Talk:Inhumans (TV series)/Archive 1

This plus the film draft?
Do we need both drafts? Feige's most recent comments made it seem like a film is still very much a possibility. But this announcement seems to throw a wrench in that. If we don't need both, then I'd say we need to do a WP:HISTMERGE of the two drafts, to get the history of the film one over here. I can see both sides however. Want to know what you all think. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC) I messed up your username, and don't know if fixing it will still give you the ping. Sorry for both if you got two Richie. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I say let the film draft remain until the film is officially cancelled. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * According to THR, the film has been abandoned .  Dark Knight  2149  03:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There you have it. With no director, writer or star cast finalised for so long, the film seemed unlikely to take off. Let the film draft be merged with this. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The only reason I'm hesitant to go with the THR source, is we knew the film was abandoned when it got taken off of the film schedule. Yet, just a couple of weeks ago for the press junkets for Doctor Strange, Feige was saying the film had a possibility in Phase Four. THR's wording is "The comic book studio — which previously abandoned plans for an Inhumans feature film". That corresponds to the fact that Disney took it off their release schedule. So is this new confirmation from THR, or are they just going off existing info? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And YET, Feige's quote now has a WHOLE new meaning. Here it is, again: "I think Inhumans will happen for sure. I don’t know when. I think it’s happening on television. And I think as we get into Phase 4 as I’ve always said, it could happen as a movie." I think we all thought the "happening on television" part was in reference to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. So let's evaluate with all of this now. Looking at it this way makes me think it maybe is dead, at least at this time and a merge should happen. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with waiting for official clarification, assuming Kevin Feige gives it soon (which he probably will, now that the news is out). Like you, Favre, I too thought he was speaking of Agents of SHIELD when he mentioned television.  Dark Knight  2149  04:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to butt in, but I wanted to bring up another possible interpretation: THR says, "Sources note that this is not the planned Inhumans feature film..." That may simply mean that they're not stealing scripts or story ideas from what would have been the film, and they're starting from scratch (which is probably true). Feige's comments about it potentially happening in Phase 4 are about as relevant, at this point, as him saying that Guardians 3 is probably scheduled for 2020, and Black Widow may happen at some point in the future. They're juggling films and saying "anything is possible," but it sounds very much like the Inhumans film is dead at this point, with a chance to be revived years from now. I think we're looking at the same thing that happened with Iron Fist earlier this year: there's no film in active development, but as with anything in the MCU, there's a chance it could evolve into a new form of media at some point down the road. Given that, I think merging the drafts probably makes sense. -RM (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My interpretation is that when Feige said that Inhumans would happen in the films at some point, but he thought they might be doing TV now, was that its still something he wants to do, but by then they were already doing this. So, I think this is replacing the film, but we should keep the draft for the film as the equivalent of the Black Widow draft—something that might happen which has been talked about a lot. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely not butting in . The more voices the better, because this is uncharted territory. We've never had a property announced officially as a film, become a TV series. To the point you made about what you quoted, I took that to mean they are just doing a fresh start, but the film was also supposed to be about the Royal family, so it does give some weight to the film being dead, at least the version announced in October 2014. I don't have a problem keeping the film draft as it is, as I've already copied over relevant info about the film to here, and I don't think some of the stuff I didn't copy over, belong in this article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, at this point, it would probably be best to wait for some clarification before completely merging the two drafts. Although I believe that this show pretty much sealed the fate of the film, it's hard to say for certain at the moment.  Dark Knight  2149  18:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. If there is uncertainty then we should wait for clarification. These are drafts BTW, its not like having duplicate articles about a single topic.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A New York Times article has been sourced for this page. A quote: "Marvel ... initially expected to turn the Inhumans into a string of movies, even announcing its plans publicly in 2014. But the studio ultimately decided the property would be a better fit for TV, in part because there were already a lot of different Marvel movie franchises continuing." It's still not a direct Feige-level confirmation that the film is cancelled, but a credible news source is saying that Marvel thinks a TV show is better than a movie for this property, and we've heard from numerous other sources that the film is no longer in active development at all. I think merging is appropriate given all of this. -RM (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure most of you have seen this by now since it is cited in the page, but this article unequivocally states that this series "does not replace the planned feature film." This should be reason enough to keep the drafts separate. - DinoSlider (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Premiere date
According to The Hollywood Reporter, the film will debut on ABC on 26 September 2017.  Dark Knight  2149  01:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And so you have added it yourself. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Correct.  Dark Knight  2149  03:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Since we are on the subject, the article also lists "on or around Sept. 1" for the theatrical release. This page currently states September 4 because all of the sources stated "Labor Day" as the date. THR clearly interprets that as "Labor Day weekend" instead. This makes much more sense, but it is WP:OR to make that leap. We might want to keep an eye on the release date in future articles. - DinoSlider (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * September 1 is much more likely, because that is the Friday before the Labor Day weekend, and Fridays are when large films usually release. As such, I've changed it, but still included the "on or around" quote since it is not 100% yet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable cast breakdowns
It appears series regulars will be the Royal Family: Black Bolt, Medusa, Maximus the Mad, Karnak, Gorgon, Crystal and Triton, with Lockjaw a CGI character. Just in case anyone wants to watch individual articles should some small disruption begin. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Filming
This unreliable source says that filming on the show is starting in March, and that filming will take place in Chicago and LA. It is referencing Production Weekly, which I guess is reliable but you need to pay for it. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Geez. They're really churning out these series, considering C&D and Runaways are starting up in February, and Defenders should be wrapping then too, leading to Jessica Jones S2. Something to keep our eye on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I remember reading somewhere - can't find the source right now - that they were going to film the first two episodes during normal pilot season and then the rest of the episodes at a later date. If true, the March date sounds right. - DinoSlider (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source, but here is where I read that. I couldn't confirm the claim in the cited sources. - DinoSlider (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No clue where CBM got that info you're referring to Dino. They say it was stated in the New York Times article, but it is no where in that article. That said, it does still make sense if the first two episodes are going to be completed for the May upfronts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

So this very unreliable source has a screenshot from a somewhat more reliable source (but probably still unreliable) that filming starts on March 3 and will also take place in LA and Chicago (as reported earlier). The source I linked does not provide the site that it took a screenshot from, and I can't remember what it is to double check, but I know I've seen it before. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is where they got that screenshot. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Adam. Couldn't think of the site there initially! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

"The" or no "The"
...That is the question. Here we (potentially) go again. Marvel.com's article for Rheon's casting is using "Marvel's Inhumans" not "Marvel's The Inhumans" as we've had up until this point. Something to keep an eye out with as additional castings are revealed over the next few days ahead of filming beginning in early March. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * When it was a movie, it did not have the "The", but it was seemingly added when it became a show (to distinguish it?). Looks like another wait and see. - DinoSlider (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I feel this is something marketing and posters would clear up. Rusted AutoParts 20:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the trades have also dropped the "The". Again, I think we should just wait a little bit and see what is used from now on. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel like the trades dropping the "The" was because the Marvel press release (and article on Marvel.com) did not use it. We can see how many more casting announcements we get and what they do, and compare how many sources and the WEIGHT of what we then have with "The" and what we have without. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Marvel isn't going to screw up the name of their own show (six times) in a major press release issued themselves. It's clear that it's now just "Marvel's Inhumans". -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. The press releases for the Netflix series wavered between Marvel's Defenders and Marvel's The Defenders. - DinoSlider (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The press release for Black Bolt's casting continues to refer to it as Marvel's Inhumans. Also I've noticed that both the Facebook and Twitter pages for the show title themselves Marvel's Inhumans. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should move it Lets wait for the first graphic.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On second (or is that third) thought the graphic for The Defenders doesn't include "The" either. We should go with whatever the majority of the most recent RSs use.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Going off of what Anon pointed out, a Marvel Facebook post uses "Marvel's Inhumans", which links to the Facebook page Marvel's Inhumans. However, its "About" section still uses "Marvel's 'The Inhumans'". And as a point of potential "divide" the Roel Reine info on that Facebook page uses "The", while the two new casting announcements don't. EW, Deadline, THR and /Film all are using simply "Inhumans". If we do decide to move the article, which it is looking like we probably should, let us wait until the mainspace move. The article should be moving by the end of this week, or beginning of next, so why move it twice, when we can solve it all in one move. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The third announcement continues with "Marvel's Inhumans". I agree with just making the change for this article when it moves to the mainspace - makes sense instead of doing multiple moves. But what should we do about the title in other articles like the main MCU articles? Should we go ahead and change it? -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would think it is fine to change those now. We have proper sources. - DinoSlider (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Also just to add IMAX has started posting itself (not retweeting other sources) calling it Marvel's Inhumans, such as in this tweet . -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * About The Defenders, the logo does include "The" if you take a closer look. CAJH (talk) 04:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a reply for TriiipleThreat's comment. CAJH (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

And now a question for everyone here. If there is a reason to believe that the name of the series really will be "Inhumans", not "'The Inhumans", why does nobody move the name of this draft page? CAJH (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As Favre1fan93 stated, the draft is about to move to the mainspace, so we will change the name then rather than move it twice. - DinoSlider (talk)
 * It could be moved now. It was just previously suggested that we just move it to "Inhumans" when the article moves to the mainspace rather than moving it twice since it's just a draft now. It doesn't really matter either way though. If you wanted to do it, no one would revert it back, but the title doesn't matter that much as a draft article. But when the article moves to the mainspace it definitely will be moved to just Inhumans though. That move will be happening pretty soon as casting fills out and filming begins this month. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Per the info I posted in the above section about filming starting, there was indication that filming may start today, March 3. However, that was from an unreliable source so we can't really use that as indication, and frankly, at the daily rate we are getting casting, filming will probably start once they have completed the press releases for all the main cast. We should be on the look out though soon for reliable sources confirming filming has begun. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft move?
It appears that filming may have indeed started today (though this is an unreliable source to use to exact date of start). If so, shall we start the process to move the draft? In terms of sources, until we get a more reliable one, we can keep the one we have, and just change the tense to say "Filming began in March 2017" in the lead and "Filming for Inhumans began in Kalaeloa, Hawaii in March 2017" in the Filming section. Please let me know if there are any objections, otherwise I'll get things in motion to move the draft. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm wishing to wait until something more concrete comes along. If filming does indeed start today, then a Marvel press release shouldn't be too far behind. Rusted AutoParts 18:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Marvel generally does not announce start of production for their TV series FWIW. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I see. Well, then I guess I'll abide by your best judgment. Rusted AutoParts 20:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Given we got the last release today for the remaining cast, that could be seen as an indication filming is starting, as the unreliable sources have speculated. If you all have any thoughts either way, please let me know. The article at the current time does pass WP:GNG too, so that would be enough if we do want to go ahead with moving the draft now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A new tweet pointing to a [news article] from local TV station KHON-TV has since been posted about the show shutting down two streets for filming this coming Sunday. So it seems likely that the other reports are accurate about it filming now, but if not it definitely is Sunday. I think we should go ahead and move it. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 03:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Great find Anon! I'll actually add that source into the filming section. And because we have a specific date of March 5, not speculative for the 3rd, I'll get the process going to have it moved on the 5th. An extra day at this point won't hurt us, and we may even get more sources. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

✅. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Giant rock on set
There was a rock on set that featured drawings similar to those that Coulson drew in AoS. Worth mentioning at all in the MCU tie-in section at this time? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe, I don't think it would hurt to add it now. BTW, I thought you meant this rock for a second - adamstom97 (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I might hold off, because the KHON source does not link it to Inhumans (although it clearly is), nor do they connect it to AoS. If another reliable source does both of those, then I think we can. And it is probably only a matter of time before that Rock does join the MCU! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a slightly better source connecting the two. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Teaser poster
If ever needed for a season article (though we may get a new one by then anyways). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Fall schedule
Deadline is reporting that the show will air on Fridays. - DinoSlider (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We generally don't note the day of the week in prose that a series will air, so we will have to wait until the start schedule is released. But we do know now that it won't premiere on September 26, which is a Tuesday. Knowing it is a Friday series, we can guess it will most likely start on ABC on September 29, which is after the two weeks it will be IMAX. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Billy Gierhart 8th episode
Just want to expand on the added source (here) that the "disneycamera" Instagram account is Gierhart's, as evidenced by a recent post by Clark Gregg's account, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Poster
When needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Episode Titles
http://www.spoilertv.com/2017/09/upcoming-episode-titles-various-shows_15.html

Inhumans - Episode 1.03 - Divide - And Conquer Inhumans - Episode 1.04 - Make Way For... Medusa Inhumans - Episode 1.05 - Something Inhuman This Way Comes... Inhumans - Episode 1.06 - The Gentleman's Name Is Gorgon Inhumans - Episode 1.07 - Havoc In The Hidden Land Inhumans - Episode 1.08 - ...And Finally: Black Bolt (Season Finale) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * SpoilerTV is not considered a reliable source. --  Alex TW 14:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Cast order
I'm just putting this here as an FYI and not actually making an edit because I'm not 100% sure, but I saw a screening today and I think Anson Mount, Serinda Swan, and Ken Leung were the first three credited with Iwan Rheon getting an "and" at the end of the main cast. - DinoSlider (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I'm going later tonight and will attempt to make note of the credits for us to adjust here. I can report back once I've seen it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's info I gain from watching the screening. The opening credits had this info:
 * IMAX Entertainment noted in opening at the end (this should be pipe text to IMAX Corporation I believe)
 * A bunch of co-executive producers which we don't mention
 * EP: Roel Reine, Alan Fine, Stan Lee, Joe Quesada, Jim Chory, Jeph Loeb, Scott Buck
 * Cast
 * Starring: Anson Mount, Serinda Swan, Ken Leung, Eme Ikwuakor, Isabelle Cornish, Ellen Woglom, and Iwan Rheon
 * Guest starring: Mike Moh, Sonya Balmores, Nicola Peltz, __ Rodriguez (couldn't get that name quick enough), Tom Wright, Ty Quiamboa, Michael Buie, Tanya Clarke
 * Created by Scott Buck

End credits (that I noticed): - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Editors: Radu Ion (part 1), Kristina Hamilton-Grobler (part 2)
 * Devilina Productions title card at end
 * Large amount of co-stars
 * Glad to see my memory is better than I gave it credit for. I couldn't find any sources, but I think Nicola Peltz is the newly transformed Inhuman who was shot with Triton in the forest and Ty Quiamboa was one of the surfers with Gorgon on the beach. - DinoSlider (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely! I think you are correct on both accounts, and I'm sure once ABC releases the press release for the episodes, we'll have our source for the actors and their character names. I added Buie and Clarke's roles for the time being because that is what IMDb had (which was ultimately correct). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And Tom Wright was the general (?) in California working with the rover that Woglom's character was controlling. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

ABC.com has the two individual episodes available to watch. Here are the cast breakdowns:

"Behold ... the Inhumans"
 * Starring
 * Anson Mount
 * Serinda Swan
 * Ken Leung
 * Eme Ikwuakor
 * Isabelle Cornish
 * Ellen Woglom
 * and Iwan Rheon


 * Guest Starring
 * Mike Moh
 * Sonya Balmores
 * Nicola Peltz
 * Marco Rodriguez
 * Tom Wright
 * Michael Buie
 * Tanya Clarke


 * Co-Starring
 * Ari Dalbert as Bronaja
 * Aaron Hendry as Loyolis
 * Stephanie Anne Lewis as Paripon
 * Andra Nechita as Iridia
 * Garret T. Sato as Lead Mercenary
 * Allen Clifford Cole as Outspoken Inhuman
 * Lofton Shaw as Young Black Bolt
 * V.I.P. as Young Medusa
 * Jason Lee Hoy as Royal Guard Sergeant
 * Steve Trzaska as Duodon
 * Jenna Bleu Forti as Lovely Inhuman Server
 * Jason Quinn as Pulsus

"Those Who Would Destroy Us"
 * Starring
 * Anson Mount
 * Serinda Swan
 * Ken Leung
 * Eme Ikwuakor
 * Isabelle Cornish
 * Ellen Woglom
 * and Iwan Rheon


 * Guest Starring
 * Sonya Balmores
 * Tom Wright
 * Ty Quiamboa


 * Co-Starring
 * Ari Dalbert as Bronaja
 * Aaron Hendry as Loyolis
 * Stephanie Anne Lewis as Paripon
 * Andra Nechita as Iridia
 * Kala Alexander as Makani
 * Albert Ueligitone as Pablo
 * Moses Goods as Eldrac
 * Dan Cooke as Cowboy
 * Nolan Hong as Tourist Husband
 * Brutus LaBenz as Cabbie
 * Tani Fujimoto-Kim as Clerk
 * Rick Agan as Police Officer
 * Lopaka Kapanui as Police Lieutenant
 * Miriam Lucien as Serene Inhuman

- DinoSlider (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Titles of the first two episodes
The title of the first two episodes in the article is listed as "The First Chapter", but Futon lists them with different and separate titles: "Behold... The Inhumans" and "Those Who Would Destroy Us". --  Alex TW 03:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's really unfortunate and not what I was thinking it would be. I distinctly remember when I watched the IMAX version, in the credits its said "Part 1" and "Part 2", and the IGN review used "The First Chapter" in its title. (Hence why that was chosen for what it is now.) This is just me thinking, but it's possible the IMAX release was "The First Chapter" (or would it be The First Chapter now?), and maybe the ABC versions are "Behold... The Inhumans" and "Those Who Would Destroy Us"? I don't really know the best way to handle this. I think the article for the episodes should be one name, without us needing to deal with these two names for the article title. But does it stay "The First Chapter", because I honestly don't know if that was actually a name for the IMAX release. Or is it something like Inhumans (IMAX episodes) or Inhumans (IMAX release)? I think this is something we should all discuss (and once the ABC episodes air, they may provide clarification if the credits use "Part 1" and "Part 2" like the IMAX version). Pinging for their thoughts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Since we know they have created two different versions, it is feasible that they have two completely different names—the episode titles for ABC, and then The First Chapter for IMAX with parts 1 and 2 to note the differences in crew. My initial thought is to lean towards something like Inhumans (premiere) since the article is about both the IMAX and ABC releases. The different titles can then be used in the article, and just whatever is appropriate elsewhere. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding to the mix, here is a sampling of titles used to describe the episodes: Marvel's Inhumans (Theatrical Release) on RT, the release poster says "Experience The First Chapter..." in the bottom left, and theaters may be calling it Marvel's Inhumans: The IMAX Experience as noted by Cineplex (and I believe my ticket/showing at an AMC theater was called this as well). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling that Adam is correct in his assumption (The First Chapter is the name of the IMAX cut), but I think we are going to have to go through a lot more RSs to see if a WP:COMMONNAME emerges. If not I think Inhumans (IMAX release) is our best option.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think in the Episodes section, we should have a separate table for the IMAX version, and then below it a table for the episodes which air on ABC. --Babar Suhail (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * By all accounts, the content between the two are exactly the same, so I don't see the need to do this. Notes, in addition to the ones we have now, will be most appropriate for the episode table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, not exactly the same. There is an extra story-line in the ABC episodes that was not shown in IMAX. The director also said that he shot additional coverage specifically for the television version. Having said that, they were clear that this is a television show, not a movie. In that respect, this isn't that much different from Netflix screening the first two episodes early, but with a slightly different cut. It is also similar to the Battlestar Galactica pilot that was re-edited and screened in theaters to recoup some of the production costs. - DinoSlider (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the episode table should list the television episodes, with notes saying that a version of the first two were first released for IMAX. The separate article can then go into the details. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so here is something I propose for the episode table here:

I think this formatting is the best way to display the TV titles, while noting the IMAX release name (which again, I'm not entirely sure "The First Chapter" is an official name for the release). With all this said, are we all also in support of moving the article for the episodes to Inhumans (IMAX release)? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I like this a lot (it is very similar to what I was envisioning). One question: do we think there will eventually be individual articles for the two episodes or will it continue to be the existing "First Chapter" article? Agent Carter and Agents of SHIELD both had occasions where they aired two episodes as a single entity. The pattern so far appears to be different episode names get separate pages while Part 1/2 get one page. - DinoSlider (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it will continue to exist at "First Chapter" (or whatever we end up renaming it as we are also trying to figure out) versus two individual articles, simply because all the production info for the episodes have been mainly for the IMAX release, and there would then be unnecessary duplication between the two episodes. The only distinction between the two articles, if we did that, would be guests, individual ratings (if reported as such) and maybe some reviews. I think this is unique case where one article can cover both episodes, despite the two episode titles. Once the article title is determined, redirects can be created with the two TV titles to the single article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I also like the proposed table from Favre1fan93. Since the production/marketing info would all be the same, no need to have three articles all with practically the same content. However, maybe the plot section should be split into two parts since the ABC premiere will contain more footage or have a subsection with the additional plot. - Brojam (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's warranted, yes I was thinking about having the plot be split. But with the single IMAX release, it was hard to judge where exactly the episode breaks were. Once they air on 9/29, things will be a lot clearer for us. I'm also going to go ahead and make this table adjustment on this article, and we can make any final discussion points regarding the name of the episodes article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The new box looks good, but the episodes should be split with separate summaries; not two in one box.
 * The box also does not need a note saying that the first two episodes were first aired in IMAX; that much is made extremely clear throughout the article (IMAX is mentioned over 30 times). Anything that deviates from the norm does not require a note. The Star Wars: The Clone Wars episodes article did something similar when four episodes were originally edited together and released as a theatrical film. The episode box in that article does not have any extra notes about the film, but the film is mentioned a few times in the article, including in a summary before the Season 1 episode box.
 * Also, (and I'm just once again reiterating this part) "The First Chapter" tag is not an official title/subtitle. The one IGN article is not enough to start calling it that in this article, let alone having an article titled "The First Chapter". The poster that says "Experience the first chapter" is not giving the IMAX version of the first two episodes the subtitle "The First Chapter", it's just a phrase that means "watch the beginning of the series in IMAX". I think it's a good idea to keep a separate article for the IMAX release, but title it something other than "The First Chapter" (like the suggested Inhumans (IMAX release)).
 * The first two episodes should (hopefully, eventually) have their own articles. The mentioned differences that the hypothetical separate articles might include ("guests, individual ratings (if reported as such), and maybe some reviews"), in addition to the extra footage, is more than enough to warrant separate articles. - FBISD (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify, anything involving the two episodes/IMAX release will be housed at (the currently titled) The First Chapter (Inhumans). As noted above, there is not enough substantial difference to warrant three articles on the same subject matters. That article may need slight format adjusting (ie the plot and guest sections), and will obviously add ABC specific things (ratings, any individual reviews, and the extra plot) but more or less the article is how it will be. That is why the discussion is now working to find the best article title for the content, given it was one full IMAX release and we have two distinct ABC episode titles. Inhumans (IMAX release) seems to be where the consensus is heading. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * After writing the below, I want to say that I am not trying to come across as harsh or difficult. I am trying to learn and to seek information to things that do not add up.
 * How is it decided that "anything involving the two episodes/IMAX release will be housed at (the currently titled) The First Chapter (Inhumans)"? Alex TW mentioned that the episodes have separate titles, and DinoSlider mentioned the precedent that, "The pattern so far appears to be different episode names get separate pages while Part 1/2 get one page". Only seven people have said anything in this discussion. Favre1fan93 and Brojam are the only two voices clearly against three separate articles.
 * What qualifies as "not enough substantial difference"? In addition to the already set precedent mentioned by DinoSlider, and the different titles mentioned by Alex TW, Favre1fan93 mentioned four different sections (as an argument against separate articles?) including additional plot, additional guest sections, TV ratings, and additional reviews. Nowhere is it "noted above" anything about there not being substantial differences. In fact, the opposite is shown. There are multiple differences between everything revolving around the IMAX version and everything revolving around the two ABC episodes. I searched this thread for everything related to "differ"ences. Results included discussion about different names, titles, versions, crews, and cuts. The one example of someone saying that there aren't any differences was Favre1fan93 saying, "By all accounts, the content between the two are exactly the same," which is factually not true (and Favre1fan93 even went on to list multiple ways in which the IMAX/ABC episodes are not exactly the same).
 * Where is this idea of "Inhumans (IMAX release) seems to be where the consensus is heading" coming from? Favre1fan93 says it twice, TriiipleThreat mentioned it as a backup option, and I agreed that something like that would be good for the IMAX article only. That doesn't seem like any kind of consensus.
 * I know that there are Wikipedia rules for and against pretty much everything, and if you are familiar with the rules, you have a good chance of knowing which ones to use to validate your point of view, but as far as I can tell:
 * there has not been a decision made on whether or not there should be separate articles,
 * nor has there been evidence shown that there are not enough substantial differences between the IMAX/ABC versions (though multiple differences have been mentioned), and
 * there's no consensus heading toward an article title of "Inhumans (IMAX release)". - FBISD (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I like Favre's proposed formatting for now, but feel that the table should eventually just match up with the episodes (i.e. separate summaries, with the other article noting the differences in plot). On that point, I also agree that there should be a single article for the two episodes since we have all that production info for both of them. I don't necessarily agree with the title "Inhumans (IMAX release)" though, because that applies to a single form of release, but the article is also about the ABC release. That is why I think a title like "Inhumans (premiere)" would be better, because it applies to both types of release. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with splitting the table up to two individual articles once the episodes have aired and we know the break point between the content. I also get your reasoning by naming the episodes article Inhumans (premiere) and would support that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

If there aren't any objections, I'm going to move The First Chapter (Inhumans) to Inhumans (premiere), per Adam's reasoning that using "Inhumans (IMAX release)" would single out a single form of its release, when the article is about the content releasing on IMAX and ABC. I will also then remove uses of "The First Chapter" here/elsewhere, and convert that to "IMAX premiere" or the like, since it has also been determined the IMAX release did not have an official name. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would disagree. Most of the coverage that I have seen relates to the IMAX presentation. Also (premiere) would fail WP:NC as it is not precise. It sounds as if its about a single event like a film premiere.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't feel users would get confused by the title alone that the article is also talking about the ABC airing of the content? Also, could Inhumans (premiere episodes) be an option? It's more precise than simply "premiere" and doesn't single out IMAX when the article also applies to ABC. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think saying "premiere episodes" might go too far the other way. Obviously all the coverage has been of the IMAX release so far, and that is noteworthy, but the article as it stands is about the IMAX release and the ABC release, and the creative decisions made regarding those two. And once the episode are aired, the article is going to be even more geared towards them, including with ratings and comparisons between the two different releases, etc. Remember, this is an article for two episodes of a TV show that happens to also discuss their initial release on IMAX screens. The title needs to reflect that somehow. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

What about Episodes 1 and 2 (Inhumans)? That applies to both the IMAX presentation and its presentation on ABC and we avoid "premiere". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In case y'all did not see my comment above this, thoughts on making The First Chapter (Inhumans), Episodes 1 and 2 (Inhumans)? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, I have no issues with that. --  Alex TW 04:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem as well. - Brojam (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's definitely better than "The First Chapter". Is there any reason we can't just go with the actual episode titles? Something like Behold... The Inhumans / Those Who Would Destroy Us. Those are the actual titles of the episodes. Is the thought that those episode titles don't work when referring to the IMAX presentation as those titles were never mentioned in regards to anything IMAX related? - FBISD (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Its not very catchy but it works.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Simple, yet effective. - DinoSlider (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually wouldn't it be Inhumans (episodes 1 and 2)?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not per WP:NCTV. --  Alex TW 14:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But Episode 1 and 2 aren't actually episode titles. Its more of a descriptor for a small segment of the Inhumans series like "Inhumans (season 1)".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Same thing as Episode One (Dark Matter), Series 1, Episode 1 (Humans), Episode 1.1 (Secret Diary of a Call Girl), Episode 1 (Twin Peaks), etc. --  Alex TW 15:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really those are all the actual titles of those episodes. This is a different animal.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Only the first one is an actual title. Concerning the rest, especially the second and third ones, UK series' episodes don't typically have titles, they just have episode number designations. "Series 1, Episode 1" and "Episode 1.1" are definitely not actual titles. Those episodes don't have titles. --  Alex TW 15:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Very well then. Either way it works.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems we have some consensus. I'm going to boldly move the article ahead of tonight's premiere so all our ducks are in a row. to answer your question, that is correct. The ABC titles do not refer to the IMAX presentation, since on screen they simply referred to them as "Part 1" and "Part 2". Given that at the time, it was assumed the ABC titles would have been "[x] (Part 1)" and "[x] (Part 2)", but we obviously know that is not the case now, so it does not seem correct to refer to the IMAX presentation by the ABC episode titles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Move has been completed, with redirects also made at Behold... The Inhumans and Those Who Would Destroy Us to the article. (The First Chapter (Inhumans) also remains a redirect. Anyone who has relevant IMAX related titles they feels should also redirect, please feel free to make those too.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * One last thing too. Depending on how the episodes are aired tonight, we may end up making the episode table here two cells instead of one. Something to also consider. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging in this discussion after their revert of the move through copy-paste. --  Alex TW 14:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I watched the IMAX release of Inhumans and it was called Inhumans: The First Chapter onscreen. 146.164.80.48 (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Favre1fan93 guy asked me to contribute to this discussion. The user above is right. I watched the "movie" at the cinema too and "The First Chapter" title appears when the camera is showing the lunar surface at the beginning of the film. HÊÚL. (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's great and all, but have you read this discussion? --  Alex TW 02:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)