Talk:Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Potential Late 2022 or 2023 Release Indication?

An editor User:LizardKing007 recently added this article from Rotten Tomatoes' editorial indicating Jonathan Majors would play the villain (which I reverted per its non-notability on billing), and I read through the article and it indicated that "There is no current release date for Ant-Man 3, but the delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic suggest that it probably won’t come out until sometime in 2023 (or late 2022 at the very earliest)." I doubt this would hold any significance or reliability given the "probability" use in it, but I just wanted to bring this up if anyone else felt it could be included. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems like discussion speculation on their parts, not reporting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I figured such. Alright. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Probably not 2022 anymore

After today's announcement's, I believe Captain Marvel 2 took the last 2022 date (November 2022), so it's very plausible this will be in 2023 now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I also believe it might not make its 2022 date, BUT we should definitely wait until sources specifically state a new release date for Ant-Man 3. Cardei012597 (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Totally. Just wanted to throw it out there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for sharing this. Cardei012597 (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Jan/Feb 2021 filming

Trailblazer101 How do we know this is correct? As I can't actually see the listings, my understanding was that all the titles you see on any Production Weekly website just covers what is stated in the issue/listings. And those don't give any indication of what the issue/listing says for them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are unable to view the listings, as I do so without an account. I have found Production Weekly to be quite reliable in that they are reporting on all production start dates for each month, and often times include the working titles with them that are known. They've gotten a lot of these start info correct in the past and I don't see any indication that they are inherently wrong. Plus, the January 2021 start date was what was planned back when Reed signed on, same with the 2022 release, so it does seem that (based on Pfeiffer's direct confirmation that Quantumania is "coming 2022") that this film is still on track to meet its filming start and release. I would like to extend my thoughts about the production start to the release in that all information we've gotten for it strongly support a 2022 release. That could be the October 7th date Marvel Studios has, or something else entirely. But we haven't gotten any reliable sources reporting on a potential 2023 date as you've brought up in being a possibility, and to me, it seems Quantumania is still on track for what Marvel Studios' schedule had previously set, as this reconfirms what we initially knew pre-pandemic as fact. Unless there's something else that disproves Production Weekly's credibility, but I think it's safe to include this start date and release info. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I think what Favre1fan93 is saying is that we need a more reliable, free-use, third-party news source that reports specifically on Ant-Man 3's release date. Production Weekly could be used to back up other informational pieces, but not for release dates, as release dates require more concrete evidence. Cardei012597 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand that. We did initially use Pfeiffer's post to confirm the 2022 release, but I brought up how the filming info being iffy back then as reason why we shouldn't use it then. Now that filming has been reconfirmed, I strongly feel that we can use Pfeiffer's post as confirmation, given she did strongly say it was coming 2022. It's likely Marvel Studios used her to get that bit out there to reaffirm it as it was up in the air beforehand. I just feel since both the filming and release info have been reconfirmed as how they were planned two years ago that we shouldn't just list it off as potential when we have direct confirmation from an actress involved on it still releasing in the timeframe intended. Any potential date of when or it being in 2023 is WP:SYNTH, regardless of the likelihood of what Blade could be, so I think we should go by the sources with this info. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

My issue specifically on the production start is this, which I apologize for not clarifying: I know of Production Weekly and we've used it in the past, that is no issue. However, for me, when I click the link, I see the heading saying there are 103 listings and 24 pages in issue 1228, a small thumbnail/download link to the issue that requires an account, and then the 103 productions listed in the issue. Where on this url does it say Ant-Man and the Wasp Quantumania is starting in January? I'm not seeing that (as I'm sure it's listing in the issue gives info) and that's the same reasoning I have with this being used for She-Hulk too. To my knowledge, the listings are not simply those starting or in production at the time of the issue release, but ones the publishers have gotten info on to report. (As in the past, Production Weekly has given MCU info well before filming started, hence my thinking on that.) I hope that clarifies my questioning of its use. And then to the release, I don't doubt it could be 2022, I just don't think we can equate filming starting (if it is true) to the release date. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for your clarification. While it doesn't explicitly state Quantumania is beginning filming, the tags at the bottom of the issue state "Filming", "Startdate", and "Shooting" for all of the contents listed, making it pretty clear that this is for what content is filming as of this month. Production Weekly does normally get info out there way before filming, so they probably didn't get all the filming info out there for these January productions because of the pandemic delays. I might be jumping the gun on this, but this does line up with what we previously knew before the pandemic, and with Pfeiffer's early 2021 filming info she gave in December, so I feel it could be used to reverify that as still happening. As for the 2022 date, I think it should be included as scheduled for 2022 per Pfeiffer's post in which she said it was coming in 2022, which backs up THR's possible 2022 release from Nov. 2019. Pfeiffer's bit upfront confirms a 2022 release, we just don't know the date, same with what we have for Vol. 3. I'm not saying the ProdWeekly info verifies the 2022 release, just that those have both been reaffirmed concretely and the article should reflect that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that's very much a stretch to definitively say filming is starting this month without seeing its actual listing, so I think that has to be reverted back to what it was. To my knowledge, we've never used Production Weekly for filming dates, only working titles as listed. Fir the date, I took your edit summary saying "it will meet that" to equate a start of production this month (which I think should be removed) to supporting the 2022 date. My counterargument (even if filming starts in by March say), is that does not mean a 2022 date would be hit. Look at The Suicide Squad that began filming basically 2 years before it's going to release. I'm still of the mindset that we should be saying "potential 2022 release" and TBA at the Phase 4 article at this time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

That actually makes more sense the more I think about it. This whole film's timetable of production is a bit confusing for me as it's in pre-production and the filming start and release keep getting rebounded. Yeah, sticking with what we have is the best course of action, and I apologize for my improper and confusing wording. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted back the filming info and bit from Pfeiffer's 2022 comment now. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I've found an article from Variety detailing the MCU's future content after the Investors Day presentation and it did leave Quantumania undated, after Pfeiffer's post. After checking the ProdWeekly listings, it also had "Preproduction" as a tag, which this film is still in, so yeah, I was jumping the gun on this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries. :) I just felt it was a bit thin to completely state as such, especially since the tags of the article were not specific to this production (or She-Hulk's). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Turkey filming

I recently reverted an edit regarding a potential filming start date and location, which included this source: https://thedirect.com/article/paul-rudd-ant-man-3-filming-cappadocia-turkey-historic. I wanted to get a consensus on the notability of the source and whether we should re-add it. Thoughts? Cardei012597 (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I did some digging into this, and TheDirect reports Turkey's Minister of Culture and Tourism, Mehmet Nuri Ersoy, said in a recent interview that "One movie more, it's Ant-Man. Filming has begun. Currently filming Cappadocia and several locations." Haven't found any reliable sources reporting on it yet. The only other one that has is Murphy's Multiverse, like TheDirect, is unreliable. So, we should wait until it is picked up on by a reliable source to add and move to the mainspace. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thats why I previously reverted the edit, as it seemed not that reliable of a source on its own. Cardei012597 (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This comes from an interview the Turkish Minister of Culture and Tourism Mehmet Nuri Ersoy had with a Turkish TV station, here on YouTube with a verified account. The video does not provide the option for closed captions, that's a bit hard to verify at this time, and I'm not entirely sure the exact time stamp, but if what he said is correct, the direct interview can be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Timestamp of that YouTube video is like 4:26 or so, and the minister says "Ant-Man" at 4:32. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

We could possibly use the interview, but I would still like to wait for a secondary, outside, news source to report on this. I also do not think the interview alone is strong enough to move this draft to the mainspace. Cardei012597 (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93, Adamstom.97, Facu-el Millo, and Cardei012597: An article from Tekdeeps today translated another article from the 2nd reporting on the confirmation of Ant-Man's filming. I feel we could use these to source this filming info. There is also this blog reporting on it, but I don't think it'd be useful. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and implement the filming info based on the source, as it seems pretty evident that filming has begun, per Now there is ‘Ant-Man’, it is being shot in many regions including Cappadocia. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should wait until someone at Marvel or Disney comfirms that filming has begun. It is rather peculiar that neither Paul Rudd, Peyton Reed, or Kevin Feige commented on its current filming in Turkey. Cardei012597 (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Not really, they don't usually comment on filming starts ever since Marvel stopped doing press releases at the beginning of production. My biggest concern is whether we find these sources to be reliable confirmation that filming has started. If so, we should move to the mainspace. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I feel since they are Turkish-based news sites covering what their arts Minister confirmed in the interview, they can be taken pretty reliably and the translation seems pretty clear-cut. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

In this article from Aroged they state The foreign films will be filmed in Turkey, promising to increase in the very near future Ersoy, Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania so Ant-Man 3 filmi your shots too Cappadocia He gave the good news that it started in many regions including This new development regarding the shooting of the film has not been included in the foreign press. started. ("started" links to The Direct's report in the article.) It further states at the bottom "Ant-Man 3 filmi It will be released in cinemas in 2023.", but that could just be a typo. Nonetheless, this could explain why it's not getting much report on. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I do think we should wait for a third-party news source, however, if the draft were to move to the mainspace, I can concede on the issue. Cardei012597 (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I find it interesting that more English sites like Screen Rant, Comicbook, or CBR haven't picked up on this yet. That's what I'm sort of waiting on regarding this, because I know it's doubtful we'll get anything from Marvel/Feige/the cast. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

As do I. It was mentioned in the Aroged article that it hasn't been sent to foreign press, so I assume that's why. But I feel these Turkish sites are enough for a move. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I obviously don't know Turkish website, but it seems hard to judge their reliability. If any that you linked are, I would say Teknolojioku would be the only one to pass reliability. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

What are we thinking about moving this? Going solely off the site Teknolojioku or even the direct link of the interview, I'd say we could make the move, but not entirely sure we should. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I have a similar opinion, as I would of prefered a separate third party news source comment on the Turkish website. I won't perform the move, however, I can vote to someone else doing the move. Cardei012597 (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm able to make the move if it's agreed upon we should. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I support the move based solely on the Turkish website covering the Minister's interview and how it said it wasn't in the foreign press. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I think we should go ahead and make the move, but be on the lookout for more info / new sources to update with. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll go ahead momentarily and make the move. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

2022 release date

Michael Douglas said today on his Instagram that Quantumania is "coming in 2022", as Michelle Pfeiffer had done a while ago. Thoughts on perhaps stating it more firmly than "a possible release" now? —El Millo (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Since two of the leading actors have said it is coming in 2022, I say it's very concrete that it will fill a 2022 release date, and isn't just potential. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, in this Yahoo article with Reed (already used in the page), the site says at the bottom, It’s currently planned for a 2022 release. It seems very concise that the 2022 release is official from all of the factors we've gotten. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so I think we can say it's releasing in 2022, but we definitely can't say it's going to be that October date. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, for all we know, it could be earlier, like February. I'll go ahead and use Pfeiffer and Douglas' statements as confirmation of it. Also feel we shouldn't say on the films list or the main MCU page that the Oct. 2022 date is for a new film because we're not sure it is or if it's for something already announced, like Quantumania. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Also this is possibly and indication that filming will be starting up soon, maybe sometime in February? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It does seem like filming will begin soon, at least within the next month. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead wording

There is a discussion at Talk:Ant-Man and the Wasp#Based on... what? that would affect the current usage on this article regarding the "based on" wording. Please join there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Filming start end of May?

Collider says filming will begin at the end of this (May) month. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Are we saying Collider is more reliable than Turkish sources above? If so, we would have to move back to a draft per WP:NFF, right? IronManCap (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The Turkish sources above seem to be talking about pick up shots, rather than specific films shot with the main actors. They do not list the actors by name in those sources, whether they filmed scenes in Turkey. Cardei012597 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

This Collider source does offer up some more specific time frame from the Pursue News article (which said filming would start May 31 and last until September 24), so I think that warrants consideration. The Backstage article explicitly states filming begins at Pinewood mid-July, and was accurate for similar filming info for The Flash starting last month at Leavesden, so that also appears reliable for consideration. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

IronManCap, the Collider source is referring to principal photography rather than filming in general, so that lines up with the rest of the info we have. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes I meant principal photography, not the Turkish second unit filming. I saw we were using the casting source for July, but was unaware of Pursue News already saying May 31. In that case, Collider is probably just piggybacking off that info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah right, seems good then. IronManCap (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Michael Douglas has since verified filming will begin in July. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

So, does that mean we should move this page to the draftspace, until filming starts in July? Or is Turkish sources good enough? Cardei012597 (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Filming has already started, it's principal photography that still hasn't begun. —El Millo (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, just wanted to throw the idea out there, whether the Turkish sources were deemed good enough for this page. Cardei012597 (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

"Featuring" vs "Based on" in the opening sentence

There's a discussion involving this and many other MCU film articles at Talk:Loki (TV series)#"Featuring" vs "Based on" in the opening sentence that may be of interest of watchers of this page. —El Millo (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Noting that in my WP:BOLD change here that incorporated the consensus from that discussion, I meant to say Does not simply say "based on Marvel Comics" in the edit summary. IronManCap (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: I believe this is an exception to the previous consensuses formed on Talk:Loki (TV series), Talk:The Marvels (film) and Talk:The Avengers (2012 film). The outcome of those discussions agreed the best course of action for credits that simply say based on the Marvel Comics was to have the lead now it is at Captain Marvel (film) and Loki (TV series). However, the Ant-Man films are different in that they credit the creators of a character, but one different from the title characters. As pointed out on Talk:Loki (TV series), this is not featuring Marvel Comics characters, whilst it is also not based on Marvel Comics featuring those characters. As a side note, Hope Pym and Wasp are separate comics characters, so we should not be staying Hope Pym / Wasp as if they were the same. Since we still want to mention the title characters, I suggest this wording: Based on the Marvel Comics character Ant-Man and featuring characters based on Marvel Comics characters Scott Lang, Hope Pym and Wasp. IronManCap (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The discussion wasn't about what the credits say, but rather about what the credits don't say. Whether they only credit one of the two main characters or none of them, the wording change was implemented in order to be able to list all protagonists while not explicitly saying it's "based on" them, because that would be inaccurate as they are not credited as such. We know they don't credit the creators of these characters, that's why we made the change. The only difference is that here there's partial credit (only Ant-Man and not the Wasp) instead of no credit at all, as in the case of Captain Marvel. Both cases have the same solution, as in reality none of the credits list a character in particular (the Ant-Man and the Wasp credits say Based on the Marvel Comics by Stan Lee and Larry Lieber, and Jack Kirby), we put two and two together from the creators they list. Instead of saying they're based on a character, we say they're based on Marvel Comics but they feature the characters. Both true and none contradict the actual credits. Putting Based on Marvel Comics featuring Ant-Man here would defeat that purpose, because we wouldn't be listing the Wasp, and at the same time it would be unnecessary, given that Ant-Man is actually credited, so if we just wanted to list Ant-Man in the lead we would simply say Based on Ant-Man. Keep in mind our goal in this discussion was always to be able to list all main characters (or title characters) without contradicting the credits. Following the credits wasn't the goal but an obstacle to overcome in order to achieve (or rather keep) the goal.

We could alternatively say Based on Ant-Man and featuring the Wasp here, but I don't think that's necessarily better and we'd need to discuss it again. —El Millo (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflict. The point is the current wording does contradict the credits, as we are saying the film is based on Marvel Comics featuring... Hope Pym / Wasp, which does not necessarily fit with Based on Marvel Comics by Stan Lee, Larry Lieber and Jack Kirby. The wording I proposed would both keep with the credits and mention the title characters. Saying Based on Ant-Man and featuring the Wasp would be incorrect per what was highlighted at Talk:Loki (TV series), in that the film does not feature Wasp the comics character but rather Hope van Dyne. IronManCap (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

It's based on Marvel comics that feature Ant-Man and the Wasp. We're using the "featuring" to say the character appears in the comics the film is based but that the film is not explicitly based on the character. It's based on comics featuring the character, but not directly based on the character, because that's not credited. The wording you propose is very long and it makes it seem as if there were four main characters when there are two. But let's see what the rest have to say on the matter. —El Millo (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Favre1fan93, Adamstom.97, TriiipleThreat, Starforce13, Trailblazer101, ChannelSpider, and Wallyfromdilbert: —El Millo (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe something like Based on the Marvel Comics featuring Ant-Man and the Wasp, but I certainly am not interested in this discussion. – ChannelSpider (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with everything Facu-el Millo said here. This is the best of both worlds. It is correct, it doesn't contradict credits and it's not overly wordy and confusing. The need to distinguish between Ant-Man, Hope and the Wasp per credited creators would only be necessary if the lede sentence were to mention creators. Whether we specifically call out Ant-Man or just Marvel Comics is still accurate because Ant-Man is part of Marvel Comics, which is why even Marvel Studios themselves just say "based on the Marvel Comics" because it is still an accurate description. (And "featuring" is correct whether he's the lead character or a supporting character, so the complex distinction is unnecessary.) There is no need to overcomplicate things, only to make them more confusing and unreadable.— Starforce¹³ 19:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is that complicated. If we go strictly by the credits then it should just be "based on the Marvel Comics character Ant-Man", but we decided not to do that since it would leave out one of the title characters so instead we went with "featuring the Marvel Comics characters Scott Lang / Ant-Man and Hope Pym / Wasp". We then had a discussion about how the featuring wording was incorrect and it should be changed to "based on Marvel Comics featuring the characters..." There shouldn't be any need for further discussion as far as I can see. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Michael Pena as Luis

Hello again, everyone! I had a quick question. I am aware of the official sources which indicate that T. I. will not return in Ant-Man 3 as Dave, in view of the allegations against him and his wife, but I also know that there has not yet been much to clarify whether David Dastmalchian might return as Kurt, or whether Michael Pena would return as Luis. That being said, I looked into that question just now, and I found this article from Cinema Blend (which, unless I'm mistaken, is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles about the MCU). The article specifically confirms again that the character of Dave will not be involved, but it also notes that Michael Pena's Luis is expected to return, and that the only question mark is whether or not the character of Kurt will be back for the threequel. I don't know if this is enough to include Michael Pena in the cast list, but wanted to mention it all the same either way. --Jgstokes (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Let's wait for something more solid. While sites like CinemaBlend are technically acceptable, they should be taken with a grain of salt since they also tend to treat rumors as facts. So, I usually look for something more solid to back the claim or at least an explanation of where they got the info from such as an industry source, podcast, social media post or pointing to a source with higher reputation.— Starforce¹³ 18:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Starforce. If a news release from somewhere like The Hollywood Reporter or Variety that specifically states Pena has officially signed onto Ant-Man 3, then we can add him, but for now that has not happened yet. Cardei012597 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Dastmalchian return

He was interviewed by The Kansas City Star, but one of their questions was a statement about Quantumania before going into when Dastmalchian last spoke Rudd, which is how he answered. Can we use this? I'm iffy about it, but my guess is probably not given the way the information was presented. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards no, as he never explicitly confirmed that he would be in Quantumania. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

In a recent interview with Comicbook.com, when he was asked about Ant-Man 3, he said unfortunately with the world of Ant-Man... I honestly don't know where I'm going next, so it sounds like he himself doesn't know whether he's in the film. IronManCap (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that these sources are not confirming that Dastmalchian will be part of Quantumania. Cardei012597 (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Bill Pope returning as cinematographer of Ant-Man 3

Bill Pope returning to the MCU for a third time as cinematograoher for "Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania": https://twitter.com/mavericksmovies/status/1435349131711574022?s=19.

Hoping we can add this into the film's wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarvelDisney20 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 7 September, 2021 (UTC)

FYI, here's the direct link from Arri Crew's website: http://www.arricrew.com/cgi-bin/loadtemplate.pl?accesstype=public&template=cv&name=holmantommy&prof=1stacfocuspuller - Richiekim (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Can we consider that a reliable source? InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. I don't know the source but there's no sign of editorial oversight. —El Millo (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems it's and official page of Arri, which would make it reliable. —El Millo (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

But it also appears to be a database and we're pulling the info from "Tommy Holman" who is the 1st AC / Focus Puller apparently. This seems like an IMDb/database situation, which would be WP:UGC and is unreliable. I'm removing for now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Samuel L. Jackson

Are we sure he's actually in this? I haven't been able to (quickly) scrub through the podcast to find his actual quotes, but The Playlist categories it more as this, The Marvels, and Secret Invasion were all filming on the same lot at the same time and people from those three projects could appear in these, not necessarily that Jackson was in this film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe the podcast will clear it up, I also haven't gone through it yet. The ComingSoon.net source says it explicitly but maybe that was just their interpretation? - adamstom97 (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Most outlets seem to interpret his quote as a possible slip-up rather than a solid confirmation ([1], [2], [3], [4]), with the exception of CinemaBlend and obviously ComingSoon.net. His exact quote was: When I was in London just now, it was like Ant-Man and Captain Marvel 2 was happening, and we were getting ready to do Secret Invasion. So it's like three Marvel movies on one lot. I was kind of running around from place to place. Sounds pretty ambiguous. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that direct quote InfiniteNexus. I think going from that, we should remove him for Ant-Man, as the running around from place to place is dubious if is meant to include Ant-Man. I will WP:BOLDly adjust. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Favrefan. It was the most appropriate thing to do--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 I went ahead and adjusted Nick Fury (Marvel Cinematic Universe) per the changes you made here, if this is restored at some later point then that article should likewise be restored. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

So when @Favre1fan93 says Mr. Jackson can't be added to the cast because his quote is ambiguous, you happily accept it with no objection, but when I said the exact same thing for 10 times each of those 10 times you rejected it saying it was "original research." So it's not original research when someone else does it? They said the exact same thing I've been trying to make you understand. What gives?

Also how fitting that you deleted the whole conversation after you finally managed to realize that you've been wrong all along. All that conversation where you refused to listen, all gone. How convenient for you. Aldwiki1 (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

They didn't delete it, they tucked it all under a collapsible, with the convenient excuse however that "The conversation is going nowhere". A refusal to concede, so they hid their shame. And yeah I don't think they realized they were wrong either, considering the comment you're replying to CreecregofLife (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

As you were told below, you were trying to interpret the interview itself without regard for the secondary sources. When you finally did refer to secondary sources, you used ones that are not reliable. You were linked to all the policies and guidelines on this, but it appears you've elected not to read them. That is "what gives". And no, I did not "delete" the conversation, it's preserved below for anyone interested in reading walls of text. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Listen, this back-and-forth bickering between you all isn't productive. Just get over it ... InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

you were trying to interpret the interview itself ← Yet when Favre did the exact same thing you showed no objection. They did not refer to any "reliable" secondary sources. They just said the quote itself can't be taken as confirmation which I had already said over and over again. But when they said it, you accepted it. Aldwiki1 (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This subthread is going nowhere. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I just found out there was a talk page about this right after I made the changes regarding Jackson. I've uploaded the soundbite onto Streamable, when you listen to it becomes apparent he never explicitly confirms he filmed for Ant-Man: https://streamable.com/ytgquq "Running around from place to place" could always be referring to The Marvels and Secret Invasion sets, or maybe that he visited the Ant-Man set once or twice. Aldwiki1 (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC) What you're doing is original research. We have sources that make the statement and have interpreted the interview in this way, we don't get to replace what our sources say with what we think unless we have conflicting sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC) Your sources wrote their articles based on this quote from Jackson which is a very ambigious quote that is up to interpretation. Your sources jumped to conclusions and assumed that he must be in the movie only because he said the three movies were filming on the same lot. The sources cited mistakenly believed he is in the movie, whereas many other articles which reported on this quote had a very different approach where they said things like "Could this mean he may have possibly filmed a cameo for Ant-Man 3 while he was there?" because when you listen to his actual quote it becomes obvious that he never actually says he filmed for Ant-Man. Aldwiki1 (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC) They are not "my" sources, they are the sources. Do you have sources that contradict this? I'm not going to try and supplant the sources conclusions with my own, as that would (again) be original research. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC) I don't have a source that says he isn't in the movie. But the source cited that says he's in the movie is jumping to conclusions and making assumptions based on Jackson's quote, a quote where he never explicitly confirms he filmed for Ant-Man. They mistakenly thought that quote meant he was in the movie, that is why they are saying he's in it, not because they have inside information. There are many articles that approached this quote hesitantly where they said things like "Could this possibly mean he might show up in Ant-Man?" which is the normal approach, because, again, his quote never explicitly states he's in the movie. One, just one article jumps to a conclusion and says this quote must mean he's in the movie, that article is cited to add Jackson into the cast and suddenly it's an irrefutable source. Aldwiki1 (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC) Do you have sources that contradict this? ← that was my original question: your reply was a lot of words that could have been saved if you'd just said "no". —Locke Cole • t • c 00:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC) The source you keep defending jumped to a conclusion and is mistaken. The source you keep defending does not have inside information. The source you keep defending wrote that article based on Jackson's quote, the quote where he never actually confirms he filmed for Ant-Man. You don't have a source that says he's in the movie. You just have a source made a wrongful assumption. The one article that misinterpreted Jackson's quote is used to add him to the cast while many other articles about this quote approached it as a mere possibility. Hilarious. Aldwiki1 (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC) The big question is, why would Jackson bother referencing Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania in his description of "running around from place to place" if he had no role in the movie? That wouldn't make any sense. Yes, MCU actors have been known to make public denials about things that are later proven to be true (the fact that Garfield and Maguire were indeed in No Way Home proves that), but usually, if movie sets are referenced, which is true in this case, the material point is that Jackson mentioned the set of this movie along with The Marvels and Secret Invasion. With that in mind, until we have a source categorically stating that Jackson isn't in this movie, Wikipedia's policies about reliably-sourced information would appear to dictate that he should be on the cast list for now. If you have any actual reliable evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to look that over, but the cited sources seem to me to be sufficient to merit inclusion of Jackson in the cast list for now. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC) "why would Jackson bother referencing Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania in his description of "running around from place to place" if he had no role in the movie?" Because the three movies were filming on the same a lot at the same time next to each other. If you listen to the interview, he was referencing how many Marvel productions are now being executed at the same time, so he mentioned Ant-Man was filming in London as well. You keep saying "Our sources said this." Your source is an article which jumped to a conclusion. The actual source should be the interview itself where Jackson never explicitly confirms he filmed for the movie. You are basically adding him to the cast list based on assumption. His quote can't be taken as confirmation because it simply isn't. Aldwiki1 (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC) With all due respect, the other editors providing sources have quite a bit more experience in editing articles about MCU projects than you or I do. And in any case, we go with what the reliable sources say, and I am not certain the source you mentioned meets Wikipedia's threshhold for reliability. In any case, the current sources cited do meet the reliability criteria, so if you want to find something from a similarly-reliable source on this, that would be acceptable for consideration and potential inclusion. In the meantime, I have reverted your latest attempted changes and would respectfully suggest that this remain as is until there is sufficiently-reliable sourcing to prove your point. If and when the consesus decides to remove Jackson, it can be done at that time. But until then, we go with what the sources say, especially those provided by longtime contributors to MCU articles. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC) The sources don't have inside information. They wrote their article based on Jackson's quote. The original source is Jackson's quote. A quote where he never explicitly confirms he is in the movie. There are many articles that approached this quote hesitantly where they said things like "Could this possibly mean he might show up in Ant-Man?" which is the normal approach, because, again, his quote never explicitly states he's in the movie. One, just one article jumps to a conclusion and says this quote must mean he's in the movie, that article is cited to add Jackson into the cast and suddenly it's an irrefutable source. Aldwiki1 (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC) Well then, when you get those more-reputable sources to print a retraction and say they were mistaken, we can talk. Until that time, we go with what the sources say, and if they are in error, the onus is completely on you to provide sources at a similar level of reliability and credibility that directly contradict any information that may be incorrect. Instead of arguing the point ad nauseum, look into the kind of sources that meet Wikipedia standards of notability, and when you find one that supports what you are claiming, cite it, discuss it, and seek for consensus support. In the meantime, the horse is long dead. Please stop flogging the poor thing until you have actual reliable sources that support your assertions. There have been no retractions from any of these sources, so the information remains relevant for inclusion until it can be proven as unreliable per Wikipedia standards. Please take time to get a basic understanding of how Wikipedia and reputable sources cited therein work before pressing this point further. This policy, this policy, this policy, this policy and so many others need to be properly understood by you before this discussion continues. For now, as per all of those policies, the current content needs to stay as is. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC) the onus is completely on you to provide sources at a similar level of reliability and credibility that directly contradict any information that may be incorrect. ← I have provided a source. I've shared a sound clip of Mr. Jackson's interview. That should be the real source, but for some reason you refuse to listen to a 40-second audio clip. If you listen to it, you will see that he never actually explicitly says that he filmed for Ant-Man, and that this "reliable" source you vehemently keep defending made a wrongful assumption and completely misinterpreted his words and took them out of context. You should be focusing on what the person actually said in the interview, not on the conclusions and assumptions the author of an article made. When a source for an edit includes an interview, the question shouldn't be "What does the author of the article think?", it should be "What did the person actually say in the interview?" The article should be used as a tool to access the person's quote, not a tool to access the author's assumptions based on that quote. And this is what's happening here. You are completely ignoring what Mr. Jackson actually said and instead you are making an edit based on the speculation of the author. But since you don't seem to care about the actual words the person uttered and you need an article to interpret his words, I will provide those for you as well. I cannot provide a source that definitively says he isn't in the movie because Mr. Jackson's quote does not say that, but neither does it say that he filmed for Ant-Man. I'll provide sources that approach his quote with doubt and hesitate to take it as confirmation. TheDirect: https://thedirect.com/article/ant-man-3-samuel-l-jackson-spoilers "It's worth noting that within the interview itself, Jackson does pause between "So it was like three Marvel movies on one lot" and "So I was kinda running around from place to place." While those two thoughts could be related, within the context of Jackson's delivery, there is room for doubt." Heroic Hollywood: https://heroichollywood.com/samuel-l-jackson-nick-fury-mcu-next-potential-apperance/ "One can interpret Samuel L. Jackson’s comments in multiple ways. Is the Oscar-nominated actor suggesting that he’s appearing in Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania? Or is he just pointing out that the Paul Rudd threequel is filming in close proximity to Secret Invasion? Only time will tell if Nick Fury will join Ant-Man to defeat Kang but the character will next be seen in The Marvels and Secret Invasion." Comicbookmovie.com: https://comicbookmovie.com/ant-man/ant-man_3_quantumania/secret-invasion-star-samuel-l-jackson-seemingly-reveals-nick-furys-next-mcu-appearances-a192707 "However, you can read Jackson's comments in a couple of different ways, and it's worth noting that nothing is confirmed here." Comicbook.com: https://comicbook.com/marvel/news/marvel-samuel-l-jackson-ant-man-quantumania-spoiled-nick-fury-appearance/ "Many have interpreted this quote from the actor as confirmation that he'll appear in all three projects, but that has not been confirmed and very well could not be the case. As we know, Marvel sometimes shoots elements for one project on the set of another, so there's no guarantee that Jackson will appear in Ant-Man 3." You can clearly see that these sources are well aware Mr. Jackson's wording does not explicitly confirm that he filmed for Ant-Man. There are articles that approach his quote hesitantly and don't take it as confirmation, and there's a few articles that misinterpet his words and take it as definitive confirmation. If it wasn't obvious before, it should be obvious now that Mr. Jackson's quote is very obscure and ambiguous and it can be interpreted in many ways, as it has been by different sources, therefore neither his quote nor the articles that misinterpet his words can in good faith be used to add him to the cast list. But you take those speculative articles that made assumptions, regard them as unequivocal confirmation and use them to passionately defend a wrongful edit. Aldwiki1 (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC) I have provided a source. ← You've provided a primary source and asked us to take your interpretation of that as gospel over our reliable secondary sources. All of the secondary sources mention his involvement with Ant-Man 3 to varying degrees, with the four you've listed using language I'd charitably classify as "cover your ass"-style in the event he either doesn't appear or is edited out. CinemaBlend and ComingSoon are less wishy-washy on this. Regardless, it seems definitive from all these sources he filmed scenes, but those scenes may not appear in the final release. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC) You've provided a primary source and asked us to take your interpretation of that as gospel over our reliable secondary sources. ← This is so ironic. You're accusing me of asking you to take my interpretation as gospel while you yourself are taking the "reliable" source's interpretation as gospel. Regardless, it seems definitive from all these sources he filmed scenes ← Except it's not. He never confirms that he filmed scenes. That is your and other people's interpretation of his quote, that's it. but those scenes may not appear in the final release ← You accused the articles I've listed with a '"cover your ass"-style' but that is exactly what you're doing here. All of the secondary sources mention his involvement with Ant-Man 3 to varying degrees, with the four you've listed using language I'd charitably classify as "cover your ass"-style in the event he either doesn't appear or is edited out. ← They are using that kind of language because that's what Mr. Jackson's quote requires. I feel like a broken record, I don't know how many times this need to be said, his quote does NOT in any, shape or form explicitly confirm that he filmed scenes for Ant-Man. That is the reason for the reserved language, nothing else. That's what being a good journalist requires, reporting on what the person said instead of reporting your interpretation of what the person said. The sources I listed realize that nowhere in the interview does Mr. Jackson confirm that he filmed for Ant-Man, they realize that that is only one of the many interpretations of his quote, therefore they only present it as a possibility, not a fact. That's what journalistic integrity requires, but the sources you're citing completely ignored that and presented their assumption and speculation as fact. And you're defending them. CinemaBlend and ComingSoon are less wishy-washy on this. ← Why does it matter that their wording is definitive? That still doesn't change the fact that this is their speculation and assumption. This is their interpretation of Mr. Jackson's quote. The sources you're citing are articles that were written based on assumption and speculation. They interpreted the quote that way, then they mistakenly presented their interpretation as fact. You are refusing to acknowledge that Mr. Jackson's quote is very obscure and inconclusive, and that it has many interpretations. And I have given you four different sources that don't interpret the quote as definitive confirmation and present Mr. Jackson's involvement as a possibility, and you are rejecting them. You are not acknowledging that there are many other articles out there that realize Mr. Jackson's quote cannot be taken as confirmation because it just simply isn't, because he never actually says he filmed scenes for it. Aldwiki1 (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC) Nice wall of text. Nothing you've said changes anything. To quote Jgstokes (above): Please take time to get a basic understanding of how Wikipedia and reputable sources cited therein work before pressing this point further. This policy, this policy, this policy, this policy and so many others need to be properly understood by you before this discussion continues.. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC) This dismissal really rubs the wrong way, because it seems to me that Aldwiki does have an understanding, taking the sources by the content rather than just their reputation CreecregofLife (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC) WP:RS and WP:NOR are the big ones here. It's dismissed so easily because at the end of the day what Aldwiki is doing is original research. I'm not even going to entertain that. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC) Is it original research to analyze the content of the sources for how they’re being presented and how it affects whether to use them? Is it suddenly original research to call a source incorrect in their reporting? CreecregofLife (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC) Nothing you've said changes anything. ← It should, but you are set in your ways and you are not looking at this objectively. The sources you're defending align with your own interpretation of Mr. Jackson's quote, so you're just favoring them over the other plethora of articles that don't treat his quote as confirmation but merely as a possibility. And they are right to do that, because it is clear as day that Mr. Jackson's quote does not definitively confirm that he filmed scenes for Ant-Man. But you refuse to understand or acknowledge that. It's dismissed so easily because at the end of the day what Aldwiki is doing is original research. I'm not even going to entertain that. ← Your logic should be the one dismissed so easily because at this point I have unequivocally proven that the sources you're defending have their facts wrong, that they made assumptions based on Mr. Jackson's quote and presented their subjective speculation as fact, but you refuse to acknowledge that. You refuse to acknowledge that the original source, the quote, is very ambiguous and inconclusive and that therefore it cannot in good faith be used to say that Mr. Jackson is without a doubt in the movie. At this point your "original research" argument doesn't even make sense because I have provided four other sources and therefore have proven that there are many other reliable outlets who treated Mr. Jackson's quote as not confirmation but as a possibility, but you refuse to acknowledge that also. It is fascinating to me that you are not seeing this. At this point it's exceedingly obvious that you're not looking at this objectively, that your bias has gotten in the way, and that you're intentionally favoring certain sources that align with your own interpretation of Mr. Jackson's quotes. I hate to say this but it looks to me like you're nearing bad faith territory. Aldwiki1 (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC) because at this point I have unequivocally proven ← Give WP:NOTTRUTH a whirl, and for expanded reading, WP:V. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC) Aldwiki1: just so you know, out of the four sources you cited above, TheDirect, HeroicHollywood, and ComicBookMovie are all unreliabe, the only reliable one there is ComicBook.com, and one of the lowest-quality reliable sources we accept about films. —El Millo (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Van Dyne or Pym?

It says “Hope Pym / Wasp” in the beginning and “Hope Van Dyne / Wasp” in the cast list. I think both work but why shouldn’t it be the same? 85.65.245.7 (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Pym is the character's surname in the comics, which is who the first sentence is talking about, but her surname in the film is Van Dyne. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Poster

Back at SDCC 2022, they revealed a poster for the film. It wasn't an official poster, but it was featured in this article for a short period of time until being replaced by the film's logo again. I was wondering if we could put the poster back in the article, as a "first look" poster for Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse was also recently revealed and used in its Wikipedia article. Red4Smash (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

We generally don't count one-off event posters, such as SDCC exclusives, as standard posters to be included. We should get an official teaser poster soon that we will be able to use. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The Spider-Verse change should probably be reverted. These art pieces are not posters. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Standee

I saw the standee picture too, but unless someone has more luck than me reading the tiny billing block at the bottom of the picture, we don't know that the top billing is the same as the billing block. Marvel (and any other studio) has been known to omit one or two names from the billing block in the top billing of a poster/standee. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus David Dastmalchian's name can be seen on the standee, as well as William Jackson Harper. 2600:6C5D:0:A41:685E:F3E:7EBD:62EF (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Some of the standee images I have seen are of a lower quality, so for some it can be difficult to make out the names on the bottom billing. Regardless, we still require a third-party, independent source to corroborate the standee's billing in order to use any of the information present in it, as any and all of those images are from unofficial and unverifiable social media posts. It's best to be patient on this until a new poster is released with a billing, which could be subject to change dependent on Marvel's approach. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh it's official no doubt, but I'm open to waiting for a poster/trailer with a billing block, given that discrepancies like Trail noted have happened before. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I have added a Screen Rant article which covers the billing, but only for the additions of Dastmalchian and O'Brian. The article does note the top billing order, plus the bottom order but not as specifically, though I believe we should still wait until a new poster billing is available to update. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Weird billing block order

I don't know if this has happened before, but the billing block goes: PAUL RUDD EVANGELINE LILLY JONATHAN MAJORS with MICHELLE PFEIFFER and MICHAEL DOUGLAS "ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA" KATHRYN NEWTON ... BILL MURRAY. I've moved Pfeiffer and Douglas to the end given their "with" and "and" credits; or should we retain the actual order? InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe the actual order should suffice. It's admittedly a bit weird. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Disregard, per this. Though I note Harper and O'Brian are switched, for some reason. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

As I had feared, there's already been multiple back-and-forth attempts to switch up the order. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 January 2023

Add a poster!!!!! ZacharyJohnston (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

An edit dispute about that is under discussion at the header right above this, #Which poster?. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Which poster?

• File:Ant man 3 poster.jpg
• File:Ant-Man and the Wasp Quantumania poster.jpg

Since there has been an ongoing revert war today over which of these images to use in the infobox, I have removed both images and protected the page. Please discuss which poster should be used in the article. The one which is not used will be deleted per the non-free content criteria. I have no opinion on which should be used, I am only here to enforce policy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Administrator note @YuDuse455: you need to add content license information to the "Ant Man 3 poster" file that you uploaded, or it will be deleted anyway. If you don't intend to do so then we can end this discussion right now and use the other poster which is properly attributed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The "Quantumania poster" file should be used for this article as it is the theatrical poster released to coincide with the official trailer. Both have the necessary billing blocks, and I would argue the "Quantumania poster" file is better reflective of the contents of the film by displaying more of the characters and a better look at Majors' character than on the "Ant-Man 3 poster" file. Generally speaking, the latest theatrical poster should be used, which would be the "Quantumania poster", which also holds the rest of the file history and uses a more accurate file name. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I second using the Quantumania poster, as it its design is much more similar to the final theatrical posters for previous MCU films. And the Ant-Man 3 poster lacks the proper licenses and should be deleted shortly anyway. - Richiekim (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The IP is clearly outnumbered here, as they have been reverted by multiple established users already. The WP:STATUSQUO of the article before the dispute arose should be restored per WP:BRD. I concur with Trail that the "Quantumania poster" file should be used, not only does the file have the old version history and the proper FUR licensing, but it is also the poster released at the same time as the trailer (the other one dropped earlier in the day, before the trailer came out — MCU payoff posters have almost always been released at the same time as the trailer) and the poster that looks the most consistent with MCU payoff posters in the past. It is also the one used on Marvel.com. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with everyone so far, stick with the Quantumania poster. In the file history we briefly had the other poster as well, but then another poster dropped after the final trailer. As others have said, this final poster fits in better with previous Marvel movie posters. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Ivanvector Will you kindly remove the full protection? File:Ant-Man and the Wasp Quantumania poster.jpg is the one that should be used on the article, given its file history and the fact that it was updated to the correct theatrical poster for this film, which is what should be represented on this article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, not yet. The comments here suggest that the more recent poster should be used because it was the status quo, but that's just not true. The "Quantumania" file was only updated to the most recent image around 3am UTC on January 10; before that the other "new" poster was visible for a few hours, and before that an entirely different poster was in the article and had been since at least October. (See the file history of File:Ant-Man and the Wasp Quantumania poster.jpg to see what I mean). Furthermore, editors started switching the image to the other "new" poster almost as soon as this "new" one was uploaded (and also "the IP editor" is at least 3 different people). That all suggests to me that there is no consensus on which poster to use, and this one-sided discussion saying "it's always been this way" (which is demonstrably false) does not convince me otherwise. There's no rush here, we can give other editors some more time to comment. But I'm also not a fan at all of the concept of "silent majority"; if I don't see any opposing commentary within a few hours then absolutely I'll lift the protection. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

In terms of timeline/file history, the version from October 2022 was the initially teaser poster for the film released at that time along with the first teaser trailer. The next poster in the history (which is the same as Ant man 3 poster.jpg) was released the morning of January 9 given the next trailer was releasing that evening, so it was assumed, given the appearance of a top and bottom billing, that would be the "theatrical release" poster. However, with the release of the trailer, the most recent version of the Quantumania poster.jpg file was released, superseding the one from earlier in the morning as its visual nature can be compared similarly to virtually every other MCU theatrical poster, indicating the one from earlier in the morning was not the final posters. I hope that provides some context behind why it is "one sided" behind the file as it stands in the Quantumania poster.jpg file. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 I agree with Favre and everyone else that came before. It seems Ivan is just basing the poster release on the upload time in the Wikipedia and not the history of poster release by the media (by Marvel/Disney marketing team) to the public. I think Ivan is not following with Marvel news/updates given his discussion is just based on what happened through Wikipedia. Centcom08 (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You're exactly correct, I'm only following what's happened in the edit history, and Favre1fan93's comment directly above is the first that has attempted to explain why one new poster is preferred over the other new poster in terms of the Wikipedia universe instead of appealing to MCU logic and declaring it to be so, or saying (incorrectly) that it's always been that way. Please use that approach if you have to deal with other editors changing the poster again, although the other file is already tagged for deletion. Having seen no new comments whatsoever endorsing use of the other new poster, I will unprotect the article momentarily. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: "the IP editor" is at least 3 different people – It's the same person. There have only been two IP users who tried changing the file to Ant man 3 poster.jpg (202.142.121.152 and 203.81.240.20); both geolocate to India and have the same ASN, ISP, connection method, and connection owner. I think you may have gotten the timeline of edits mixed up, Ant-Man and the Wasp Quantumania poster.jpg was updated to the current version at 3:30 am 1/10/23; the IP made the first attempt to change it to Ant man 3 poster.jpg at 12:18 pm 1/10/23. But that is not the only reason editors have cited in this discussion, and the consensus is clear regardless. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Can we please get File:Ant-Man and the Wasp Quantumania poster.jpg restored back to the article (by reverting back to Special:Permalink/1133162045) and dropping the page protection to either semi-protected or WP:ECP since the disruption appears to be coming from new/anonymous editors? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done as this page is no longer protected, it does not require an admin to make an edit. Please be sure that contentious edits have established a consensus here on the talk page to avoid future protections. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Xaosflux and Ivanvector: There was nothing contentious. An IP editor repeatedly undid the work of multiple other editors. That's not a dispute in need of resolution, that's disruption in need of stopping. The anon is now blocked because (shockingly) they kept right at it as soon as protection was lifted. The English Wikipedia is slowly losing editors year over year, please be sure you don't help that exodus along by encouraging administrative actions like this in the future. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

My response was mostly generic, only going off the prior protection note that there had been a dispute; if there wasn't even better. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Locke Cole The admins were only doing what they are here to do, resolve editing disputes and ensure core policies are met and enforced, and many are unlikely to be a fan of the subjects to avoid bias and to be neutral in their duties on Wikipedia. Had an admin not gotten involved, the IP was likely to have continued being disruptive until an inevitable block (which ultimately happened). While I don't always believe in full page protections, at times, it is best to redirect the attention to resolving the issues rather than repetitive back-and-forth editing. The page has since been unprotected, the generally agreed upon file is in use, and the IP is blocked. I'd say that the issues were resolved in a systematic manner than what further edit warring would have done. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree it's best if we just move on now, but a more appropriate course of action from Ivanvector would have been to block the IP address for edit-warring, considering they went way past 3RR. Centcom08, I suggest reporting disruptive IPs to WP:ANEW instead of filing a request at WP:RPP when similar cases arise in the future. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

As I said at the time, there was no apparent evidence that either poster was the "correct" poster, just a whole bunch of editors who should know better than to be engaged in the revert war they were nonetheless engaged in. And contrary to what Locke Cole insists, there were three separate IPs geolocating to different continents restoring the other poster, plus one IP restoring a different poster which has since been deleted. I'm sure you'll agree that protection was favourable to blocking everybody who was reverting, but if not then I'll keep that in mind for the next time I stumble across a content dispute on an MCU article.

Also note that hidden HTML comments are not visible when using the visual editor, which is now the default for new users and IPs. If you want to convey information to new users about why something shouldn't be edited or updated, say so in your edit summary when you revert. Remember that policy is to explain why you're reverting every time, other than for overt vandalism, and even then it doesn't hurt to drop an "rvv" in there. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

contrary to what Locke Cole insists, there were three separate IPs geolocating to different continents restoring the other poster, plus one IP restoring a different poster which has since been deleted. You appear to be confusing me with @InfiniteNexus. It does appear to be primarily 203.81.240.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) that was mostly restoring the poster they had uploaded. I didn't realize that Centcom08 had made a request at RPP, which explains the admin action a bit better. I still think SEMI or ECP would have been a better choice. I'm sure you'll agree that protection was favourable to blocking everybody who was reverting I actually don't fully agree with that: full protection deprives all editors, even uninvolved editors, from being able to update/edit the article because of the behavior of a few editors. Blocks prevent further damage/disruption from a single editor, and in this instance, it was one IP that had violated 3RR rather blatantly that would have merited a block. But without 3RR warnings, the best choice (IMO) would have been SEMI/ECP protection which would have left things open for regular editors, just not IP/new/recent editors (with warnings going out for the 3RR/EW behaviors). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

This was the first attempt to change the poster (from 69.40.56.6), but File:AMATW-Q New Poster.webp has never existed per the deletion logs. Note that this earlier edit and this one happened before File:Ant-Man and the Wasp Quantumania poster.jpg was updated, so they are not part of the dispute (I reverted that edit because the file didn't have the proper licensing or history, not because I wanted to keep the old teaser poster from October). Then 202.142.121.152 made their first attempt at changing the poster to File:Ant man 3 poster.jpg. Several edits later, 203.81.240.20 (who is the same person as 202.142.121.152) appears and changes the poster to Ant man 3 poster.jpg once again, which happens a second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh time. So within 24 hours, the IP (not counting 202.142.121.152) reverted seven times, Centcom reverted three times, Trail reverted three times, 79.107.131.192 made a botched attempt to revert the seventh change before self-reverting, and Marco camino 10 reverted once. Only one person insisted on using this poster (without clear WP:COMMUNICATION or attempts at discussion), and they were the only user who breached 3RR. I understand Ivanvector was acting in good faith, and it can be difficult to see who reverted who, but a page's history should be properly and thoroughly scrutinized prior to imposing a measure as drastic as full protection. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Reliability

I noticed that GamesRadar+ is used at the last line of Cast section. Isn't that an unreliable source? JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 10:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

GamesRadar+ (or, more accurately, Total Film and SFX) is considered reliable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Consistency regarding correct name use

In the Dutch language, when the first name is omitted, the first prefix of the last name becomes a capital letter. Janet/Hope van Dyne becomes Van Dyne. See also Ant-Man & Ant-Man and the Wasp pages. SassyCollins (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@SassyCollins Yup, I agreed. For future editors encountering this issue, MLA Handbook states that when only using the Dutch last name with a particle (such as van, van den, van der, de, and ter), capitalize the particle (see here). Centcom08 (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The article should and originally used "Van Dyne", it was changed erroneously by an IP editor. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't follow MLA, or any other style guide other than WP:MOS, but I agree it should be uppercase. We've always done this for the Van Dynes, and for De Fontaine as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

a "real loose canon"

In the cast section, this should be "real loose cannon." It's spelled correctly in the source. 24.29.210.35 (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done It's been corrected. Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Poster redux

It looks like another poster was released in the past 24 hours. I think the current one is fine, but not sure what others would think. Thoughts? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Locke Cole The current poster on the article is the one used in the film's official website at Marvel.com. Centcom08 (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Great point, after what happened above I just figured it'd be best to start the discussion before anyone gets any ideas. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 05:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The current poster, as Centcom pointed out, appears to be the main one Marvel is using. They typically release alternate versions close to and after release, as was done with Multiverse of Madness. I don't think the prior poster disruption will occur this time. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2023

There are several severe spoilers for this movie in its article, and the movie is still two days away from release. In the ‘Cast’ bracket for Michelle Pfeiifer, somebody has chosen to spoil the end credits scene at the end of her paragraph, even though the two are unrelated. At the end of the ‘Cast’ bracket, two actors are listed (Tom Hiddleston and Owen Wilson’) that completely spoils their inclusion as it is unannounced and meant as a surprise. Please do better and fix this or you will ruin the movie for lots of people like you already have for me 2A00:23C5:FE0B:8401:8098:F2D7:F13E:CE08 (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see WP:SPOILERS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Budget sources

Searching on the internet, I found two sources for the budget, are they reliable? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11751847/Ant-Man-Wasp-Quantumania-projected-franchise-high-120M-domestic.html and https://screenrant.com/how-much-ant-man-wasp-quantumania-cost-to-make/--79.41.156.228 (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:RS/PS, Daily Mail is considered to be an unreliable source. Screen Rant's article mentioned that There have been no reports regarding Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania’s budget so far and that the 200 million budget was calculated by using Marvel’s recent movie history as a parameter. So although Screen Rant is reliable (for this topic), it doesn't give information about the budget. Jolly1253 (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation--79.41.156.228 (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I've reverted one editor because the main source literally list a figure and then says "there's been no reports of a budget so far.." and some blogs ran with it without fact checking. Which is why we don't ever use blogs as a source. Mike Allen 14:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Budget?

This movies does not seem to have a budget. 94.252.80.211 (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It does, it just hasn't been reported in reliable sources yet. See above. Mike Allen 14:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Critical response

So it looks like we only have an excerpt from a review by Owen Gleiberman down in the critical response section of the article. Why do we have only one review here if there were several reviews already written for the film? There were even reviews for Black Panther: Wakanda Forever in its critical response section before it was even released officially, so why don't we do the same with Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania? 72.213.40.101 (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The review embargo for movies are lifted for different movies at different times. As for the lack of other reviews, they just recently were put out there and not every editor has time to add them, though you are always welcome to help contribute to this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. When does the review embargo for Quantumania get lifted exactly? 72.213.40.101 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You know what? That didn't make any sense. The review embargo is lifted for Quantumania (that's my understanding), but not every review has been put out there due to time constraints. Cool! Maybe I will contribute to this. 72.213.40.101 (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You misinterpreted. Not every site reviews these movies and they operate on their own accord. We do not control that. The review embargo just lifted a couple nights ago. As for the lack of reviews present in this article, editors (like yourself) can help out by finding them online and adding about them here, as not every editor can commit to that all the time as people have lives. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I mean, you're encouraged to be bold and add content yourself. Wikipedia is, after all, a collaborate effort. :-) Mike Allen 21:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You know what? That's a good idea. Thank you for your advice, I will NOT take it for granted. Once I get around to figuring out how to use citations, I will definitely start thinking about adding reviews.

However, once I do start adding reviews, is there a select number of reviews I should add? Like, how many positive reviews should I do and how many negative reviews? Also, are there any critics you would suggest I have reviews for in the critical response section? I know there's IGN, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Collider, Den of Geek, Inverse, Deadline Hollywood, RogerEbert.com, and definitely others, but are there any that I would actually think about adding reviews for? 72.213.40.101 (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

That sounded weird. What I mean is: How many reviews that critics have written should I add in the critical response section? That sounds more clear. 72.213.40.101 (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This may help at MOS:FILMCRITICS. A rule of thumb is use the reviews from the Top Critics tab on Rotten Tomatoes, and just keep the positive and negative coverage as balanced as possible. For citation help see Help:Referencing for beginners Mike Allen 22:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this! This is sure to help a lot! :) 72.213.40.101 (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't He Who Remains Based on Immortus?

As the title says. 49.207.200.67 (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it was mostly just the fact that He Who Remains was an older version of Kang like Immortus. -- Zoo (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Based on parts of his look and station, yes. JosephWC (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2023

76.142.146.248 (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I would like to change the budget of the film because it is not correct. It should be much higher.

 Done it was vandalism. Mike Allen 05:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Can't edit

So if I was to go around this page and edit some things, how do I do that if "view source" is still showing instead of "edit"? I'm not blocked or anything, so "edit" should be showing up instead of "view source". Why is it not? 72.213.40.101 (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. Just read that only those who friggin registered can edit on this page. Sadly, I haven't friggin registered yet, so....that's too bad. 72.213.40.101 (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Review

It received positive reviews from critics for the performances of Majors and Pfeffier 2A02:C7C:31AD:3E00:395D:8BB6:94DA:ABB (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

1920s

The post-credit scene does not take place in the 1920s. Their clothing is clearly turn of the century and in the comics this scene takes place in 1901. JJSchneebs (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed and included a reference that corroborates it. —El Millo (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2023

In a post-credits scene, Loki and Mobius M. Mobius spot another Kang variant in the form of altruistic inventor Victor Timely in 1901. Timely tells his audience that time can be manipulated in order to benefit mankind. Loki identifies him as a serious threat, despite Mobius' disbelief. 2601:644:9281:5A40:5C95:FF1E:B52D:47CF (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Likely way too much detail for a credits scene, as we try to keep the plot summaries under a certain character amount. TNstingray (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2023 (2)

Please change "Elsewhere, numerous Kang variants commiserate over the death of one of their own and plan their multiversal uprising." to "Elsewhere, three Kang variants discuss the death of the "exiled" Kang the Conquerer. Despite wishing him dead themselves, the Kangs are disturbed by the power of the Avengers and call a council of every Kang in existence to discuss how to deal with the threat posed to their multiversal plans." 2601:644:9281:5A40:5C95:FF1E:B52D:47CF (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done It appears a different set of changes were made that more succinctly describes the events of this credits scene. TNstingray (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Last name policy?

Idk about this but since Scott and Cassie share the same last name i guess we dont need to use the last name policy? HiGuys69420 (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2023

Marvel has been criticised for replacing Emma Fuhrmann with Kathryn Newton, sources (the first link is in spanish) 201.188.155.255 (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Both links are websites of uncertain reliability (most likely not), that is using Twitter conversations with fans to base their articles on. There isn't significant coverage of this "criticism" in reliable sources for inclusion in any way for this page. Mike Allen 21:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

But it should be in the article , in the part of Critical Response because it is what the audience says 201.188.155.255 (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't determine what is included in the article or not. —El Millo (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

We already note that Fuhrmann was "saddened" by being replaced along with Newton's casting announcement in the body of the article. That should suffice the extent of what is needed to convey things. Any online commentary, especially from random Twitter accounts, is not notable. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

References

VFX criticism

See what you can add. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)