All of the IP edits I've seen have been reverted as disruptive at the least.

- J Greb (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Release Date

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article currently says: "The Avengers is scheduled for release on May 4, 2012 in the United States in 2D and 3D."

The German release is more than a week earlier, so to avoid any US-centrism in the article, that sentence should be replaced:

"The Avengers is scheduled for release on April 26, 2012 in Germany in 2D and 3D." --91.10.20.87 (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done Per WP:FILMRELEASE the first release date and the release date in the country of origin should be used. So unless you have a reliable source stating that the German release is the earliest release date, we cannot use it.--TriiipleThreat (talk)

Look it up in IMDb if you want to avoid US-centrism. The fact is, the current information is MISLEADING and only true for people ignoring the world outside the USA. --91.10.20.87 (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

IMDB is a user-generated database and therefore not a reliable source. Marvel usually sends out a press release with their full release schedule ahead of the films release as with their other films, so don't worry. In the mean time remember there is no rush.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

So until one of you take two seconds to check any of Marvel's non-US sites, this article contains misleading information. Right, no rush to remove US-centrism. It's against policy, but that does not matter as long as the USA looks like the center of the world. --91.10.20.87 (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, someone should comment on the blatant policy violation. --91.10.20.87 (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what your problem with Americans is, but this alleged "US-centrism" is not intentional. Wikipedia simply requires reliable sources, which have not been provided. --Boycool (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You have reliable sources. One is linked above, others a Google search away.

Oh, and just because I'm pointing out blatant US-centrism doesn't mean that I have a problems with Americans. Stop making stuff up. --91.10.20.87 (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:WORLDVIEW is not policy, but we do strive to maintain it. However we are constrained by WP:RS to anoid WP:OR and WP:SYN.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You are simply ignoring the RS I provided and pointed out? Great work! --91.10.20.87 (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because it is an earlier release, does not make it the first release date. That is the definition of WP:SYN.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it just points to OR. --91.10.20.87 (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done and not likely to be done until you provide a valid reference that specifically states that the German release is the earliest one, per WP:FILMRELEASE. Please listen to your fellow editors. Re-open this request only when you have this source, thank you --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 22:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Tom Hiddleston in Infobox

I think it's safe to say that Tom Hiddleston is one of the main characters in the film. He's the main bad guy, and he has been featured prominently in all the marketing material thus far. I think his name should be added to the infobox. Thoughts? --TravisBernard (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

He is not listed as a starring role per Marvel's starring credits, see discussion above.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the help. --TravisBernard (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if the issue should be revisited now with the official website listing him and his character bio alongside the other 7 stars, giving him just as much prominence. Not as official as a press release I suppose, but still very telling. I also wanted to readdress the issue of using Black Widow and Hawkeye's names in the article. The website clearly lists them as the characters' codenames. The press releases used them too. We are no longer playing it safe, we're just ignoring verifiable information. It is a fact the production is referring to the characters by those names, whether they actually end up being called that in the film's dialogue won't change that fact. I mean, this just seems silly to me now. By the same argument we shouldn't assume Hawkeye's first name is Clint because he was only called "Barton" in Thor. --DocNox (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The website just features eight bios of characters appearing in the film, these are not the starring credits. The only such credits so far have appeared in press releases. This could change however once the credits are added to the website or start appearing on film posters an the like. Regarding the codenames, this is a highly contentious issue and since this a future film and we do not yet know what names will be used for sure, I'll go along with it as long no one else objects.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

After a closer look, the starring credits are listed on the official website in the story section, and they do not differ from what is already listed in the infobox.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I figured as much about Hiddleston. As for Black Widow and Hawkeye, I guess I'm failing to understand why it even matters if the names are used in the actual film or not. I could probably think of several film's where a character's name might not have been said, but we still know it's the name. And even with character's like Iron Monger, Abomination, or War Machine where from an in universe perspective they are clearly not meant to be the characters' names, with only passing jokey references in dialogue to them, from an out of universe perspective (which we should really be writing this article from) they are the characters names with people in the real world and in the film's production calling them that all the time. So I really believe it is in no way "wrong" to use the names here. Now with all that said I don't even think it applies to Black Widow and Hawkeye since it's pretty clear to me those codenames are used from an in universe perspective as well. In the characters' descriptions on the official website it literally says "Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner), code-named Hawkeye" and "Natasha Romanoff, aka Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson)". It's a verifiable fact. Them not saying it in the movie won't change that. --DocNox (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There was a quite lengthy and heated discussion at Talk:Iron Man 2#War Machine where you can find the reasoning behind this practice in general. However like I said this situation is a little different because the film has not yet been released so all we have to go on is precedent vs. third party sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

So is the consensus for now that we need to wait until more information is released and/or the film is released? --TravisBernard (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The only consensus I'm getting from that is that we shouldn't use the alternate names from an in universe point of view if they weren't used that way in the film. Which makes sense, but only really applies to Plot sections. Everything else should be out of universe. And since this is a future film we don't even have a Plot section. Also since this is a future film we shouldn't assume what names will or won't be used. And there are plenty of reliable sources out there to verify Black Widow and Hawkeye as the characters' names in this film. I'm going to add them if there's no real objections. --DocNox (talk) 08:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and added them (at least temporarily) since we're dealing with a future release, not including them might be original research because we do not yet know for sure if they will be used. However if turns out that they are not used in the film, there are valid reasons for removing them, which we can address at that time.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The story section of the official website now lists Hiddleston among the starring roles. I went ahead and added him to the infobox and header. Fandraltastic (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

300 Million Dollar Budget?

Empire Magazine recently reported that the Avengers Budget is around 300 million dollars. Damn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.66.56 (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source on that? I've seen speculation about a $300 million budget, but nothing that is reliable enough to include in the article. --TravisBernard (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think in Empire Magazine's latest issue they mention a 300 million dollar budget somewhere...trying to find a precise source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.66.56 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen the print issue yet, but a couple of blogs that are covering the Empire story refer to it as a "floating budget" meaning it is not fixed and therefore might not accurately reflect the true budget. Which might be why Entertainment Weekly only estimates it at $220 million.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's the exact quote from page 75 of the March 2012 issue of Empire

"And what about the pressure of handling this $300 million behemoth, this once-in-a-generation blockbuster, about meeting fanboy and stockholders' expectations, about delivering a comic-book movie that can go toe-to-toe with The Dark Knight Rises?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.11.11 (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok I can verify that this quote does appear in the article (scan here). So now we have conflict of sources and I would say that they both are equally reliable. What do we do now? Should we change the budget or present a range like $220-300 million?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of a range. --TravisBernard (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm leery simply because Empire, while a film magazine, isn't an industry trade magazine like Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, which tend to attribute budget figures to "a studio executive" or some such. Empire in this case doesn't do that, so without attribution, we don't know Where does Empire gets its figure: Is it from studio sources, or is it only its educated-guess estimate? And the term "behemoth" suggests to me that the figure &dmash; which is astronomical and perhaps record-setting — may include not just the budget but also P&A (prints and advertising) costs. Given these questions, plus the fact that extraordinary claims need extraordinary sourcing, as well as a couple other concerns, I'm not sure I'd use that figure in an encyclopedia, which by nature should be as concrete and definitive as possible.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly, the source of $220 million figure, isn't a trade either. Should we remove that as well until a more concrete figure published in a trade is released?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we should leave it as a range until a more concrete figure is published in a trade. Disney typically doesn't release the exact budget for their films, so I feel like whatever ends up staying in the article might also be a range, if not an estimation. --TravisBernard (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Empire is sticking to the $300 Million figure in their April issue.Rong626 (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Where are they getting the rest of these figures and what do they represent? Opening Weekend: $80 million, US: $240 million, Worldwide: $600 million?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm with TriiipleThreat — neither Entertainment Weekly nor Empire attribute these figures, which indicates these are nothing more than than their own guesses. The footnote and the attached quote are very forthright, so one the one hand we could say, "We're just stating what an RS claims." On the other hand, because that figure is a self-described estimate with no attribution, we might want to leave out a budget figure for now until we have more than just these two widely disparate sources. There's no deadline. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead a removed the budget for now. I'm still curious on how Empire can up with those revenue figures. Can they see the future?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not just have "$220-300 million" with both sources. Wasn't something similar done at Avatar (2009 film) for a long time? --Boycool (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose, but Tenebrae is right that neither source are attributing their claims. EW blatantly states its an estimation while I am highly suspicious of Empire based on their other figures but since you and TravisBernard seem to be in full agreeance, I added the range.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Empire does not, however, actually use the term budget in the quoted sentence with the $300 million figure. As I'd mentioned earlier, deliberately avoiding the term budget indicates the possibility that Empire is also including print-and-advertising (P&A) and marketing costs. If Empire isn't calling $300 million the budget, I don't believe we should either. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat Those are box-office predictions of theirs. Rong626 (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, but what are they based on? I find it hard to believe that The Avengers will do worse than Iron Man 2. The point I was making is that the $300 million figure could be just as made-up.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Damn. I thought I was bringing something new to this conversation. --Boycool (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

New Poster

http://i.imgur.com/9P168.jpg
UK variant

Rong626 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0848228/

[1] Footnote 1 title etc. here

[f2-2] Footnote 2 title etc. here

[3] ttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0848228/

[1]

[2]

[1]