Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2/Archive 1

Gunn info
This source has some stuff from Gunn that could be used in some way. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Pace
Here Lee Pace expresses interest in returning for the sequel, and here Gunn says the character won't be in this film. Is this info worth adding to the development section? - adamstom97 (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think if the character did not get obliterated in the first film and Pace was on schedule to reprise the role, this would be worth mentioning. But given the fact that it would be pretty hard for Ronan to just return, without it being a plot element, we should pass. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Scratch all of that. I think it would be fine to say "Pace expressed interest in returning for the sequel as Ronan, however Gunn confirmed the character would not return." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Cast
In my opinion that are the sources that confirms Dave Bautista, Zoe Saldana, Vin Diesel, Karen Gillan, Sean Gunn, Chris Pratt, Bradley Cooper and Michael Rooker of return in sequel. ,,. Mike210381 (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No sources exist for Bautista, Saldana, Diesel, Cooper or Sean Gunn. All that is potentially stated about them is that their characters will return, not the actors. The first source isn't really a good indication that Pratt is returning, because it was promotion from the first film, used to announce the second. We cannot infer from that, that it means he is returning. For the Yahoo source with Nebula, we already have info in the article that Gunn hopes to do more with her character. But once again, that does not mean that Gillan is returning or that the character will even make the final cut of the script. The Moviecricket source is pulled from an Entertainment Weekly source, out of which, again, we only get "hopes" of Gunn to include characters, not actual confirmations. He teases that Del Toro will return, but goes on to say that "I don’t know if he’s gonna been the next one". All that we have to go on is that all main five team member characters are returning (current source 28) and a recent interview with Rooker, where he seemingly indicates he is returning, and that is notated accordingly in the body of the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In this interview Pratt confirmed he will be in GOTG2. Mike210381 (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this site a reliable source. Mike210381 (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is, but what it is saying is incorrect. We DON'T know the whole cast is returning. We know all five CHARACTERS are, but not the cast. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this interview confirms Cooper as returning for the sequel - he doesn't know the script or when in the process he will be called in, but Gunn emailed him and said "we're going to make another one", and Cooper talked about it as if he was definitely going to be a part of it. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I had seen that from it's original MTV source, and I had too much indecision on it. Let's wait for something a little more clear, shall we? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mind waiting till something more direct comes out. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool. To me, it's not really confirmation, just that Gunn told him there was going to be a second. I mean I totally assume he's coming back, but his wording did not make it super clear. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Pre-production
It looks like this film is film is very much in pre-production: it has a director, they are casting actors and booking filming locations. Thoughts?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The only part I'm a bit hesitant on is that Gunn has not completed the screenplay yet, or at least has a working draft. The most current info we have from him is he is starting it. I think once that has been done, I would start the pre-production section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible title or working title
Food for thought what is stated there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Official title
Gunn confirms title to be  Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 via Twitter Npamusic (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Feige on pre-production
According to this interview with the LA Times, Kevin Feige stated that pre-production only started last week. Richiekim (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Filming start date
Based on this extra's casting call (second source in case the first doesn't work), filming will start by at least February 18. Could obviously be a bit sooner, but we know at least by then filming will have started. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, On Location Vacations is saying filming is starting February 15. Just to keep our eyes peeled for then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * According to James Gunn, filming is scheduled to begin on February 11. Richiekim (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! That's exactly what we needed to know. Good to have an exact date so we can prep everything to be ready for the move to mainspace on the 11th then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Steve Agee
Don't know how reliable this source is (Doug Benson's podcast), but supposedly Steve Agee has been cast in GOTG 2. Richiekim (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems reliable to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Should this be noted?
I think this might just be nitpicking at this point, but wanted to see from others. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it would be nitpicky to prolong moving to the mainspace because of this, but I think it could be added as an extra wee tidbit. I suppose I am fine either way. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Gunn provided a better explanation on his Facebook page. It is principal photography in every form, except being called principal photography. So I don't think it is necessary anymore and would start becoming WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think we should just leave it. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Kurt Russel confirmed to play Star-Lord's dad
http://variety.com/2015/film/news/kurt-russell-guardians-galaxy-chris-pratt-father-1201662266/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.64.216 (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been used. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources for character descriptions in the "Cast" section
I don't like this at all. The barebones character descriptions are supposed to be written so that they don't need sources per WP:BLUE, and the way they are included here it looks like they are being cited as sources for such-and-such actor appearing in the film. If the character descriptions themselves need sources, then they need equally up-to-date sources, as we aren't allowed assume that the characters haven't changed since the previous film. If we are going to make this assumption, then we shouldn't include inline citations as though they directly support our assumptions when they obviously don't. Also pinging Adamstom.97 since this edit implies he/she doesn't share Favre1fan93's concerns. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The ref named "SeanGunnKraglin" appears to be an even worse offender, as it appears to be used as a source for the WP:BLUE statement that (in the first film) he was "Yondu's first mate in the Ravagers", even though the description of the character it actually gives is "Yondu Udonta’s First Mate in the Ravagers and Peter Quill’s lifelong frenemy"; someone on Wikipedia appears to have synthesized this source written by someone who hadn't seen the film (because it wasn't finished yet) with the film itself and come to the conclusion that the character is "Yondu’s first mate in the Ravagers (but not necessarily Peter Quill’s lifelong frenemy)", as the latter isn't hinted at anywhere in the film. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well just because you don't like it, doesn't mean the refs aren't helpful. Most of the new sources at the moment are only confirming that actors are reprising the role, not what these roles are. We're supposed to be getting a production has started press release from Marvel this week, so as I said in my edit summary, we can adjust then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't like it, because it is against Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as I laid out above. You are ignoring what I say in favour of strawman arguments. If we don't know what the roles of these actors will be in this film (not the first), then we shouldn't be describing them in the article at all. We should not be citing sources that describe the characters in the first film, as though they were accurate for the present topic. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We have gotten the release, and I've taken the time to remove all the old refs, and update the descriptions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"The Walt Disney Company CEO Bob Iger noted..."
Anyone have a problem with removing the "The" at the start of this clause? I know "The Walt Disney Company" is the firm's "official" name, but I'm pretty sure it's common practice to leave out the "The" in such cases when it produces awkward prose:

In May 2014, Walt Disney Company CEO Bob Iger noted the potential of making Guardians of the Galaxy into a franchise

Or we could say

In May 2014, Disney CEO Bob Iger noted the potential of making Guardians of the Galaxy into a franchise

?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 'The' doesn't make it awkward. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It does. It is easier to read the current wording as "the ... CEO", with "the" misspelt with an upper-case "T". That is super-awkward. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it, I wouldn't be opposed to actually making that a reality by simply changing "The" to "the". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by ”consensus”? It's a minor grammatical fix that received one apparently opposing comment that didn't make sense, and the user who made said comment didn't respond when questioned. Standard procedure in such cases is to move ahead, not wait for some arbitrary ”consensus”. The only possible problem with my edit was that I proposed three equally valid solutions myself, and when no one else expressed any preference I made the judgement call myself.
 * Is it just me or do talk page discussion, BURDEN and BRD seem to work differently on articles on the MCU from the rest of the encyclopedia?
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Prep for the move to the mainspace
Wow! Can you all believe we're three days away from filming starting? 2016 will be a busy year for us all on all MCU-related fronts. Anyways, here's my checklist again, as I've been doing for recent drafts.


 * 1) Move to the mainspace! This can happen in two ways: contact an admin to perform the move (which requires the deletion of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 in the mainspace). OR place  at Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. DO NOT CUT AND PASTE! ✅
 * 2) If the moving admin does not do this, be sure to remove Draft article and unhide the categories. ✅
 * 3) Change the template at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films from further to main. ✅
 * 4) Replace the whole Guardians of the Galaxy (film) with the content at User:Favre1fan93/sandbox. (Everything is prepped in terms of the refs for you to just delete what is already there and paste in the new content.) ✅
 * 5) See below discussion on this point Upload the logo (which you can grab from here) to File:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 logo.jpg. ✅
 * 6) Fix redirects currently going to Guardians of the Galaxy (film)#Sequel to the new mainspace article. ✅
 * 7) Add the article link to all the nav boxes used in the article. ✅
 * 8) Gunn has said that Marvel will be giving a press release with full cast, so be on the look out for that, and add that info to our respective pages (castings mainly). ✅

Image discussion
So the image that we currently have that was released in the Oct 2014 event just says "Guardians of the Galaxy 2" with the date. Should we use this image, or possibly wait for this Marvel press release in the hopes that they provide us with an updated logo? Want 's thoughts, because I'd love to get the image uploaded on 2/10 so we have it ready (and ensure we have the file format we'd like). I guess we can always start with the current one, and if Marvel does give us a new one, just upload that as a new version. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this the one that you are talking about? Because the date seems fine.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to start with the initial one and update when needed, we'll just have to keep a look out for other users uploading separate images rather than updating. Perhaps a note in the infobox here about that? - adamstom97 (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Triiiple I think Favre was wondering about the title, since it says Guardians of the Galaxy 2 rather than Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was the fact that it says "Guardians of the Galaxy 2" and not "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2". I believed the date was correct, but thanks for confirming all the same. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see, it should still be fine for now.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Great. That's what I wanted to clarify so we were all on the same page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As I thought, an updated image does exists (see here). Hopefully it will be in the press release Marvel releases, which will hopefully be out soon. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

We have the help of User:czar for the move come the 11th. I'll will keep corresponding with them on the 10th and such to make sure we are all set. But they will perform the move for us. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Image has also been uploaded for tomorrow. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts on using the one in the middle? Saw this over on Reddit and it looks as though they pulled it off the image released today. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It does look like the official one, I would be happy to use it. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What's the original source? Is it fan made?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah I didn't mention, it was "fan made". But it is the logo pulled from the released image today, just a better quality and oriented correctly, etc. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. I typically don't like using fanmade images but since this one is so close I don't mind. I resized and uploaded it for use. I also included a version with date from the previous logo if you prefer.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I like the one with the date you created. I say we should move ahead. Only thing is if you think we should add the Marvel logo above "Guardians" as with the current one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should just stick with what was in the original image, otherwise I feel it becomes a bit too fan-ish and not really encyclopaedic. So no Marvel or date, in my opinion. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I completely understand. Let me ask you all this: Is it more important to have a logo with the correct name or the old one which has the release date?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that since the infobox image is about identification, it would be good to have one that is the same as the article. I don't think a date with the logo is a must either, we do already have it like 4 other times in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. ✅.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm late to the response, but I agree with you guys too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Two sources when only one is necessary and the other one fails to satisfy WP:V
Re this. One source is adequate, and providing two makes it look like we have multiple independent sources confirming that he plays Quill's father. Think about it. The phrase "Kurt Russell as Quill's father" is followed by two sources; one of them doesn't even mention the point. Why do we need to cite that one then? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

More casting news?
According to OLV, Stallone is confirmed to appear and that Howard the Duck is returning as well. Is this a reliable source? - Richiekim (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, from glitchiness of the site and fact that their asking for tips from the general public, it does not appear to be professional.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"and accomplice of Rocket"
I can understand that the ordering of the cast list is as it is for reasons, but saying Groot is an "accomplice of Rocket" before Rocket is even introduced in this article seems a little counter-intuitive -- should we just remove the last four words? The wording is not in the source, so it appears to just be a barebones character description that was taken over from the previous film's article, but the description no longer seems to be accurate as of the end of the first film -- the Guardians of the Galaxy are a team, and Groot could be just as accurately called an accomplice of Quill, Gamora or Drax. We don't know if he's going to continue to be "closer" to Rocket than to the others in the second film, so wouldn't it be better to remove these words? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Nathan Filion as Simon Williams
According to ComicBook.com, Nathan Fillion is appearing in the film as Simon Williams / Wonder Man, with photos featuring Fillion's face on movie posters with the caption "Simon Williams Film Festival". - Richiekim (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look credible enough to me. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We need something more authoritative. It could just be a coincidence or something completely unrelated.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

More photos. JJsCat (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * SuperBro Movie News isn't what I meant by "authoritative".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

How about this? JJsCat (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, they still trace to an unreliable imgur post. We needed an authoritative source that can independently confirm that a) this is being filmed for GotG vol. 2 and b)Fillion is in the film, not just posters bearing his likeness. For all we know, this could be a piggy back production for something else.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just clarifying your point, we don't need to know that he is physically in the film, just that this is yes indeed GotG Vol. 2 filming and this is how they are possibly including him. Similar situation to how Stan Lee appears in the Netflix series, via onscreen photo. Before we removed the info, this was acceptable wording in the cast section, should this turn out to be true. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To continue the point, it could just as easily be for a viral marketing campaign like Leslie Bibb has been doing for Marvel lately. It is best to wait for a real source. - DinoSlider (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Very true Dino. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I fear that day when citizen journalism will subdue real journalism, and the same citizens will become the principal source of information for major newspapers. This looks like an example of that. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * What about the appearance of the TONY STARK biopic with Fillion as Stark and the fact that they're shooting in that location? Npamusic (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, we'd still need a reputable source reporting on it that doesn't cite the Imgur photos, and confirms it is for GotG Vol. 2. As has been pointed out, it could be related to something else in the MCU, such as viral marketing for the WHIH Newsfront segments, or something else. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this good enough to use as a source? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it references the same unreliable source as before. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll explain it all: the logic of the metaphor Fruit of the poisonous tree is that if the source (the "tree") of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well. In this case, Imgur is the poisonous tree and the info obtained from it by Empire is the fruit. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Sylvester Stallone
According to the New York Daily News, Sylvester Stallone was spotted in Atlanta with a copy of the GOTG 2 script. - Richiekim (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we will need more than this, but sounds great if true. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * What about this? May be nothing but... source Npamusic (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say that that is a confirmation/not confirmation type of deal, he's confirming it but it can be open to interpritation on it maybe saying that he just thinks that Stallone is fantastic. If anything I would say just use it as a basis to look out for other sources claiming the same thing.-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 23:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

In IMDb Stallone IS included in the list. I think that's not something to be ignored. 188.214.218.203 (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * IMDB can easily be ignored. See WP:RS/IMDB. Reach Out to the Truth 14:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

There's some kind of a confirmation in comicbook.com. Is it valid? 2.186.94.163 (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not if it is reporting on the rumors/unconfirmed reports per WP:FRUIT. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

New report from JoBlo.com
According to this article from JoBlo.com, Chris Sullivan is playing Taserface, Tommy Flanagan is playing Tullk, as well as confirming Sylvester Stallone appearing in the film. They also confirm that Ayesha will be the villain of the film and speculate that Elizabeth Debicki may play her. Should this info be added to the article? - Richiekim (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems that all of the casting news they are taking from the earlier reports, so I don't think we can use this for confirmation of any of that. Other than that, all they are "revealing" is that Ayesha will be the villain, which I guess we could add, depending on whether we think JoBlo is reliable (I'm not sure how we have dealt with it before). - adamstom97 (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * JoBlo has been used on occasion, pointing more towards unreliable than reliable. As with Adam, they are confirming previous reports on castings, which would fail per WP:FRUIT, because I think they originated from Comic Book Movie. And I don't think mentioning Ayesha at this time is necessary, because they only speculate that that is Debicki's character. So it would just be a rumor at this point. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Is Russell actually Quill's father?
So I've been thinking about this, and I don't think we have enough info to accurately state this. Gunn has been very adamant throughout filming not to state who Russell was playing, and what we are using to source this now, is Variety's article that says that it was confirmed that Russell was in the film, but later goes into how they reported that that is what he was in talks to play, not definitely that is who he is playing. They also add, "sources have indicated that Russell will play Pratt’s mysterious father figure". I think this is a bit like, at the moment, Keaton's role in Spidey. A lot of publications are saying he's the Vulture, because that was what the rumor was when they first reported his negotiations, but that hasn't actually been confirmed. I think it may be best at this time to remove this bit of info from the cast section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I'm with you on that. Gunn announced yesterday that they'd be at SDCC this year, so maybe we'll get more info then.-RM (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * any objections to this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No objections from me, I'm sure we'll get some confirmation on this soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Sources say" does sound vague, I agree. OTOH, in the Spider-Man: Homecoming article, it states Kenneth Choi is playing the high school principal, even though the source also uses the same "sources say" phrasing. I wouldn't object to hiding Russell's character info till SDCC. - Richiekim (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Great. Will adjust. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Stan Lee cameo?
Stan Lee revealed he was recently in Atlanta to film cameos for three films. Is it too much WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to say he has a cameo here, despite him not explicitly saying this film? This and Spider-Man are the only Marvel films that are down in Atlanta now, so that covers two of the film. I feel trying to say what the third is (Doctor Strange, Ragnarok, or even Wolverine 3) would be the OR part. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What was your "Yes" too? Yes, include, or yes, WP:OR? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry that was yes to your question, "Is it too much WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to say he has a cameo here, despite him not explicitly saying this film?"--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Comic Con
Seems like the final showcase of the panel https://mobile.twitter.com/AgentM Rusted AutoParts 01:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sylvester Stallone confirmed to be in it. Russell plays Ego, Peter's father. Rusted AutoParts 02:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Shooting in Atlanta
While not in the city limits, Fayette County is indeed part of the Atlanta metropolitan area. To the average person, that places it "in Atlanta". Regardless of how you feel about the previous statement, at least two sources already cited in the page stated that the filming was in Atlanta: One states that James Gunn said "Because we're filming in Atlanta, I hope it works out for my schedule" {source) and another stated "As opposed to England, early next year Guardians of the Galaxy 2 will film in Atlanta, where Marvel’s Ant-Man shot last summer" (source). I don't see a valid reason to remove the category. Please elaborate on why you feel differently. - DinoSlider (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, the category says "Films shot in Atlanta, Georgia", which is NOT the same as the Atlanta metro area. The sources you cite are no doubt are referencing the metro area, not the city itself. If you look at the Wikipedia article for GOTG 2, the only confirmed shooting locations are at Pinewood Atlanta and Cartersville, Georgia, both of which are outside the city limits. Unless we get a valid source that the film was shot within the city of Atlanta (like Captain America: Civil War or Spider-Man: Homecoming), the category should be removed. - Richiekim (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Restricting to within the city limits seems like it could be a confusing distinction to the average reader, not to mention the average editor. In this case, these sources state that the filming is "in Atlanta" and it seems like WP:OR to assume otherwise. I dispute the claim that the sources "are no doubt are referencing the metro area, not the city itself", but I would like to hear the input of others as well. - DinoSlider (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As someone who's not invested in the Atlanta area at all, if I read 'will film in Atlanta' and see a category of 'Films shot in Atlanta' I don't see a conflict. While possibly accurate, it's a bit of an assumption that 'will film in Atlanta' means the metropolitan area and 'films shot in Atlanta' means the city of Atlanta itself, and I think a bit of original research is needed to reach that conclusion. jmcgowan2 (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Source for Ego not appearing in the film as "The Living Planet"?
So in the section about Ego, it stated that he does not appear in the film as his "living planet" form. There was no source indicating that as fact. I've gone ahead and removed that information as no one, (Gunn, or Russell) has stated that he won't appear as "The Living Planet". Until we hear confirmation of that as fact, I think we should leave it how I've left it on the page. Anyone else have thoughts on this (or a source that says he won't appear as The Living Planet?) Npamusic (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The source used on the article for the statement say Ego will not appear as a planet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Is Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol 1 or Vol 2 a superhero film as stated?
Is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4D04:6200:613C:5554:4030:675D (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup. Per WP:FILMLEAD, it is the most generic genre for the film. Obviously there are other genres represented in the film, but those are noted with categories and in the article.

Why McConaughey declined
In the source he says, "I like Guardians of the Galaxy, but what I saw was “It’s successful, and now we’ve got room to make a colorful part for another big-name actor.” I’d feel like an amendment. The Dark Tower script was well written, I like the director and his take on it, and I can be the creator, the author of the Man in Black—a.k.a. the Devil—in my version of this Stephen King novel." I couldn't find a way to paraphrase it, so I just said he declined Guardians 2 in favour of The Dark Tower. Am I inaccurate somewhere? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you are accurate. I'm going to add a bit of his quotes to help. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Mashable interview series
The first in a series of upcoming interviews. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

"Groot" or "Baby Groot"?
I know we do not include titles etc for characters per MOS:DOCTOR, but based on the new trailer, I'm feeling it may be more appropriate to have Diesel in the cast section as "Baby Groot" over "Groot", if we feel "Baby" isn't a title. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * His name still appears to be Groot, in fact in the comics I think his entire race is called Groot. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think "Baby Groot" is the same "General Thadeus Ross", for example, but I do think we should just call him Groot, and then perhaps say he is affectionately referred to as "Baby Groot" and why. But if everyone calls him Baby Groot in the movie, and he is credited that way, then I might reconsider. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with that. I was thinking of putting somewhere now something like, "Known as Baby Groot..." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the the credits/billing block at the bottom of the newest poster specifically states "Featuring Vin Diesel as Baby Groot", we should reconsider renaming him in the article as well? Richiekim (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I did not notice the billing block also used "Baby Groot". I thought it was only on the cassette tape label. I think we could change it, and then we'll have to then adjust the third sentence (As Groot is smaller in the film than in the first and known as "Baby Groot",) as that was added to compensate for the fact it was not in the character name, and any other instance outside of quotes that it should maybe be Baby Groot and not Groot. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a wrench to throw in: Kevin Feige said, "you see baby Groot here, which he's just 'Groot' in the movie, but on set we call him baby Groot." source - DinoSlider (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So then maybe "Baby" is more like a title, so in that case, per MOS:DOCTOR, it should just be "Groot", with the wording we have currently how he is known as "Baby Groot"?? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Guardians Volume 2 first box office prediction
Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2 expected to open to a $160M OW and end with a domestic haul of $400M: http://pro.boxoffice.com/long-range-forecast-guardians-galaxy-vol-2/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.46.235 (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 official runtime revealed
We have official word from Event Cinemas that Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is 137 minutes long (2 hours and 17 minutes long) as long as "Logan" and making it the fourth-longest MCU movie ever: https://www.eventcinemas.com.au/Movie/Guardians-Of-The-Galaxy-Vol-2

Now, before anyone calls this out as BS, I just wanna remind you James Gunn confirmed this on his Facebook here with someone who James confirmed got the runtime closely right: https://m.facebook.com/jgunn/posts/10154097911781157?comment_id=10154097916556157&reply_comment_id=10154097927586157&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D

So, what do u guys think? Can we add the runtime onto it's movie page? It's already been confirmed by James Gunn. We might as well use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.120.51 (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Theater chains should not be used to source runtimes, especially this far out, as they all generally fluctuate. Plus Gunn never confirmed anything specifically. WP:NORUSH. Wait for the BBFC or the like to give it a classification runtime. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Awesome Mix Vol. 2
Album is out April 28, track list soon. Plus, for the eventual article, here's the album cover from Gunn (and source for the other info). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Tokyo premiere?
Pretty sure this is just like the first film and was a press tour screening, not a "premiere". Comparable (I think) to this: "On July 12, 2014, Gunn and the actors from the film promoted Guardians of the Galaxy at the Lido 8 Cineplex in Singapore." at Guardians of the Galaxy (film). I thought we had a talk page discussion about this, but there's nothing in the archives. Let me know what you think. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Was the film shown?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure. From some of Gunn's recent social media, it might have, but I don't have anything concrete to pull from at the moment to confirm. Also, in regards to what I think is a similar situation to the first film, I added the info to the first film in regards to Singapore, much like Richie did here, as its premiere. I then reverted it to as it currently stands here, after you, Richie, and  (FKA Corvoe) discussed if Singapore really was the first film's premiere on my talk page here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Source for cameo
I honestly couldn't tell if this Guillermo (security guard from Jimmy Kimmel) thing was real or not, or if the clip they showed will be actually in the film. But if it is, here's a source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Guardians Volume 2 runtime officially classified
Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2 officially classified as 136 minutes long: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/guardians-galaxy-vol-2-2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.120.51 (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

David Hasselhoff
So when the cast was introduced at the premiere, David Hasslehoff was amongst them. Rusted AutoParts 17:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hasselhoff has also stated that he cannot go into detail regarding his contract with Marvel, but that he can talk about the theme song.... this seems to indicate that he will appear in the film in some capacity. Perhaps he will play one of Stakar and Yondu's original team of Guardians that has been announced to appear in the film?...only time will tell.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Number of end-credit scenes
At a press screening recently, I counted four end-credit scenes, but I recently saw an article claiming there are five. Once the film is out publicly, editors here might want to pay particular attention to the number since early reports aren't always accurate. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * By all accounts I have seen, there were indeed four end-credits scenes shown at the screenings. Knowledge of the existence of the fifth comes from James Gunn himself, implying that the last one was withheld from the screenings. I'd say Gunn is a pretty reliable source. - DinoSlider (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes Gunn was the one who stated there would be 5. As Dino said, I believe the fifth was withheld from the press screenings. In article, with the source we have, it stated four mid-credit ones, and then one (not seen) after the credits. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * He cleared it up in my interview, but in case I'm not able to fit it into my eventual article: There are indeed five scenes, he says, but concedes that some people indeed count four since the first one, which — NO SPOILER — involves one of the main characters getting hit with something in a slapsticky if painful way, at first glance looks to be part of the film proper.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Plot
Just to confirm, a private premiere is not a commercial public release. The film is not being released theatrically until April 28 in the UK and Ireland. We cannot insert a plot before then. And for the record, the one that was here was overlong and sloppily written. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Why is this based on the UK/Irish release? It was released in New Zealand and Australia on 24 April 2017. El Dubs (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Just for my own education, is there guidance / policy that we should wait until a commercial public release? I've never heard one way or the other if private premiere are acceptable for adding a Plot section to a movie. jmcgowan2 (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Spoilers?!?
No warning? No anything? Just a big pile of spoilers giving away the plot to the entire movie? Entirely unprofessional. 221.147.22.94 (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SPOILERS, not only should we not avoid spoilers, but they are not labeled as such either. If you visit a wikipedia page for a movie and see that there's a section labeled 'Plot', it will most likely contain the full plot, including spoilers. (Assuming it's verifiable, and not based excusively on a 'gossip/tabloid/spoilers' website or show) jmcgowan2 (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

But the movie isn't even kind of out yet! The Talk Page even says the plot shouldn't be on there. 221.147.22.94 (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As of today its out in Australia, Belgium, Colombia, Finland, France, Indonesia, Italy, Norway, Philippines and Sweden, so yeah, it's "kind of out". Sorry, champ, maybe you shouldn't be reading things about the movie if you don't want to be spoiled. Rusted AutoParts 03:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Pending revisions
I was just curious, for anyone else working on this article who understands how this system works, what exactly is the criteria for getting edits automatically accepted? From what I have read, the pending revisions system is meant to avoid vandalism from IPs and new users (of which I am neither), so I'm just a little confused as to why my edits aren't showing up straight away (not to mention being rolled back with all the other vandal-type edits). - adamstom97 (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As the system is documented, your edits should be showing up straight away. By looking at the logs you are an extended confirmed user which means your edits should be automatically excepted, but that isn't happening which is weird. I would reason it might be a bug, but I went ahead and confirmed your edits anyway. Winner 42  Talk to me!  21:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Winner, I thought something weird was happening. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Production Cost?
Could someone please add the actual or estimated production cost? Thanks. N0w8st8s (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)n0w8st8s

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 budget officially revealed
According to the LA Times, Guardians Vol. 2's budget is $200 million dollars: http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-movie-projector-guardians-of-the-galaxy-20170502-htmlstory.html. I hope we can add this onto the Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.22.19.82 (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Watcher's Informant
Stan Lee's cameo should be specified as "The Watcher's Informant," as per the end credits, rather than merely "an astronaut." That implies he's simply a human character of no real significance. It is true that Lee isn't confirmed within the film as a Watcher himself, but he is at least relating information on the Avengers to the group. Not to mention his credit as "The Watcher's Informant" is the only place in the film where the beings' identities as Watchers is actually confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.193.25 (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that credit? I don't remember seeing it and the credits in the press kit from Disney don't include it. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, though the film credit isn't listed | here], producer Kevin Feige states that Stan Lee's character is "doing work for the Watchers". That would back up the statement and argument above.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The press kits usually just list main cast, not specific cameos so they're more of a surprise for viewers. You'll notice Nathan Fillion, Seth Green, Miley Cyrus and others aren't credited in the kit either. And yeah, "The Watchers' Informant" was Lee's credit in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.193.13 (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw this as well. It's how he should be credited on the cast list, instead of being 'an astronaut'.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Additional billed actors?
In the opening billing of the film, plus the production notes PDF, Tommy Flanagan and Laura Haddock are listed, between Sean Gunn and Sly Stallone. Should we replicate that here as well, or stick to the poster billing? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would understand if we wanted to do this, but I don't feel their roles in the film really justify it. It's not quite the same as Falcon secretly having a pretty big role in Ant-Man, at least for me. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Cast credits
These official cast credits, given to press, are incomplete. They don't include "Watcher informant ... Stan Lee," "Voice of Howard the Duck ... Seth Green", "Charlie-27 ... Ving Rhames" or others that appear in the onscreen credits, presumably excluded to avoid spoilers — which certainly doesn't do accuracy and posterity any good. Anyway, here's what Disney released.

CAST --Tenebrae (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Peter Quill/Star-Lord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHRIS PRATT
 * Gamora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ZOE SALDANA
 * Drax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DAVE BAUTISTA
 * Baby Groot (Voice) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIN DIESEL
 * Rocket (Voice) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BRADLEY COOPER
 * Yondu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .MICHAEL ROOKER
 * Nebula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KAREN GILLAN
 * Mantis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POM KLEMENTIEFF
 * Stakar Ogord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SYLVESTER STALLONE
 * Ego . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KURT RUSSELL
 * Ayesha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ELIZABETH DEBICKI
 * Taserface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHRIS SULLIVAN
 * Kraglin/On-Set Rocket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SEAN GUNN
 * Tullk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOMMY FLANAGAN
 * Meredith Quill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LAURA HADDOCK
 * Young Ego Facial Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AARON SCHWARTZ
 * Sovereign Chambermaid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HANNAH GOTTESMAN
 * Sovereign Pilot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HILTY BOWEN
 * Sovereign Admiral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BEN BROWDER
 * Zylak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ALEX KLEIN
 * Zylak’s Frenemy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LUKE COOK
 * Retch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EVAN JONES
 * Oblo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JOE FRIA
 * Narblik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TERENCE ROSEMORE
 * Halfnut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JIMMY URINE
 * Brahl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STEPHEN BLACKEHART
 * Gef . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STEVE AGEE
 * Huhtar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BLONDY BARUTI
 * “Down There!” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RICHARD CHRISTY
 * Unseen Ravager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ROB ZOMBIE
 * Robot Courtesans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SIERRA LOVE, KENDRA STAUB, MILYNN SARLEY
 * Sneeper Madame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RHODA GRIFFIS
 * Officer Fitzgibbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .MAC WELLS
 * Weird Old Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .JIM GUNN, SR.
 * Weird Old Man’s Mistress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .LEOTA GUNN
 * Easik Mother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ELIZABETH LUDLOW
 * Young Peter Quill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WYATT OLEFF
 * Grandpa Quill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GREGG HENRY
 * Grandpa Quill’s Friend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DAMITA JANE HOWARD
 * Can we reference this list? I ask because Evan Jones' character is listed on the page as "Wrench", which is clearly a typo since the cited source says "Wretch". However, this lists the spelling as "Retch". - DinoSlider (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * While incomplete, what's here reflects what's onscreen. Now that the movie has come out, we don't need cites for simple cast listings. I would go ahead and change it to Retch and remove the now-outdated cite.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Stan Lee
The cast section mentions Lee's cameo in a hard to find section towards the end, but the reference to the scene is utterly meaningless in the plot summary if it doesn't mention that the guy is Stan Lee. The idea that we can never include cast information in the plot summary for any purpose is completely ridiculous. Why are we trying to make the article less useful to satisfy some arbitrary rule? john k (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The plot section is for the plot, and the cast section is for the cast. There is nothing "arbitrary" about that. Now, I suggest you put the article back how it was instead of edit warring with me without explanation. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In this case, the "plot" such as it is, of that post-credit sequence, is basically "look, it's Stan Lee talking to the Watchers." The "plot" point is incomprehensible without mentioning Lee. You are so committed to some dumb rule that you're making the article less useful for everybody. Even assuming there were an actual rule against ever mentioning cast members in the plot section (there is not, it's just generally frowned on), this would be an obvious case to ignore that rule. john k (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an argument to not include post-credit sequences because they don't add anything to the understanding of the plot. Anyway, there was a similar discussion at talk:The Dark Knight Rises (search the archives) about Blake's legal name being Robin and the consensus was that it didn't add anything to the plot summary so it was fine as-is in Cast. DonQuixote (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with taking the whole thing out of the plot section. john k (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Grandmaster
This interview is almost the source we need for an explantion here and at the list of actors page about the wee Grandmaster cameo. But, neither of them actually say who they are talking about in the video. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, got a better source here. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice job. Exactly what we needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Alternate posters
¿Why are there two alternate posters in the article? There's no reason for them to be there. --Facu-el Millo (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Fan theory passage
With all due respect to my good colleague adamstom97, the cited source, ScreenRant, says the opposite of what the claim was. I removed a passage that read: "This was a nod to the popular fan theory that Lee may be portraying one of the Watchers himself in his various cameo appearances,"

because the cited source says just the opposite: "The movie version of the all-seeing beings are very similar in design to their comic look, which does disprove Lee actually being one of them..."

So I'm not sure how we can keep in a passage that says the exact opposite of what the cited source says.

The "popular fan theory" is not even about Stan being a Watcher. ScreenRant says, "...the popular fan theory that Stan Lee is playing the same character in all of his MCU roles." That's all. Not a Watcher. Also, as a secondary thing: "popular" is WP:PEACOCK. The term "popular" isn't particularly quantifiable, but I think the theory needs to be in more mainstream places than ScreenRant for "popular" to be accurate. There's nothing wrong with calling it "fan theory".--Tenebrae (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The line This was a nod to the popular fan theory that Lee may be portraying one of the Watchers himself in his various cameo appearances is referring to this material from the ScreenRant source (second paragraph): "Along the way, one popular fan theory that’s popped up is that Lee is in fact not playing dozens of different characters, but one single being traversing space and time, the most prominent suggestion being Uatu the Watcher." So yes, this sentence is correct, referring to this fan theory that Lee was in fact Uatu. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was pretty sure I hadn't just made all that up myself. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So in essence this is what ScreenRant is saying, that we reflect here: Stan Lee appearing next to the Watchers (but not actually being one), was a fun nod to the fan theory in which fans felt Lee was Uatu the Watcher. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * So the ScreenRant article is contradicting itself, in that there appear to be two "popular fan theories" — and the only one Feige endorses is that Stan appears to be the same character. Feige never once says Stan is a Watcher — so having the Feige quote immediately after the "Watcher" claim is misleading. Feige is not endorsing the notion that Stan is a Watcher ... and in fact the credits say "Watchers' informant." A cop would not be credited as "cops' informant." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is only one fan theory: that Lee is the same character and that that character is Uatu. Feige confirms part of it, that he is portraying the same character. But the reason he appears with the Watchers is because of the other part of the theory that he is Uatu. If the scene was just Lee talking to people in a park about all his adventures, it wouldn't really be the "nod" to the theory. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The article says, "the popular fan theory that Stan Lee is playing the same character in all of his MCU roles" and then goes on to say "the most prominent suggestion being Uatu the Watcher." I count that as two theories: one says Stan is the same character, the other says Stan is the Watcher." But for the sake of argument that, as you say, it's one theory, then the one theory is "that Stan Lee is playing the same character" and the Watcher idea is simply one of multiple suggestions based on that theory. (The phrase "most prominent" means there are at least three suggestions.) A theory and one suggestion of multiple suggestions about that theory are two different things.


 * Feige never mentions the Watcher in his quote. We can say that there are these theories, but we cannot juxtapose Feige's quote in a way that endorses the Watcher suggestion since neither Feige nor the article do that. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the credit "Watchers' informant" may support the theory, but it does not support the Watcher suggestion. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We're not trying to say that he is playing a Watcher himself, only that him being with them is a nod to the fact that some people thought he was. He probably isn't given how he is credited. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we agree that Feige is not saying that Stan is playing a Watcher. But honestly, as a professional journalist and editor I can tell you that with the juxtaposition of that quote and the Watcher-theory comment, the article's phrasing absolutely is saying Feige supports the Stan-as-Watcher theory.


 * At the very least, assuming reasonable people can disagree, the passage certainly can be interpreted that way. I'm wondering if you and Favre1fan93 would consider a rewording simply to make the Feige context absolutely clear? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've just ended up tweaking the wording a bit while adding some other content. Let me know if you still think it needs work, and we can discuss further re-wording. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort. I think that as long as something like "potentially a Watcher" precedes the Feige quote, it makes the Feige quote look like it support that speculation, when Feige is in fact saying nothing that supports Stan as Watcher. And as producer, Feige had final say over how Stan's character was listed in the end-credits, which indicate that Feige does not believe Stan is a Watcher.

How about something like this (which removes the causal "this was a nod to" also adds a needed comma before the quote itself): "Stan Lee appears as an informant to the Watchers, discussing previous adventures that include Lee's cameos in other MCU films. Feige explained that, "Stan Lee clearly exists, you know, above and apart from the reality of all the films. So the notion that he could be sitting there on a cosmic pit stop during the jump gate sequence in Guardians was something very fun—James had that idea and ... that really says, so wait a minute, he’s this same character who’s popped up in all these films?"[63] A fan theory has suggested that Lee may be portraying the same character in his various cameo appearances.[63] While one version of the theory suggests he may be a Watcher, the character's screen credits and the Watchers' physical appearance dispels that notion.[63]"

--Tenebrae (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

- adamstom97 (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we need to keep the "nod to" part (even if we come up with some other, more formal term to use) or it makes the fan theory bit seem really trivial. The only reason we are including it in the article is because it has been acknowledged as a bit of an influence on the film itself, so we should still make the connection. Here is a counter-proposal, that attempts to avoid the implication about the Watchers that you are worried about:
 * "Stan Lee appears as an informant to the Watchers, discussing previous adventures that include Lee's cameos in other MCU films. This was a nod to the fan theory that Lee may be portraying the same character in his various cameo appearances (some thought he may be playing a Watcher himself, but his appearance in Vol. 2 does not support that). Feige explained that "Stan Lee clearly exists, you know, above and apart from the reality of all the films. So the notion that he could be sitting there on a cosmic pit stop during the jump gate sequence in Guardians was something very fun—James had that idea and ... that really says, so wait a minute, he’s this same character who’s popped up in all these films?""
 * I don't know if this helps or muddies the water, but here is a quote (source) from James Gunn:
 * "One thing I found very funny and interesting is the fact that people thought Stan Lee is a Watcher and that all of these cameos are part of him being a Watcher. So, Stan Lee as---probably---a guy who is working for the Watchers was something that I thought was fun for the MCU. And yes, I know I made a mistake. I'll own up to my mistake because Guardians of the Galaxy 2 theoretically happens in 2014 which is before Infinity War. And Stan Lee in the movie says, 'That time I was the Fed Ex guy,' which is what he is in Civil War. I screwed up; I wasn't thinking, But I'm going to say that probably Stan Lee used the guise of a Fed Ex guy more than one time."


 * - DinoSlider (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Gunn's quote does seem to support "a nod to" (or perhaps "an acknowledgment of" is more formal language).


 * I'm not sure there's any need for the parenthetical phrase "(some thought he may be playing a Watcher himself, but his appearance in Vol. 2 does not support that)", since any fan can have any theory — but it's not notable until it has a tangible influence. The Feige quote doesn't have anything to do with the Watchers, so I'm not sure why we're mentioning it at all, since it's not the part of the theory that Feige is addressing. (And incidentally, Gunn in his quote also doesn't believe Stan is a Watcher ... so, again, why include it)? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I like the wording that is used currently (here), but what if we just reorder some things? That may be helpful. I'm thinking this:
 * "Stan Lee appears as an informant to the Watchers, discussing previous adventures that include Lee's cameos in other MCU films. Feige explained that "Stan Lee clearly exists, you know, above and apart from the reality of all the films. So the notion that he could be sitting there on a cosmic pit stop during the jump gate sequence in Guardians was something very fun—James had that idea and ... that really says, so wait a minute, he’s this same character who’s popped up in all these films?" This was a nod to the fan theory that Lee may be portraying the same character in his various cameo appearances, with him appearing talking to the Watchers as an acknowledgement of "the most prominent" fan theory that suggests Lee is Uatu the Watcher.[source]"


 * - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I just tweaked the wording again while adding the new info on the continuity error. I've just left talk of Lee being a Watcher in the fan theory to Gunn, so we aren't really discussing it ourselves. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with your edit Adam. Though would it be beneficial in the added quote from Gunn to reformat in a way to link to the Uatu article? Not trying to harp on that, but that was specific to the theory, not that he was just "a Watcher", but specifically Uatu. That could be potentially helpful for readers to have that link here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Y'know ... that works for me. And I can't imagine a clearer example of how well various experienced editors can collaborate collegially, with one pointing out a syntactical issue, another making a tweak based on that and other discussion, yet another editor finding a relevant additional quote, and yet others synthesizing the various comments. I am so proud of my colleagues. WikiProject Comics consistently proves how mature editors working together can create a whole greater than the sum of its parts. As Stan would say, "Excelsior!" --Tenebrae (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2017
yyyyyyyyyyyℂףפעסקש gear shift 173.218.164.252 (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * [T]he request must be of the form "please change X to Y". DonQuixote (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggested changes to cast list
First, Nova Corps didn't appear in the film at all, not even Irani Rael, so Glenn Close should be removed from the list. And second, Stan Lee didn't portray Uatu the Watcher. He was an old astronaut who simply spoke with Watchers who weren't interested of his story. CAJH (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition to this edits continue to rephrase the paragraph in a giant run-on sentence. I have corrected it several times as far as grammar goes, but editors are engaging in edit-warring. I will wait until that dies down before I correct the issues with the paragraph and clean it up.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, CAJH -- producer Kevin Feige has confirmed at least that Stan Lee is portraying the same character throughout the entire MCU. That can be read | here.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The article was released after my comment. CAJH (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I am bringing a revert issue to this portion of the talk page. The paragraph under the primary cast list on this page has undergone various edits and many reverts. User:DisneyMetalhead has corrected oversized sentences to be more to-the-point. User:Rusted AutoParts in the reverts told DMetalhead that they need to come to the talk page to make those edits valid...? In my opinion, why is this even an issue? I took the issue to both of their pages as it has gone on a while now. Personally I think making the page more correct as far as the English language goes is a constructive edit. As far as Stallone's role in the film goes, the film's writer/director has called the character "Starhawk" so the reverts on that one are strange to me too (not in a good Doctor Strange way). Anyhow, I'm bringing this here as neither of the previously-stated editors have yet.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it was disputed content. DisneyMetalHead refused to discuss with the other reverting editors and continued adding it in. It's cute you think you have a grasp on the situation, but you clearly don't. Rusted AutoParts 20:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If the filmmakers had wanted the character called Starhawk, they would have called the character Starhawk, either in onscreen or the onscreen credits. Having made the choice not to do so, any comments they make afterward are simply casual, shorthand colloquialisms. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Some of the editors on this site are completely and utterly arrogant. RAP -- you needn't degrade others when you respond to a clearly constructive comment made by Special:Contributions/50.232.205.246. Something I've found with Wikipedians is that they feel as though they need to tare others down, not too dissimilar to fanboys and bloggers on the internet. Wikipedia is not about WP:WINNING. You need to remember that. You are clearly creating friction as it was stated in your revert comment that I needed to come here. How and why I need to come to a talkpage in regards to correcting grammar and sentence structure, is completely ludicrous. The paragraph below the cast listing on the page is one HUGE run-on sentence and needs to be corrected. I have done so but you continue to revert my edits. What's your reasoning? As far as the whole Stallone is Starhawk thing -- the actor has signed on for multiple films. What MCU characters are called by their full name in any post-credits/cameo scenes??.... (i.e. in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Scarlett Witch and Quicksilver are not even named, but as common-knowledge we acknowlege their cameo and characters' names). Editing becomes so petty and completely miniscule when you search for the minutia to disagree with. Let's talk about something that's actually debatable!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're putting speculative content in by putting Starhawk. Was not once referred to as such in the film. You were reverted, you continued adding it back. I have no more patience for that anymore. Rusted AutoParts 00:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I can remove comments on my own talk page if I choose to. And what you interpret as rudeness and incivility is frustration at seeing my watchlist bogged down with edits and reverts of specific issues made clear aren't notable or cited well enough to remain. So as opposed to try and say my behaviour needs to be discussed, discuss the content you persist in readding. Rusted AutoParts 00:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * the appropriate place for resolving an issue with an editor is their talk page, and the correct response is to hopefully resolve the issue. You admitting to a lack of patience^ is a step in the right direction. None of my edits are confrontational. All of them are constructive and done in good-faith. What about James Gunn calling Michelle Yeoh's character 'the FEMALE Starhawk' doesn't make sense to everyone? She's the female counterpart to Stallone. Stallone is a MALE. Oh, wait that makes him the MALE Starhawk. Simple. Basic. You telling me to come to the talkpage for corrections to grammar and run-on sentences makes absolutely zero sense.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * What you're doing is called WP:SYNTH. Again, if Gunn had wanted to call Stallone's character Starhawk in either dialog or end credits, he would have done so. He did not. Please respect the filmmaker's choices. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And no one said to come and discuss "corrections to grammar and run-on sentences". It's pretty clear which one we're referring to. Rusted AutoParts 15:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And yet User:Rusted AutoParts any of us that look at the history can see that you reverted the edits that corrected the run-on sentences. User:Tenebrae you need the character's name stated in the movie, and we credit Thanos in the first Avengers movie? Your reasoning is an enigma. The director called him Starhawk. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * He's not called Thanos in the plot section of The Avengers (2012) film. The cast section says that Feige confirmed the character is Thanos, with a footnote and Feige's exact quote. I'm not sure how that's a comparison with Fillion who, unlike Thanos, never appears in the movie. Fillion is indeed mention where he should be — in the post-production section. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay I'm sorry, but when I make constructive edits simply correcting grammar disfunction and overloaded run-on sentences and the edits are reversed I don't see the purpose of such a move from anyone.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps User:Rusted AutoParts and other users appearing to be engaging in edit warring didn't mean to reverse those specific edits(?). Or at least that's what we would all hope. On the flip side if that is what they are doing, they need to own up to what they're doing, and stop in the process too.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * At what point did I edit war over this information? <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 19:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Rusted AutoParts you seemingly did (along with other editors) when you continuously revert edits with the edit summary of "lol". Each and every time you have done so without stating your reasoning here first, you are likewise 'edit warring'. We can see that you first did so because of the Stallone "Starhawk" differences. User:DisneyMetalhead your edits of that discussion also included your paragraph revisions; but given that you have now done so separately editors should leave your paragraph edits alone as they are solely for the purposes of English grammar.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ...Seriously? Those were edits on my talk page, not this article. I am fully free to decide what can remain on my own talk page. I'm sorry but you really don't seem to understand the situation or what you're accusing me of. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 19:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I understand what's going on as anyone can follow the page's edit history. DisneyMetalhead started off revising the paragraph below the cast listing, while also changing Stallone's credit to Stakar / Starhawk. You reversed that because of the fact that Stallone isn't referenced as Starhawk in the film (even though that's who the character is). What I am saying is that you reversed the "Starhawk" edits, and in the process that also changed the paragraph layout. I just said that you weren't edit warring four bullet points previous to this one...I am following the discussion just fine.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Id have to beg to differ considering you didn't even know which edit summaries were from what edit. Please stop pinging me, this "issue" disinterests me. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 20:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Why be hostile, if you didn't do anything? The editors on this site, are frustrating elitest and it's revolting. Whoever is reverting my sentence corrections has an oversized ego. Not saying it's you, but whoever it is it's counterproductive.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're wasting my time and accusing me of undoing edits I didn't undo. And this "editors are elitest" mentality isn't gonna gain you any allies. What you perceive as elitism is really much more seasoned editors keeping the article in compliance with the MOS implemented on all of these articles. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 00:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again being hostile and demeaning is far worse than me stating that there are a select few of editors on Wikipedia who have an elitist attitude towards other editors. I didn't call you one, nor did I state that the attitude is in regards to knowledgability towards the MOS. What I stated is that the "holier than thou", know-it-all attitude towards other editors is against Wikipedia policies and regulations. That's what I said. Change your tone to begin with, and you won't have to message me about being "disinterested" again.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ, considering whether or not i'm being hostile is all up to how you interpret it. I'm not being hostile, i'm being blunt. You're wasting peoples time. Discuss the issue this thread was started for. Stop diverting to make a stand because you feel you're being attacked. Stop accusing editors of being elitist when they're not being elitist. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 03:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, whoever it is that keeps/kept reverting my English grammar adjustments to the paragraph, needs to explain why they would do it. You were however being demeaning, User:Rusted AutoParts. There's no need to be.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And you're free to believe that, just as I'm free to believe that's it's a silly notion. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 00:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * A 'silly notion' to bring the topic to the talk page like you insisted on, User:Rusted AutoParts? I don't understand the logic here. You tell someone to come to the talk page, and then completely dismiss it - for what reason? User:DisneyMetalhead, I for one appreciated the work you put into making the page more summarized. As it is there is far too much wordage and repetition of ideas. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You still don't seem to fully understand what you're talking about. The "silly notion" I refer to is the concept I was being demeaning to DMH. It's all in interpretation of course, but from my end there was no aim to demean. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 17:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's just throw this one into the stack of misinterpreted threads, and go from there. The paragraph this section is intended to cover definitely needs some revisions.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Star Trek V references/accidental parallels?
Did anyone who liked this movie notice these? I did, but I'm not a reliable source. A quick googling showed up only this, which would probably not be enough to mention it in the article, even if he wasn't in the small minority who disliked the film and hadn't specifically used the Star Trek parallels to attack the film.

Please do not blank this under NOTFORUM. I am not interested in discussing Wikipedians' opinions of the film. I think that it's a near-certainty that even if few reliable sources currently discuss the parallels, some will almost certainly show up, and when they do it should almost certainly be mentioned in this article, similarly to how our Kuroneko article discusses the obvious Akutagawa reference in the film's title. Hopefully it won't take forty years with this film.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I personally have not seen Star Trek V, so I can't comment myself, but I also have not seen anything about this. If there are more reliable sources than just that one discussing, I think it could be something to consider though. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)