Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe/Archive 2

Producers
Why is it that TIH gets 3 producers listed and most the others only get the one. There are other producers for them. In an interview, Kevin Feige once mentioned Louis D'espitito(probably spelled it wrong, sorry) has been a producer for all the MCU films also(I think that was it) and I checked the Captain America credits and theres like 6 others for that film, the only difference is that they are executive producers. Im sure the others also have multiple producers. I understand that all the names would crowd the table, but I want to know why those other people get listed for Iron Man and TIH but not the other producers for the other films.NTC TNT (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We only count individuals credited as 'producers' (no 'executive producers', 'associate producers', 'co-producers', etc.).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, and may I ask the difference between the different types of producers(the ones u listed above) Ive been wondering for a while.NTC TNT (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * nevermind, i looked it up NTC TNT (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ant-Man
As of May 20th or 21st 2012, an Ant-Man movie has been confirmed to have been greenlit. Could someone add that please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onionfarb (talk • contribs) 01:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

On the 29th June 2012, Edgar Wright confirmed that he had shot one week's worth of Test Footage for a Live Acttion Adaptaion of Ant-Man. http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=62575

This backs up what he said earlier in the year, about wanting to shoot some of Ant-Man in 2012, before he moves on to film The Worlds End. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazza815 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Wright did shoot test footage for Ant-Man and he showed the unfinished material at Comic Con 2012 but there was never anything said about it being shot or being a planned movie. Marve/Disney haven't decided yet, just check the Con footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xChGwFrDxE8. Also Kevin Feige introduced 4 movies tob be done or already in production. Iron Man 3, Thor: The Dark World, Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Universe are 4. Mentioning and showing the unfinished test footage of Ant-Man has only been a special treat, so Ant-Man makes no sense in the list of movies after the first Avengers movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.23.103.24 (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Stages
i created a section on the stages of the mcu and the films in it, but some dude deleted it and told me 2 discuss it on the talk page. so, i think there should be a section defining on how the movies fall into different stages of the series. here is the section that i added about the movies so i would appreciate some comments on wheather it should be kept as i feel it really adds to the page and is a strong section. Proposed Section;

Stages of the Marvel Cinematic Universe
The Marvel Cinematic Universe is split into stages, so far with stage one completed and stage two in development. Each stage starts with an "Iron Man" movie, and cultimates in the crossover epic "The Avengers". Each stage contains 6 movies, and are listed below in released order, and not chronological order within the universe, along with the prinipal actor(s) of the film.

Stage One ;
 * 1. "Iron Man" Starring Robert Downey Jr.
 * 2. "The Incredible Hulk" Starring Edward Norton
 * 3. "Iron Man 2" Starring Robert Downey Jr.
 * 4. "Thor" Starring Chris Hemsworth
 * 5. "Captian America: The First Avenger" Starring Chris Evans
 * 6. "Marvel's The Avengers" Starring Robert Downey Jr., Mark Ruffalo, Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth and Samuel L. Jackson

Stage Two ; (Frogkermit (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC))
 * 1. "Iron Man 3" Starring Robert Downey Jr.
 * 2. "Thor 2: The Dark World" Starring Chris Hemsworth
 * 3. "Captian America: The Winter Soilder" Starring Chris Evans
 * 4. "Guardians of the Galaxy" Starring TBC
 * 5. "Ant-Man" Starring TBC
 * 6. "Marvel's The Avengers 2" Starring TBC (Although most likely Robert Downey Jr., Mark Ruffalo, Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth with the TBC stars of "Guardians of the Galaxy" + "Ant-Man" and Samuel L. Jackson)

Discussion
I oppose the inclusion of this section into the article. It is merely a list whose content is virtually covered in the "Films" section anyway. Also the opening paragraph of the section, especially "a phase begins with an Iron Man movie and ends in a crossover Avengers movie" feels artificial; no producer has said that's the case and beyond that it's conjecture since future phase(s) may not begin with an Iron Man film. (especially considering Robert Downey Jr's contract is up) Also, they are not called "stages" they are called "phases" as written on the Blu-ray box sets. Even having addressing my concerns and making the appropriate changes, the best place to say which films are in each "phase" (if that's notable/important anyway) is in prose in the "Films" and "Development" sections. I'd suggest people discuss it here if they consider "phases" important enough to mention in prose in the "Films" and "Development" sections though. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

fairplay mate i think that would be a good idea and ur right they are phases i dunno why i put stages :/ (Frogkermit (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC))


 * I agree with Alex Douglas, the films and cast are already listed elsewhere in the article, so all we are left is the phase classification, which means absolutely nothing except which films are included the box set. The article is however lacking a Home media section which would list the films included in Marvel Cinematic Universe – Phase One: Avengers Assembled.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that when some phase 2 movies have been released and some phase 3 movies have been announced, the titles "phase one" and "phase two" excetra should be put as seperaters in the films table, but for now, its not important. maybe a small mention in the development section, but nothing more.  but thats just my opinion.NTC TNT (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I still think it is important that somewhere in the article we mention that the movies are split inot stages, so, as many of you seem to think this, could we not mention it in the development chapter? Frogkermit (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Again the "phases" are entirely irrelevant and makes no difference in-universe or in the real world other than the title of the box set.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to reiterate my sentiments and stand by my previous comments for the reasons TriiipleThreat and I have given above. I'd also like to point out that neither you, Frogkermit, nor NTC TNT have actually given any reasons for supporting your position. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Poster
The list of ever growing logos is getting a bit ridiculous so I threw together this more conservative poster sized image as an alternative. If this isn't acceptable then the current thing should be restricted to only the first logo because we don't need 3 Iron Man logos up there. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Where did the MCU logo in the poster come from?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I made it, I looked around but there is no logo even for that boxset they're doing, its being released under The Avengers banner. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Good job, it looks nice but I not sure we should include original artwork.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Which bit? The logo? I'm not sure what the rules are, I know that people put in requests for people to make art for articles that have none. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, since this is an encyclopedia, I'm afraid a reader might confuse it with an official logo.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the list of logos is getting quite large. It's okay at the moment, but maybe we should find an alternative. I noticed that other movie franchise pages use images of box sets, and seeing as the MCU Phase One box set is coming, should we use the image for that: ? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The box set is a good idea and it does have the phrase Marvel Cinematic Universe at the bottom.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Another alternative could be just using the original logo for each franchise. Just Iron Man, Incredible Hulk, Thor, Captain America, and Avengers, instead of also including the sequel logos. Ω  pho  is  07:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that could work. But it could potentially become too big after a while as well... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I still think the box set cover is best option.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about this one still? That's OK, I've clone stamped out the "Ten Disc collection" part as seen here on it.
 * Whats wrong with entire image as released?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing, just thought removing the Ten Disc Collection part so it looks like this one made it look neater and more fitting. If it's an issue keep the Ten Disc part in. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Being a non-free image, I just think altering the work further infringes on the copyright.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That works for now, but hopefully the final art for the set will look better (and maybe give us an actual logo). And while we're on the subject, should we actually add a new section for the Blu-ray release? I'm not sure how film series articles usually handle box sets. --DocNox (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that it is better to have logos in the infobox, it is not too large, and when another logo comes out, we just can separate them into two rows. This one poster don't represents previous films for me, just this last one. InfamousPrince 08:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * One non-free image is better than seven or more non-free images.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Now that a full picture of the box set has been released, including an actual logo for Phase One, should we replace the main image with it? Maybe just use the logo? --DocNox (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I still prefer the cover art, but that's just my opinion. I don't see why we need an image of the individual items in the box set.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you not just nab the logo part? I wouldn't agree to just replacing what is there now with this entire image, just seems promotional. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I also think just the logo would be best. And what we're using now isn't the actual cover art either, just a promo thing. It doesn't really even have cover art, it's just a suitcase (that they're being sued over). --DocNox (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, in that case either just the logo or the promotion image (like film posters) can be used represent the series. I think it just comes down to a cosmetic preference. Also the lawsuit and the box set info would be good to include in a "Home media" section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the current image just because the image represents the overarching theme of what has been released so far, but if that is an official logo, it would be good to use. That suitcase company is stupid, bite the hand that gave you $1.2 billion worth of advertising.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally don't feel like the current image represents the series at all. It's just a teaser image for the box set case (peeking out from under that cloth) without actually showing the case at all. It also puts emphasis on one of the film's logos (The Avengers) over all the others. If you'd like to see some other options, here's the logo and box set opened but without all the items laid about, here's the logo and box set closed, and here's just the logo by itself. And also I agree completely about adding a "home media" section. Maybe have a "theatrical" section too since I remember there being a big MCU marathon running in certain theaters when Avengers came out. It even had special intros for each movie from Clark Gregg in character as Coulson. --DocNox (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Fox trade with Marvel Studios premature?
According to this source, it might be.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, should it be removed or amended?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I amended it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just saw that. I spoke too soon. Good job.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You know I got your back dawg. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 August 2012
Under "Recurring cast and characters", The character James 'Rodey' Rhodes is not listed. This is a request that you add him to the list, as the character is part of the main cast for quite a few of the movies

78.144.20.77 (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

❌ Table is for characters recurring in multiple film franchises, not individual films.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yahoo! movies
I think the Yahoo! movies column should be removed from the review aggregate table. Yahoo! seems to have removed their critics' review score and only user reviews are left. Cowlibob (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because it's gone now doesn't mean it wasn't reviewed by Yahoo!. You can try a search on Wayback Machine or see if the old version is around anywhere else. Ω  pho  is  22:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Turning the "Films" section to prose
I suggest replacing the table in the "Films" section with prose, a level-two sub-section for each film with two paragraphs: one for production and another for plot.. just like the good article X-Men_(film_series). I also suggest adding a "Principal crew" table and section like the good article Pirates_of_the_Caribbean_(film_series). Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Please discuss the above and feel free to make changes especially to the plot. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm cool with it, but I don't think each film should have its own section. Maybe having something like a bold title, though. I also don't think we should just copy what the individual films' articles say. Live Light (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right Live Light, each film doesn't need its own section so in my revised "Films" proposal I've instead only have short plot summaries—a paragraph for every three films. (like GAs Friday the 13th & Halloween) Feel free to change the prose. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In this context I do not see a clear advantage of prose over the table or vise-versa. That being said I'm fine with it either way and the content of the prose is as it should be, general and brief. The one thing to watch out for with prose is fan cruft, which plagues many "in other media" articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The table is best to list the principal crew, while the prose is best for plot summaries. I realised that having an entire paragraph consisting only of a short plot summary was an invitation for editors to add fancruft, so instead in my revised "Films" proposal I've instead only have short plot summaries—a paragraph for every three films. (like GAs Friday the 13th & Halloween) That way those editors will see paragraph(s) becoming too large and hopefully think twice. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess the advantage of prose over the table is that greater detail can be established, which I think is a reasonable enough point to consider prose as a better option. However, I'm fine either way as well, and agree that the prose should be brief. As for the principal crew table, there are both a lot of columns and rows, so the table becomes quite large and cluttered (just look at the height of the "Writer" row!). However, I want to support the table's inclusion, because I think it's great. So if there's a way to make it work better, that would be fantastic. Also, if that table is included, then the films section should definitely be in prose to cut down on repetition of the same stuff. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The details in the prose are so general (as they should be for this type of article), I really don't see an advantage. Again I'm fine with it either way.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The table is best to list the principal crew, while the prose is best for plot summaries. ProfessorKilroy, I've decided to replace the table in the "Films" section with my table rather than in a new "Principal crew" section, see my revised "Films" proposal, to avoid repetition. I've also managed to halve the height of the table by making the films as rows and removing the "story writers". (formatted as such with no story writers in FL List of James Bond films & GAs Friday the 13th & Halloween) Plus I've removed the development paragraphs from my first proposal to cut down on repetition as that should obviously be covered in the "Development" section. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

where there are links to captain america the winter soldier could someone link those to the actual page for the film instead of them going to captain america the first avenger's section titled sequel. it would help a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceBTonyS (talk • contribs) 09:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There is currently no article for Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Live Light (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You can have prose and a table, and that table will become useless and need to be returned to as it is as more and more films come out and it refuses to continue to be squashed horizontally, as will eventually happen to the cast list. Also do not see any gain or purpose in showing who composed or provided cinematography for these films. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess I gravitated towards having the extended crew table because I find those things interesting, and I guess you're right, in that that level of detail is probably unecessary... I also agree that prose will become more useful as the table of films gradually gets more squashed. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have included both the table and prose in my revised "Films" proposal—the table to list principal crew and the prose to provide plot summaries. I've also managed to halve the height of the table by making the films as rows and removing the "story writers" so that way it won't get squashed. (formatted as such with no story writers in FL List of James Bond films & GAs Friday the 13th & Halloween) Plus I've removed the cinematographer(s) and composer(s) as per your suggestion. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that adding a principal crew table is a good idea and i welcome it, as it only adds to the acticle and is also perfectly relevent, so i can't see that many people would have a problem with it Frogkermit (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Revised "Films" proposal
In Iron Man (2008), Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.), an industrialist and master engineer builds a powered exoskeleton and becomes the technologically advanced superhero Iron Man. Stark fights Stark Industries executive Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges) who becomes the Iron Monger. In The Incredible Hulk (2008), Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) becomes the Hulk as an unwitting pawn in a military scheme to reinvigorate the supersoldier program through gamma radiation. On the run, he attempts to cure himself of the Hulk before he is captured by General Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross (William Hurt), but his worst fears are realized when power-hungry soldier Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth) becomes a similar but more bestial creature. Iron Man 2 (2010) picks up six months after the events of the first film. Stark has revealed his identity as Iron Man and is resisting calls by the United States government to hand over the technology. Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), meanwhile, has developed the same technology and built weapons of his own, creating new challenges for Stark.

Thor (2011) tells the story of Thor (Chris Hemsworth), the crown prince of Asgard, who is exiled from his homeland to Earth. While there, he forms a relationship with Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), a scientist. However, Thor must stop his adopted brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston), who intends to become the new king of Asgard. Predominantly set during World War II, Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) tells the story of Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), a sickly man from Brooklyn who is transformed into super-soldier Captain America to aid in the war effort. Rogers must stop the Red Skull (Hugo Weaving) – the commander of the terrorist organization Hydra that intends to use a device called a "Tesseract" as an energy-source for world domination. In The Avengers (2012), Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), director of the peacekeeping organization S.H.I.E.L.D., recruits Iron Man, Captain America, the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor to form a team that must stop Loki from subjugating the Earth.

Revised proposal discussion

 * After two weeks of discussion and having taken everyone's comments into account, I'm suggesting a new revised "Films" proposal that combines my previous proposals. Please feel free to make changes to the plot. Please discuss below if you think "story writers" are warranted for inclusion, whether the full release dates should be given, whether in-table headings for "Released", "In development" and "Announced" should be included, which films should be included in the table, whether in-table headings for "Phase one", "Phase two", etc should be included or more appropriately whether this should be mentioned in the "Films" section's prose or the "Development" section. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Concensus was never established here to effect change and I believe we were discussing the original proposal not the revised one. As far as the revised proposal is concerned, I still don't see the need for the plot summary. I don't necessarily have a problem with it, I just don't see the need for it and I worry about fancruft. Maybe if we included the cited pre-release premise for each film instead, we'll have something to point to. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * True TriiipleThreat, I was getting a bit ahead of myself adding it to the article so let's start a discussion on the revised proposal. Plot summaries are included in virtually every FL and GA article about film series, film franchises or media franchises. They allow the reader to have gain some incite as to what the films/media is about.. rather than knowing the 'genre' of the films.. readers don't know anything about the films and before having to read each film's articles for a plot summaries it's best to introduce the plot of the films in this "film franchise" article.. it's more complete. Just because the prose has potential to include fancruft doesn't mean the prose shouldn't be included because of it. As for how the proposed table is better than the current table.. well, its halve the height and this article is getting too large so having the size will reduce the call for a separate "List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films" which would be pointless (in my opinion) since that's what this article is about. The table is formatted the same as, with no story writers, in GAs Friday the 13th & Halloween. The released films' release dates are already mentioned in the "Box office" section and the upcoming films' release dates in the "Future" section. Also people can see from the year of release and the presence of references whether films are upcoming or released and too the presence of a plot summary for it underneath the table or its presence in the "Future" section. Feel free to discuss which films should be included in the table - for example, if you think the table should be split into two tables.. the table with released films in the "Films" section and the table with upcoming films in the "Future" section. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair point about fancruft if the prose length remains the same for the current films, I have no problem keeping it. However there has been no call for splitting the article what so ever. Per WP:SIZE the article is fine, most of its size comes from the use of tables which improves readability. Also I find the release dates and story writers to be useful information in the films table. And its unfair to suggest that Friday the 13th & Halloween passed there nominations because their tables do not include this information. We can afford to do our own thing here and have no problem passing GA, once the article's other issues are solved.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad we can agree on the inclusion of plot summaries in the section. Fair point about article size however I still do think having one film/row be only one line high improves readability.. from personal experience having read other tables online. I suppose what I'm really trying to ask is why are release dates and story writers such useful information to include in the table, especially when released film's release dates are included in the "Box office" table and the upcoming film's release dates are in the "Future" section? Also do think that in-table headings -- "Released films" and "Upcoming films" -- should be included in the table and if so why? I've provided my reason why I think release dates and those in-table headings should not be included in my earlier response -- repetition and it being covered in other sections. I may reconsider my position on not including "story writers" in the table if you could provide an argument for there inclusion since, and I accept it wasn't paramount to Friday the 13th & Halloween passing the GA reviews, but they're not included there so why should they be included here, and I know other stuff exists too.. but do they receive the same top billing as screenwriters? and then even so, don't cinematographers and composers get top billing too? Oh yeah, and I'm unsure as to why distributors are included in the table? Do you think they should or shouldn't be and why? Be good to get your opinion. Yeah, it'd be great to get this article to GA; I'm keen to help. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * alex douglas' version was better so revert back to the new one, but maybe add two banners in the table with "phase one" and "phase two" inserted to show that these films are divided into phases, and this would mean that we could leave out the phases section that i refered, so alex douglas i suggest that you continue to revert the article to your version, hopefully with the phases banners that i suggested, and you have my full support (Frogkermit (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC))


 * Encouraging someone to edit war is not a good thing to do. Second TripleThreat is correct in that no consensus was made so restoring that table with an end to supplanting your own agenda is also not a good thing to do. The replacement table is apparently to reduce height? I dunno, it's unnecessary to "replace" teh table for the sake of removing the story writer and in doing so losing the release date and the dividers which state what stage of development those films are in. It is in fact inferior to the previously existing table and offers no actual gain. I don't mind losing story writers, but until a discussion is had the table should be restored to its previous state as TripleThreat stated rather than readding it to pursue your phase thing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * alright mate calm down (Frogkermit (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC))


 * Frogkermit, I oppose the inclusion of in-table headings for "Phase one", "Phase two", etc. I think, if anywhere, that should be mentioned briefly in the prose of the "Films" section when Iron Man 3 is released and in the prose of the "Development" section only. This is because its not of such supreme importance, it can simply be said as "Iron Man 3 (2013), begins the second phase of the MCU, following Tony Stark as he gets injected with Extremis, a military nanotechnology serum that makes him become Iron Man at a biological level." and/or "The Avengers (2012), ends the first six-film phase of the MCU" or something like that. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Darkwarriorblake, rest assured, I won't be edit warring. I was getting a bit ahead of myself adding it to the article so let's start a discussion on the revised proposal. Why are "story writers", those in-table headings and the release date so important to include? The table is formatted the same as GAs Friday the 13th & Halloween. Also, the FL List of James Bond films, does not have in-table headings to explicitly state the upcoming film Skyfall is upcoming and neither do any of these high-quality articles have release dates in the tables. I'd argue that the new proposal has no actual loss of important information and admit it's only gain is to not have columns that are three lines high, halving the table height altogether. And halving the height especially when this article is getting too large reduces the call for a separate "List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films" which would be pointless (in my opinion) since that's what this article is about. Note: the released films' release dates are already mentioned in the "Box office" section and the upcoming films' release dates in the "Future" section, and also people can see from the year of release and the presence of references whether films are upcoming or released and too the presence of a plot summary for it underneath the table or its presence in the "Future" section. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont oppose the removal of Story writers.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I likewise see the table as a substitute infobox, and as such provides broad information about the film, including its writers and release dates. The headers provide an important visual distinction from released and future films. Remove the future films if you want (though I know readers will be looking for that information) but do not merge them together as WP:CRYSTAL advises against presenting future information as if it has already happened. Also there is nothing wrong presenting the release dates again in the box office section as in provides context to the numbers.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Darkwarriorblake, do you agree like TriiipleThreat does that plot summaries should be included in the "Films" section to provide a brief summary of what each of the films are about? I'll respect WP:CRYSTAL, so I propose that the upcoming films not be included in the "Films" section at all and instead the current table to be split - the first half of the table with the released films in the "Films" section and the latter half of the table with the upcoming films in the "Future" section -- that way they'll truly be used as infoboxes/overviews of their respective sections. I understand why the screenwriters, directors and producers are important to mention in an overview of the films but why is the distributor, and the day and month of the film's release of top importance - isn't the year enough? Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 08:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The headers provide a sufficient visual separation as not to confuse the readers, so there is no need to split the the table. If the films were all distributed by the same company, then I would agree with you. But seeing how they are not, and the Disney buy out was a major event, the distributors should be tabled. Also release dates are more exact, provides information readers are likely to look for and differentiates between films released in the same year.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree the headers do provide a sufficient visual separation between released and upcoming films. However, I don't think its right/correct.. The "Films" section is about released films - so the section's table and plot summaries prose should only be about released films. Likewise the "Future" section is about upcoming films - so the section's would-be table and development prose should only be about upcoming films. That's how I see it anyway - that rows for Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Cap 2, GOTG, AntMan, Avengers 2 don't "belong" in the "Films" section. I'd prefer and propose to split it into two tables for that reason with the upcoming film table in the "Future" section where they are written about it in prose as I think that's more in keeping with the idea of the table(s) as overviews/infoboxes of the section. But otherwise, I'd second-preference !vote to remove the upcoming films from the table(s) altogether. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * no the future films should still be kept in the films section as it tells the reader that this is not the end of the saga and there are many more films to come, but it also makes it clear many other aspects that would become complicated if turned into prose. it also shows the order the films were released in clearer Frogkermit (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Frogkermit, I'm saying that it is no the purpose of the "Films" section to tell the reader that there are upcoming films but that its the purpose of the "Future" section. My preference is to split the table into two tables: one table of the released films in the "Films" section along with their plot summaries and another of the upcoming films in the "Future" section alongside their prose of their development. My second preference is to remove the upcoming films from the table altogether for the same reason -- since it's not the purpose of the "Films" section to tell the reader that there are upcoming films. I don't see how it is more clear that rows for upcoming films are listed in the "Films" sections, I'm arguing its less clear since, the current article, has details about upcoming films mentioned over two sections -- the "Films" section as rows and the "Future" section as prose. Could you please reply with the reasons why you think the reader will not realize its not the end of the saga if the future films are moved to a new table in the "Future" section or removed altogether? and, why it shows the order the films were released in clearer? Surely a reader can see they are listed in (ascending?) chronological order from the given release dates; besides I'll make the table(s) sortable by release date shortly if editors are cool with it. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just think that it is clearer to see what upcoming films there are if they are in the same table as the previous ones, as it helps give some scope to it, and seen as there are banners with 'in development' and 'announced' anyway, it shows the reader that they aren't released yet anyway. It is also clearer than if it was in prose, as as it is further up the article it tells the casual reader about them as they don't always scroll down to the bottom. I have no problem if you want to put a future films table in the films section, but i think that the 'in development' and 'announced' films should still stay in the films table, as, even though they are not released yet, they are still films in the MCU. it dosen't say in the films section that it is just about the films that have already been released, so i still think they should be included there, although i would prefer some indication in the table of what phase the films are in, as i have mentioned before, so i can see a two table system working, where the table in the films scetion is not altered, but a table in future section is added, and this keeps all editors happy Frogkermit (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a very long discussion over headers. If the headers are too big remove the sub-header effect and it will make them one line high. Otherwise they are not detrimental to the table or the article. If you feel that the future section is misplaced then perhaps that is the more important discussion, merging Future/TV with Television and Future/Films with Films. Other Media/Short Films could also be merged with Films technically but I dont know enough about them to say for sure, just superficially judging by the header title, and since I believe they are themselves based on the film universe events. I'm not opposed to removing the "Distributor" line, I don't really think theyhave much impact on how the film is recognized. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Frogkermit, again, my point is that it's the purpose of the the "Films" section to tell the reader about upcoming films at all. Just to be clear about the changes I've made during these discussions I've done some mock-up "Films" and "Future" sections each with the present prose and tables I've been proposing. I'd appreciate it if you could give your opinion (again) tersely on the four things in the below final discussion. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Darkwarriorblake, it's more than a proposal about headers, now I've been discussing the overlap between the "Films" and "Future" section. I'm just trying to find out why the upcoming films are covered in the "Films" sections' table but in the "Future" sections' prose? I very much look forward to discussing those much changes in subsequent discussions. In fact, I'd like to open the discussion about the overlap in content between the "Future" and "Films" sections in the below final discussion. I'd appreciate it if you could give your opinion on that and other things there. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Films
In Iron Man (2008), Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.), an industrialist and master engineer builds a powered exoskeleton and becomes the technologically advanced superhero Iron Man. Stark fights Stark Industries executive Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges) who becomes the Iron Monger. In The Incredible Hulk (2008), Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) becomes the Hulk as an unwitting pawn in a military scheme to reinvigorate the supersoldier program through gamma radiation. On the run, he attempts to cure himself of the Hulk before he is captured by General Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross (William Hurt), but his worst fears are realized when power-hungry soldier Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth) becomes a similar but more bestial creature. Iron Man 2 (2010) picks up six months after the events of the first film. Stark has revealed his identity as Iron Man and is resisting calls by the United States government to hand over the technology. Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), meanwhile, has developed the same technology and built weapons of his own, creating new challenges for Stark.

Thor (2011) tells the story of Thor (Chris Hemsworth), the crown prince of Asgard, who is exiled from his homeland to Earth. While there, he forms a relationship with Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), a scientist. However, Thor must stop his adopted brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston), who intends to become the new king of Asgard. Predominantly set during World War II, Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) tells the story of Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), a sickly man from Brooklyn who is transformed into super-soldier Captain America to aid in the war effort. Rogers must stop the Red Skull (Hugo Weaving) – the commander of the terrorist organization Hydra that intends to use a device called a "Tesseract" as an energy-source for world domination. In The Avengers (2012), Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), director of the peacekeeping organization S.H.I.E.L.D., recruits Iron Man, Captain America, the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor to form a team that must stop Loki from subjugating the Earth.

Future
Iron Man 3, the sequel to 2010's Iron Man 2, entered production in late May 2012, with a budget of $200 million and a release scheduled for May 3, 2013. Based on the "Extremis" story arc by Warren Ellis, the film will have Robert Downey, Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, and Don Cheadle reprise their roles as Tony Stark / Iron Man, Pepper Potts, and James Rhodes / War Machine, respectively, with Ben Kingsley having entered negotiations to play an unspecified villain in April 2012; it was later confirmed that he will play the Mandarin. Guy Pearce will also co-star. In pre-production is Thor: The Dark World, the sequel to 2011's Thor, in which Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Natalie Portman, and Idris Elba will reprise their roles as Thor, Loki, Jane Foster, and Heimdall, respectively. It is set for release on November 8, 2013. A sequel to 2011's Captain America: The First Avenger is also planned and set for release on April 4, 2014. It was confirmed in July 2012 that it will be called Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Chris Evans and Samuel L. Jackson will reprise their respective roles as Steve Rogers / Captain America and Nick Fury in the film, and they will be joined by Sebastian Stan, reprising his role from the first film as James "Bucky" Barnes, and Anthony Mackie, who will play the Falcon. Additionally, a sequel to 2012's The Avengers was announced by Walt Disney Pictures in May 2012.

Also announced in July 2012 were Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man, with the latter to be directed by Edgar Wright. The script for Ant-Man has been written by Wright and Joe Cornish, who plan to include Henry Pym and Scott Lang as major characters, with Pym as Ant-Man in the 1960s in a style similar to Tales to Astonish, and a flashforward to Lang as Pym's successor in the 1980s or '90s. Test footage for the film was screened at the 2012 San Diego Comic-Con International during the Iron Man 3 panel. Meanwhile, Guardians of the Galaxy will be written by Nicole Perlman, and is set for release on August 1, 2014. Characters whom Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige has mentioned specifically to appear in the film include Star-Lord, Drax the Destroyer, Gamora, Rocket Raccoon, and Groot.

Marvel has also attempted to hire a team of writers to help come up with creative ways to produce film adaptations of some its lesser-known properties, including Black Panther, Cable, Iron Fist, Nighthawk, and Vision, and in April 2010, Marvel began meeting with filmmakers to discuss small-scale, $20–40 million movies based on these lesser-known characters and others. Properties including Dr. Strange, Ka-Zar, Luke Cage, Dazzler, and Power Pack are among those being considered for development. A sequel to 2008's The Incredible Hulk has also been discussed, with Marvel Studios having suggested a possible 2015 release for the film due to the positive audience reception towards Mark Ruffalo's portrayal of Bruce Banner in The Avengers. Ruffalo is set to reprise his role in any future adaptation of the character.

Final proposal discussion
I've been discussing many changes in the revised proposal discussion and so to make it clear what it is I'm actually proposing, see the final proposal section above. Please please feel free to actually bring up new or revisit previous arguments tersely as I really want to reach consensus sometime soon. Please try to stay on-topic; make a new subheading if you have something different to say. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding plot summaries to "Films section
I propose having short plot summaries—a paragraph for every three films like GAs Friday the 13th & Halloween. Plot summaries are included in virtually every FL and GA article about film series, film franchises or media franchises. They allow the reader to have gain some incite as to what the films are about.. rather than just stating the 'genre' of the films.. readers don't know anything about the films and before having to read each film's articles for a plot summaries it's best to introduce the plot of the films in this "film franchise" article.. it's more complete. Also, just because the prose has potential to include fancruft doesn't mean the prose shouldn't be included because of it. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * These GA articles might include plot summaries but it does not mean they are a requirement of becoming a GA article. One of your earlier complaints was that the table was too tall, yet a series of films with as many movies as this has is going to get very long very fast with headers and plot, even brief. Even just prose, what is gained by adding this? If a source for the overarching plot of the cube and formation of the Avengers that is touched on in some of the films could be found that might be worth adding. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My above proposal has three plot summaries to one paragraph. The purpose of having plot summaries in this article is to help the reader understand the important events within works of fiction that this franchise is comprised of. It introduces the characters of each film and shows the continuity between them. It's a "summary of summary" that's on each of the film's article. I'd say plot summaries are virtually a requirement of becoming a GA article (every GA I've found has it) because it's a main aspect of the MCU -- it is "what happens" in the films. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Removing story "writers"
I propose removing the story "writers" from the table(s) just like their excluded from FL List of James Bond films & GAs Friday the 13th & Halloween. Do they receive the same top billing as screenwriters? and then even if so, don't cinematographers, composers and others too get top billing too? Seems very artifically picked-and-choosed. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, not a requirement of being GA, and they're already gone so this proposal is finished. And their billing isn't of importance, its highlighting who is responsible for what we see on the screen. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Glad to see them go. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Removing distributors
I propose removing the distributors from the table(s) just like their excluded from FL List of James Bond films & GAs Friday the 13th & Halloween. I believe that the buyout can and should be covered in the "Development" section instead of the tables. I think it can be covered sufficiently in prose and believe it should be as it is important enough to be mentioned, but I do think that the "Development" section is the right place to mention it, it's a very development/producer/behind-the-scenes deal that doesn't impact on how the film is recognised, especially when considered who is mentioned in the tables (the directors, writers and producers) who have an overwhelming impact on the film creatively (and from an encyclopedic standpoint, films are art). Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, not a requirement of being a GA article, but I don't oppose their removal. Distributors are not very important to the filmmaking process and can differ from region to region and be subcontracted, so it is highlighting only one particular distributor for no particular gain. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with you, Darkwarriorblake. Let's move 'em to the Development section. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Removing upcoming films from "Films" section
The current revision of the article lists the upcoming films in the "Films" section's table and in prose in the "Future" section. It is my view that the "Films" and "Future" sections should not overlap since the very reason for having an "Future" section at all in an article about a film franchise is to cover upcoming films, leaving the "Films" section to cover released films that are made/done/released/complete, and so, IN the franchise. So, I propose that either the rows for upcoming films be removed from the article altogether or the upcoming films not be included in the "Films" section at all and instead the current table to be split - the first half of the table with the released films in the "Films" section and the latter half of the table with the upcoming films in the "Future" section -- that way they'll be used as infoboxes/overviews of their respective sections. I'd very much appreciate other editors opinions on this. This is no longer a discussion on in-line headers or whether or not they "do their job" but about the division of content between sections. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I'm not quite clear why you keep pushing this like governments keep trying to push a different version of SOPA through to law. There is no need to break up the table, there are several series articles that cover Future alongside existing films because they are relevant to each other. Really the future section should be merged with its respective areas, so Future/films should be merged with films and discussed there and Future/TV should be merged with TV and discussed there. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice analogue. I will relent in my efforts to push breaking up the table. I totally agree that the future section should be merged with its respective areas! Please see the below subsection to further discuss this with me and other editors. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Merging sections

 * Perhaps the "Future" section of this article should be a subsection of the "Development" section. This would make the article's prose contents and the table itself more congruous. But there is absolutely no reason to separate the announced films and the released films into separate tables, in my opinion. Films that the studio have announced and are actively developing are IN the franchise. Separating them seems to be mostly motivated by an in-universe, plot-centric perspective of the franchise, not a real-world, film-development point-of-view. The idea of the table is to give readers a quick overview of the franchise as a whole, and the films that are actively being worked on are as much a part of the franchise as those that were released four years ago. Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, i have no problem with adding prose as well as tables to films/future sections, and i think including a table of upcoming releases in the future section, as you have proposed, is a good idea, but i do not think this means that the future films should be removed from the films section. My final view is that the table in the film section should be left alone as it is now, which INCLUDES the upcoming films, but your idea of a short prose summary of the films plots should be added, leaving the film section with the current table and adding the prose. in the future section you should ADD the future films table, so that there is a table in both sections, yet the one in films section should still contain upcoming releases, as i have mentioned countless times before. Also, as was my original position i would still like to see a reference to the phases of the MCU, either by mentioning them in the prose of the films or development sections, or by adding "Phase One" and "Phase Two" as banners to the film section table. Frogkermit (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I support your suggestions Fandraltastic to merge the "Future" & "Development" sections together, as well as Frogkermit & Darkwarriorblake suggestions to merge the "Future" & "Films" sections together; I agree these changes would make the article more congruous so that only one full 'Films' table would be required. So I propose that we make the "Future" and "Development" sections into subsections of a larger "Films" section, just like the the "Films" section in the GAs Friday the 13th & Halloween. HOWEVER those GAs are about franchises consisting of things in many types of media. So, I think we need to ask ourselves if this article is about (or if we should make it about) the franchise consisting of films, short films, (future) television series, digicomics, novelisations and tie-in merchandise (soundtracks, video games & toys), rather than just the "film series"? I would support this change as long as reliable sources said that the franchise was all those things and not just the films; or is it because the films, short films, digicomics, etc are set in the same continuity/universe that its okay to say they are all part of this franchise? Basically, we've gotta determine whether this article is about the film series or the encompassing franchise; I'd also propose that this article NOT be about the universe that the films, etc are set in and rather that be covered in a short section like in the GA Star Wars. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that the short films and the upcoming television show are produced by the same studio, feature many of the same actors and creators, and can be sourced fairly easily and thoroughly as being a part of the same universe. Whereas the comics, toys, video games, merchandise, etc, would all fall under that other media/"expanded universe" label, being spun off the universe but not official parts of the universe itself. -Fandraltastic (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry Fandraltastic, I'm confused as to what you are suggesting. Do you want this article to be about the universe (and the stuff in it) then? I'd suggest it be about either the film series or the franchise (as a whole -- the films, short films, tv series presumably, digicomics & novels all take place in the universe & the games, soundtracks and toys are just tie-in merchandise) and that the article not be about the universe but that be a "Setting" section where the films/franchise takes place. Or are you talking about a possible Marvel Cinematic Universe in other media article? I'm so confused as to what you mean? Do you think the Marvel Cinematic Universe is just like Star Wars and why? Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm suggesting the article be about the franchise- the film series, the shorts, and the upcoming television show, with everything else (toys, video games, comics, novels, etc) going in an "other media" section toward the bottom of the page. -Fandraltastic (talk) 11:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I strongly hold that the development section and future sections be kept separate. Also related topics such as short films, television shows, comic books, etc. are notable in an "other media" section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * They would still be kept separate, just with "Future" as a subsection under Development, as that is what it is. Its current placement toward the bottom of the page seems a tad arbitrary. Would you be opposed to the section being rearranged, to look a bit more like this, for instance?


 * Development
 * Future
 * Films
 * Recurring cast and characters
 * Short films
 * Television
 * Home media
 * Reception
 * Other media (comics, video games, etc)


 * This keeps all of the information strictly about the films, including those in development, near the top, and in the same general area; gives the shorts and television show slightly more emphasis, as they are "officially" part of the universe and developed as such; and moves information pertaining to the various spin-off media and merchandising to the very bottom -Fandraltastic (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, similarly to sequel sections in film articles they are kept completely away from the development section, which is essentially a history. Also I find single sub-sections to be in bad taste. Furthermore short films and television should be kept in the "other media" section. In other words, the layout should be kept the same.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not an entirely apt comparison, as film articles are about the specific film in question, so the sequel section really amounts to a link to another page. Whereas the "Future" section here is an integral part of the page, and is indeed a part of the history, just not the history of the released films.
 * However, I'm mostly okay with the page as laid out now personally, just trying to reach a compromise so that all parties are satisfied with its contents. If consensus is to keep the page as is, I won't complain. Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that the short films section is fine as it is, and that this article should be about all aspects of the mcu on screen that are set in the same continuity. So, if the proposed ABC tv series is keeping within the continuity of the mcu, i think it should have a mention and a small section, as does shrt films. I agree with TriiipleThreat, and believe that films and development should be kept seprate, as combining the sections would just make it too long and confusing. Alex Douglas , i never actually said that the films and future sections should be merged, what i proposed was leaving the films section as it is, but creating another table in the furture section of upcoming releases, and i only suggested this in order to try and keep all editors happy, just to clarify what i was suggesting. Like Fandraltastic i would be happy if the page was mostly left alone, although with the addition of the phase banners. Alex Douglas, as you asked, my reasons for wanting the phase banners is because it diffines the story arcs of the series and also makes it clear to the casual reader that the films are split into different parts. Thanks. Frogkermit (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's make it simple.. as of the current version of the article, the "Films" section has a table with both released and upcoming films and the "Future" section has prose with details of upcoming films. So, all I'm trying to find out is why its okay for the upcoming films to be covered in two sections? I've argued its not okay, and given some proposal to cover them only in the "Future" section. So could some one please give me a real reason for why we are splitting the upcoming films over two sections? Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)