Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)/Archive 4

Links to infected site in 'references' section
I don't know what the policy is in these situations or if it even concerns wikipedia but some of the links in the 'References' section link to an infected site. I clicked on the links to a couple of reviews on www.webcitation.org and two minutes after that my computer crashed. I wasn't sure the problem was from that site since it seemed pretty harmless. It was confirmed when I run a scan and found, among other things:

Detected: Trojan-Downloader.JS.Agent.gqx	C:/Documents and Settings/xxxxxx/Temporary Internet Files/Content.IE5/DGK379OQ/webcitation_org[1].htm

The trojan was pretty nasty and completely cut off my access to windows and I'd like to prevent others having the same problem. Like I said, I don't know if this has anything to do with wikipedia or not but I'm guessing this might be a common problem with a common solution that I don't know about. At first I wanted to remove the links but the article is semi-protected so I thought I should put this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.13.32.211 (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Which specific links were they? --Tenebrae (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * www.webcitation.org is infected so this concerns everything that links to it. The ones I opened were:
 * 191. ^ Chang, Justin (April 19, 2012). "Marvel's The Avengers". Variety. Archived from the original on April 20, 2012. http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117947410/. Retrieved April 20, 2012.


 * 193. ^ Ebert, Roger (May 2, 2012). "The Avengers". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on May 3, 2012. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120502/REVIEWS/120509997. Retrieved May 3, 2012.


 * Clicking on 'Archived' takes you to the site. While searching for something on the site my computer crashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.13.32.203 (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the additional information. I tried the archived WebCitation links for both those sites and got to them fine with no repercussions. I'm on a MacBook running Google Chrome. Anyone else having problems with that website? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Home media release
The article currently reads:

"Disney has announced that The Avengers will be released..."

Has it really been officially announced by Disney? The /Film article cited as a source reports the release date as if it's confirmed fact, but doesn't give a source. The /Film article links to this JoBlo article as its source for the list of features - but said JoBlo article describes the features list and packaging artwork as "unofficial information".

Should this info be reworded (something like: "On May 18, the website JoBlo reported that The Avengers will be released...") to reflect the fact that the release date and features list haven't been officially confirmed? -- Nick RTalk 18:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It should be removed entirely, Joblo.com sources a forum post from bluray.com, which violates Wikipedia policy regarding self-published sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with 3xThreat, and what the heck with this page? Is it not auto archived or what? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanos, once again
I apologize for changing the article before seeing the discussion on this first. I skimmed the talk page last night and didn't see much, but that's what I get for skimming. So, as for sources stating that the character at the end of the film is Thanos, we have: Honestly, simply Google "Thanos" and "The Avengers" and you'll get tons of mentions in reliable sources. I don't have time to list 50, it's clear that there are more than adaquate sourcing for this. It seems rather ridiculous that we can't include his name in the plot section because the movie doesn't yell it out to us. Our policies and guidelines are here to make this encyclopedia better for people to read. We have reliable sources stating the fact. Somewhere, somehow, we are getting mired in red tape when Wikipedia is failing its readers to state all the information clearly. We need to change the name to Thanos in the plot section because we have reliable sources that say so and because it's what the readers want to read. Angryapathy (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * where producer Feige acknowledges that the character is in fact Thanos.
 * Where the creator of Thanos in the comics talks about Thanos being in the Avengers.


 * The movie doesn't "not yell it out to us." It doesn't give the name at all. You have to understand the larger issue: The encyclopedia's film articles are meant to be a scholarly, concrete record of exactly what the content of a movie is. The exact content &mdash; not anything anyone on the outside says or deduces &mdash; is what researchers, students and academics need to have when they read a plot synopsis. That manifest content of a movie represents the filmmakers' and the studios' exact intentions &mdash; giving insight into the creative process of the artists and craftsmen. If the filmmakers had wanted the Other to say "master Thanos," they would have. Not to do was their deliberate, conscious intention. Who are we to say they make the wrong choice by not doing that? It was their choice not to say. Respect that. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * And P.S.: The article does tell readers that an authoritative source states the character is Thanos, so please do not propagate the misimpression that the article does some misservice to readers by not disclosing this. The article absolutely gives this information, and to pretend that it doesn't is disingenuous. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's clearly Thanos(called Master in the movie) but a few Wikitrolls wanted to have their way with the article despite overwhelming evidence.Kelzorro (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ferrigno's voice work notable?
According to Whedon here, the Hulk's one speaking line belonged solely to Ruffalo, processed through a computer. All Ferrigno contributed was to the grunts and roars, which was actually a group effort along with Ruffalo, Chris Boyes (the sound editor), other humans and various animals. I was going to add some of this to the article, but wasn't sure exactly how to go about it. Currently it reads like Ruffalo and Ferrigno both said the "Puny god" line, which isn't the case apparently. --DocNox (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If this the case, I agree with DocNox that it deserves looking into. --Tenebrae (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My thinking is that the information is still notable enough to be included in the article, but just not in the cast section. Ferrigno never actually appears and has no real dialogue. It's likely the reason he was uncredited. --DocNox (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The information is valid, it just doesn't need to be singled out like a credited role.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. If it's going to be in the article then it needs to be made clear that Ferrigno does not actually say the speaking line. Also one of the cited links in the article makes it pretty clear that it wasn't only Ruffalo and Ferrigno's voices blended to create the roar, it was also Chris Boyes's voice and two guys from New Zealand that aren't named. I just really feel like we're giving Ferrigno undue weight here. --DocNox (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Grammatical Error
"Pact" is a noun, not a verb (See, e.g., http://www.onelook.com/?w=pact&ls=a ), so "pacting", in the first sentence of the "Development" subsection of the "Production" section, should be revised to "agreeing" or "entering into an agreement" or something similarly grammatical. 108.36.249.92 (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up. I rectified the error to "agreeing," but I am still wondering why or how "pacting" came to be. Go figure. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "pacting" was apparently copied from the citation http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117921854
 * "Marvel Enterprises took care of the past, future and present Thursday as it declared independence by pacting with Merrill Lynch to produce a slate of films that will be distributed by Par"
 * Whywhenwhohow (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Under the Video Game section toward the bottom, the last sentence in the section reads: "The games was inspired by the "Secret Invasion" storyline and features 20 different characters." I propose a change to "The game was inspired . . ." Pixarchitect (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Andy Griffin — 2 June 2012
 * Fixed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Reviews
Seeing as the film only got a 69 on Metacritic, a review aggregiator, would it not be more objective to list more than one negative review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DETHREAPER (talk • contribs) 00:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have not read the section, but there should be an equal number of positive and negative reviews to provide a balanced viewpoint of the film. Even if there is are only a few negative reviews, they should still be represented equally (or as close to equal as possible). Someone should definitely even it out.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 69 on Metacritic does not mean that only 69& of critics gave a positive review like Rotten Tomatoes. MC takes the average of each critics personal score, so it could be that a vast majority still liked the film, but there attitudes were lukewarm. Also typically we only use reviews from highly notable critics and/or publications which generally translates to RT's top critics. And there is more than one "negative" review, according to RT, the NYT, Wall Street Journal and Village Voice all gave negative reviews, which are being used in the article. These perhaps could be fleshed out some more to give the appearance of more balanced coverage, if somebody wants to give it a shot.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

CinemaScore
Should we include the film's CinemaScore in the BO section? If not, where should it be? Spinc5 (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I normally put it right after the RT and MC scores in the critical reception section. If there are demographics I put them in the BO section, which I think I've done actually. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Cast list description of Thor
The cast list description of Thor isn't currently accurate, based on the Thor film. It currently states "The god of thunder based on the Norse deity of the same name."

In the Thor film, the characters on several occasions make clear that Thor is not an actual god. He and the other Asguardians are, in fact, humanoid extraterrestrial beings whose society has such advanced technology that to humans living in the year 2012 it is "indistinguishable from magic". That's a big difference. The Thor film even makes clear that the gods of Norse mythology are based on tales of these Asgaurdians from prior visits to Earth, and are therefore not actual gods either, but just folklore of these same advanced beings.

This isn't a supernatural movie in which actual gods are flying around -- its a science fiction movie in which some of the characters are using technology that is thousands of years more advanced than modern society. Again, that's a big conceptual difference and the section needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.3.9 (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This issue has been addressed in the Thor (film) article through a compromise that side-steps the issue. The relevant text in the article that should be copied here reads as follows:
 * "Chris Hemsworth as Thor:
 * The crown prince of Asgard, based on the Norse mythological deity of the same name."
 * Cardonculous (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Cardonculous
 * ✅.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this is relevant, but I think "god of thunder" can be considered a title rather than a genuine deity class. The UK DVD box of Thor describes him as a "God of Thunder", so can we not assume that he has this title without being a genuine god? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomorrowWeDie (talk • contribs) 22:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting, you might want to bring this up at Talk:Thor (film).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Typo
Third paragraph in "pre production" reads: "Set construction was began in November." Please change it to read "Set construction began in November." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.222.228 (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)‎

* FIXED* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.222.228 (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)‎

Introductory paragraph reveals the movie's plot -- this seems inappropriate.
The introductory paragraph of the article reveals the general plot of the film, which I think should be reserved for the "plot" section of the article. I think that a revelation of the plot of the film -- however broadly it may be stated -- should not be revealed in an introductory paragraph on the subject film, especially for a recently released film that has been out in theatres for a mere two weeks. Some readers (myself included) look up films on Wikipedia for general background information and don't want to learn plot points before having actually seen the film. Having the plot info sprung on the reader without any chance at avoiding it (as can easily be done by avoiding reading the "plot" section) is unfair to the reader and does he or she a disservice.Rexprimoris (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexprimoris (talk • contribs) 02:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia contains spoilers. oknazevad (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I'm not sure of what you wanted to read, but the "Production" section of the article contains plenty of spoilers. So, if you don't want to get spoiled you're best to just not read anything on the page period.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Codenames vs. Aliases in Plot section
The plot summary refers to the characters almost exclusively by the surnames of their "real names" (e.g., "With help from Barton, Rogers, Stark, and Thor evacuate civilians, while Banner transforms back into the Hulk and goes after Loki, eventually beating him into submission."). I feel this is a little awkward as the characters are known best by their codenames; I would prefer using codenames throughout the majority of the plot summary. Is there a reason for using the surnames? -WikiFew (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * They are known best by their codenames in the comics. The only ones with codenames that are regularly even used in the films are Iron Man and Captain America. In those cases, Rogers either goes by Rogers, Steve, or just "Captain". Rarely does he actually go by "Captain America", and Stark usually never is referred to as "Iron Man" unless he's being narcassistic or the "media" are talking about him. All characters refer to him as Tony or Stark. Since Barton and Romanoff do not actually go by the aliases Hawkeye and Black Widow, it makes better sense to remain consistent and just cite everyone's surname.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually that's not true. The codenames Hawkeye and Black Widow are both shown on-screen and said in dialogue. They may not have been used as often and their real names, but they were used. DocNox (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Used in passing (once) does not equate to be used as a common identifier. Thus, using the name they are actually referred to as is the appropriate way to handle the situation. It's like when Gordon acknowledges that Dent was given the nickname "Two-Face" in The Dark Knight. He does not actually go by that name in the film, so we don't identify him by that name here.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * With the limited space for a plot, it's just more efficient to pick a name and stick with it. Nothing is gained from identifying everyone and their codename. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that it's comparable to the Two-Face situation at all. Both "Black Widow" and "Hawkeye" were shown early on in the film on a SHIELD computer screen next to their photos (in a close-up with huge letters), making it clear these names are in fact their official SHIELD aliases. "Black Widow" was used in dialogue by that Russian guy in a way that made it clear she was very well known around the world by that name. "Hawkeye" was used in dialogue towards the end of the film during the big battle when Black Widow called out to him by that name, and the way he quickly responded again made it clear he was used to being called that. Now with all of that said, I don't actually feel like any of the names need to be added to the plot section. I wouldn't be against it either if somebody really wanted to. A case could certainly be made for it. But I personally don't feel like it's all that necessary. I just feel like you saying they don't actually go by those names in the film itself is very disingenuous. --DocNox (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Disingenuous? I think that is an inaccurate choice of terminology for what I was saying. The fact that the names are used once does not mean that they characters are actively going by those names. You are missing what I was saying. I did not deny their usage, I stated that they were not the common association for the characters in the film. Using it once does not mean that, in the film, that is what they are generall referred to as. There is nothing "disingenuous" about that statement. In fact, it's very accurate because I'm referring to the overall representation of the characters, and not a single instance where those names were used.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As does Darkwarriorblake, I would have to concur with User:Bignole. Except somewhat for Captain America and a little less for the Hulk, the code names are used only in passing. They are noted prominently in the cast list, so for clarity and simplicity they are not used in the plot section. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You're probably right about that word choice, I even questioned it when I wrote it. But I stand by the point I was making, which is that despite the codenames not actually being used often in the film itself, they are still shown to be common names for the characters within the film's universe. It is in no way accurate for you to say they don't go by those names. Obviously the majority of the characters in the film have personal relationships with the heroes and therefore will use more personal names for them, however that doesn't somehow make the other names less accurate. What names do you think the people in the streets at the end of the film would be cheering? I also can't remember the name "Iron Man" being used once in the film (I might have just missed it), but I don't think you would deny it's still a common name for him. --DocNox (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we have a different understanding of "common name". I am referring to within the film itself, not the film universe. Yes, "Iron Man", "Captain America", "Black Widow" (questionable on this one, because it appeared to be her codename from when she was a hired assassin and not so much while she was with SHEILD), and "Hawkeye" are their "names" within the universe itself. But, so far as this specific film goes, they do not use those names and it is not our place to put those names in just because we "know" that they are referred to as that within that fictional universe.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I do appreciate DocNox's concerns &mdash; he wants to make the article as clear as possible for the general reader. Again, though, I'm afraid Bignole is correct when he cites the overall Tenebrae (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. But the information is onscreen in the film. Do I need to link to a screen cap to prove it? And whether or not the names are just said in passing I think is irrelevant. I could probably find several films where a name is only said in passing (or not at all), but we still use them. The Star Wars articles alone have a ton of examples (Ewok anyone?), and most of those are good articles. I understand your concerns because of the War Machine/Two-Face situations, but I don't feel like this is at all comparable. It just seems overly pedantic. In any case, it's a bit of a moot point because although I completely disagree with not adding the info on the notion that they're somehow not actually their names in this film, I do agree on the notion that the plot section should be kept short and simple and having multiple names for characters might overcomplicate it. This is just a pet peeve of mine. --DocNox (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And ironically, I've found it odd that we don't really mention the superheroes' superhero names! But, like you, I understand that simplicity for the sake of clarity tips it the other way. It's nice to have a civilized and respectful conversation on a talk page! --Tenebrae (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The salaries of the actors should be posted as it is part of the budget
A big part of the Avengers movie is the budget used to hire the actors in the film and I am suggesting this is part of the article. For example Robert Downey Jr. made $50 million, Samual Jackon $12 million, Scarlett Johansson $9 million and so on. The movie budget was $220 million so it is ideal to add their salaries so people know the breakup of their salaries and the cost of the film. People want to know this and it is relevant to add the salaries in, its part of the movie--91.238.214.187 (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Actor's salaries are not always necessarily generated directly from a film's budget. In a lot of circumstances actors might take less money upfront in return for a share of the film's revenue as was the case for Downey Jr. Also the language in the article suggest that the author isn't 100% certain of the exact figures.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify, actors' salaries are either:
 * generated from the film's budget, and thus included in the figure already (in the case of up-front payment), or
 * not generated from the film's budget, and thus should not be included in the figure at all (in the case of revenue shares)
 * The $220 million budget figure is accurate. Rickie-d (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

OsCorp
The Oscorp building was supposed to appear in the film, but the timing didn't work out. I've typed it up for the Avengers film series page, but don't know where it would fit in nicely here, so I figured I'd let the main editors deem where to put it:

Sony and Disney agreed for the OsCorp building from the The Amazing Spider-Man to appear in The Avengers, but the idea was dropped because The Avengers's Manhattan skyline was already rendered before the OsCorp building design could be completed. Ω pho  is  20:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have heard of this. But I don't know if it belongs here. Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not? It should definitely be included in the production section, since it was an element that was dropped from the film. Ω  pho  is  21:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have a better source than "Latino-Review.com"?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's being covered on many websites, but they all cite Latino Review. Ω  pho  is  21:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I gave it a shot, in the post production section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, this is only a rumour that this was ever going to happen. The Latino Review article disguises its rumour status by combining the discussion of the OsCorp building design with talk of an interview they did with producers Avi Arad and Matthew Tolmach, in which the intention to do small Marvel/Fox/Sony crossovers was discussed ("Matt said they’d love to do more like this, meaning crossovers on the smaller level."). But it doesn't sound like they absolutely confirmed this specific OsCorp building crossover in that interview. -- Nick RTalk 23:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there another article by Latino Review on the subject? The source cited states:


 * "That design overlap, and the stunning look of the Oscorp Tower (seriously stunning) was enough for Marvel Studios and Sony to have the discussion about inserting Oscorp into The Avengers skyline. The Unified Marvel Manhattan Skyline almost existed.


 * By the time the Oscorp building was fully designed, The Avengers digital Manhattan was already basically rendered and there was some up-conversion that needed to go down, so – for timing – it was scrapped.


 * BUT – Sony and Disney were going to let this happen. THAT’s the key thing here. Timing just didn’t work out." Ω  pho  is  01:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I just wasn't sure. We definitely need to be careful on how we say it. For example imply that that's what they said over saying that's really what's happen. Jhenderson  7 7 7  02:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * IGN has also covered it here Ω  pho  is  01:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok guys if that is going to appear in this article what about the TASM article. For I did revert a editor that added it because of no source. Jhenderson  7 7 7  22:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly I don't see it having much relevance with TASM, there is no mention of any crossover into TASM and the whole thing seems more like an Easter Egg. If it was to go into TASM it would be explained very briefly, like in one sentence "a crossover was discussed between whoever and whoever that would have had the Oscorp building show up in The Avengers but this ultimately did not come to fruition" or whatever, not the section that a user added which you rightfully removed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Behind the Scenes Leader?
On the first of the two post-credit scenes, we can see The Other ranting about the dangers of attacking earth. IMO I think that it would be better if we said "On the first of the two post-credit scenes, a shadowy antagonist was behind-the-scenes." meaning that even though evil lost, the forces of evil were brokered by a behind-the-scenes antagonist all the time, so I would say that there was a behind-the-scenes antagonist instead. Don't you guys think? 99.18.201.209 (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we can just say exactly what the film depicts and not extrapolate our interpretations, however correct or perhaps not that they might be. That's as per WP:FILM guidelines. Wikipedia is great in that anyone can edit, though there are lots of guidelines we have to follow that were developed over the years through trial-and-error to evolve as what businesses call "best-practice techniques." --Tenebrae (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

ADOPTIVE BROTHER!
ARE YOU KIDDING ME! In the first pragraph of this, it says Thor's adoptive brother loki. well guess wht? thor only said that because some1 said loki killed 80 peeeps in 2 days. it was not real! 96.237.48.76 (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is accurate. This is something established in the Thor film. If you have seen that film, then I suggest rewatching it, because it's in there.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In the film Thor, there is a scene beginning at 00:39:07, in which Odin confesses to Loki that he is actually the son of Laufey. Odin found Loki, as an infant, abandoned in a temple on Jotunheim after a battle between the Frost Giants and the Asgardians. Odin kept Loki and raised him as his own son (effectively adopting him) in hopes that one day this would help unite the two worlds. So, no... nobody is "KIDDING" you and it is quite "real!". -  thewolfchild   00:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Loki is adopted. Well more like stolen, but adopted nonetheless. Watch Thor again. It is clearly explained. Charlr6 (talk) 11:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Not only that, but it's also explained in The Avengers. Loki argues with Thor about his heritage in the scene right before the Iron Man/Thor fight. —Flax5 16:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * They certainly do, I forgot about that. Charlr6 (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If anybody is interested, in original mythology Loki was Odin's, not Thor's, "foster"/blood brother, so it seemed a bit strange when the Swedish scientist called him "the brother of Thor", rather than mention that the mythology diverged. David A (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem strange when you consider that the Swedish scientist in question (Dr. Selvig) was in the movie Thor as well, and was therefore privy to some of the differences between Norse mythology and the reality of the Nine Realms and it's denizens as they are portrayed in the Marvel Movie Universe.Wyldstaar (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Reclassified or retitled
Definition of the word reclassify : Assign to a different class or category. The Avengers is not a class or category of film. It is the title of the film. The class and category of the film in the UK is 12A, which is the equivalent of PG-13 in the US. An example of reclassified films are Jaws which was originally released as an A film (A since being replaced with the 18 certificate) and has since been changed to a PG. That is reclassification. If BVSMP UK were to resubmit the film, and it were to gain a PG or 15 certificate instead of the 12A it currently has, then it would be classed as being reclassified as it would be changing class. Definition of the word retitle : To provide with a new title. In this case, the title of the film was The Avengers, but was changed to "Marvel Avengers Assemble". No amount of "consensus" conversation is going to change the very definition of the words being used here. This film hasn't been reclassified, it has been retitled --Plkrtn (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * First, the article's opening line says "classified," not "reclassified." Those are two different words


 * Second, the BBFC cannot title or retitle a film. Only the author of a film can title it. All the BBFC can do is call it whatever it wants to call it for its own official purposes. But it cannot title a film. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you continually push this blatant lie? The BBFC do not retitle it. The distributor does, which is Buena Vista Studio Motion Pictures UK. We've been through this over and over again. You're disingenous. OK, the definition of classify is to "Arrange something into a class or category". Marvel Avengers Assemble is still not a class or category of film, it is a title. The class and category is defined as the certificate it gets from the BBFC, which is 12A. Stop mincing the English language because you dislike the facts. --Plkrtn (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The precise language is "classified under the name" not "classified as" the difference might appear subtle but the meaning is substantial.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is, in fact, an important distinction. The BBFC is saying it has classified something "under the name," and assuming the BBFC used this phrase consciously and deliberately and not accidentally, that means it acknowledges that this is a name for its own documentation, and not the definitive end-all-and-be-all that "classified as" &mdash; like "copyrighted as" &mdash; would be.


 * Also, don't call me a liar. I haven't called you names, and I not lying. In fact, your post calls me a liar even while agreeing with my statement! You say, "The BBFC do not retitle it." I said, "the BBFC cannot title or retitle a film." We're saying the exact same thing. So I'm really, really perplexed and confused as to where "liar" comes from. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I am near agreement with GDallimore and view the difference between "released" and "classified" as semantical. In fact I wont argue against either one but "titled" or "retitled" is stepping in the opposite direction. I urge you to please stop edit warring and help work towards a consensus.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My concern is that the official site says different, as does the copyright. In fact, the US version is copyrighted "Marvel's The Avengers" on the press notes, and in all the Disney text references, it's Marvel's The Avengers. We may need to rethink the entire thing. Newsday, for instance, even calls it that in an article, here: "And Joss Whedon's 'Marvel's The Avengers,' opening Friday,..." --Tenebrae (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm from the UK, and I saw it at the cinema last week. At the end of the credits the film was copyrighted "The Avengers (c)", well, there wasn't a mention of Avengers Assemble.Charlr6 (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Plkrtn, 'A' was not replaced with 18. That implies that "Jaws" was an '18' back then if we look at it using modern day ratings, but it wasn't, it was rated A, which is now PG. A was replaced with PG, AA was replaced with 15 and X was replaced with 18. Look at this link here on Wikipedia's own | page. The equivalent of 'A' now is PG, 'AA' now is 15 and 'X' is now 18. It even says that 'A' is suitable for "those aged 5 and older admitted, but not recommended for children under 14 years of age", very similar to the PG now. Charlr6 (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no basis for referring to the film as "classified" or "reclassified" under its UK/Irish name. Classify means to put in a category. There is no sense it is correct to say the film is classified as Avengers Assemble in the UK. This is black and white: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/classify?s=t As the first editor in this section mentioned, the classification being done is the sources is categorizing the film as 12A. Titling or retitling is an act of naming a work. So if a name gets put on a movie (in the main titles in the beginning of the film, in advertising, etc.), then it is titled that name as a matter of fact. The view/allegation that the new title was applied to the film by the wrong decisionmaker or for bureaucratic reasons or clumsily or with a stupid name doesn't change the fact that it bears the new/different title. But perhaps more importantly, reliable sources say that it is the title, like http://www.totalfilm.com/news/avengers-assemble-the-avengers-gets-new-title-and-official-poster and http://www.bbfc.co.uk/BFF285236/. Marvel Avengers Assemble is under the column for Title not the under the label Classification. Now, maybe folks could argue that the wording should be "released as" or "marketing as", but there's no basis to go back to "classified as". --JamesAM (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It was never "classified as" it was "classified under the title" which is a big difference.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You just changed it without presenting any real counterargument. I don't get the fascination with trying to shoehorn the word "classified" in there. Is it out of the perceptions that Marvel Avengers Assemble is a dorky title so we have to pretend it's not the real title in the UK and Ireland. First, "classified under the title" is such tortured phrasing just to work "classify" in there. Second, if one googles the phrase "classified under the name" in quotes, one sees that phrase being used to mean categorize. Third, even imagining that the phrase is clear, good writing, it gives a false implication. It's as if you're trying to say that the name Marvel Avengers Assemble is only applied to the film solely for the purpose of its age/content rating. That's plainly not true. It's released under that title. It's advertised under that title. Quite simply it's titled (or retitled) with that name in those countries. Fourth, I presented actual sources attesting to it being titled as such in the UK. I don't see any sources saying it's categorized as Avengers Assemble or that the title is merely used for the purpose of rating the film. A change to the article shouldn't be made by fiat. Evidence has to back up the decision. --JamesAM (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We have been through this ad infinitum. The BBFC cannot title a film; all it can do is classify a film. Disney/Marvel has made it clear that the film's UK title is "Marvel's Avengers Assemble." The BBFC got it wrong &mdash; and it is astonishing arrogance on the part of Paul Cox of The Guardian to say that the filmmakers got the title wrong! No one can name a film or a book or a song except the owner of that film or book or song. Not some outside agency. And the film's owner owner, Disney, says it's "Marvel's Avengers Assemble." --Tenebrae (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, if you'll scroll up, you'll see that mediating admin J Greb directed us not to change the wording that was there at the time, which was "classified" and not "titled." I returned the phrase to that, and added enough additional explanatory material that I would hope would satisfy every party except extremists. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Disney/Marvel has made it clear that the film's UK title is Marvel's Avengers Assemble."
 * Have they ? Marvel UK have referred to the film as "Marvel Avengers Assemble" in more than one place. Their YouTube channel heading for instance and in at least one press release . Disney UK currently have "View the MARVEL Avengers Assemble range" on their homepage . It's the onscreen title and the title on the posters. The BBFC didn't "get it wrong". As you keep pointing out, the BBFC can't name a film; they can only go by what was submitted by the distributor, and clearly this is the title that was submitted to the BBFC by Disney UK. By all means expand on the change-of-mind Disney and Marvel have had about the title in the Release section, but for the lead it seems pretty clear that "Marvel Avengers Assemble" is as close to an "official" title as we'll get.
 * As for J Greb, he claims that "the consensus seems to support the current material" but this isn't true. Only two editors out of the nine who have contributed here have shown support for the use of "classified under the title" in the lead.
 * Barry Wom (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Disney/UK site says "Marvel's Avengers Assemble'' in all the text. The graphical treatment on the poster is irrelevant. There's no apostrophe-s on the US poster, either, but onscreen there is.


 * You can't single-handedly and unilaterally change the compromise consensus version to your own personal version. I'm restoring it to te consensus version ,and if you want to edit-war about it, let's contact the admin and see what he thinks about you doing that.--Tenebrae (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You may wish to go back and read all the preceding discussions, the compromised wording was not made in this thread, and involved more than two editors.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You may be right. Here's what J Greb wrote: "The lead seems good. The only suggestion I'd make is to change the parenthetical to 'listed by the film certification boards of UK and Ireland under the name Marvel Avengers Assemble' to avoid arguments about miss-using 'classified'". I'd be all for that, but by what he wrote, the term "classified" is what was there and "the lead seems good" with it. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You may wish to go back and read all the preceding discussions, too. Only yourself and Tenebrae have shown any support for this supposed "compromised wording". Several other editors have disagreed with its use. The consensus is against you. Barry Wom (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't want to open a can of worms, but the mediating admin also certainly felt that the "classified under the name" compromise was appropriate and stable &mdash; the fact that it was stable for a relatively long period, with no partisan one way or the other changing it, shows tacit acceptance by parties on both sides of the argument. One person says, "To me it's clear that the title is Marvel Avengers Assemble" while another person says, "No, it's obvious that it's Marvel's Avengers Assemble" &mdash; and a compromise arises that doesn't give either side everything it wants but gives both sides something it needs. That's the core nature of compromise. --Tenebrae (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I am amazed at the amount of discussion on this topic - 'classified' stood out to me the first time I saw it in the article because it didn't seem to work very well, and this evening I came back to the article and noticed it again. It stands out to me because it is simply the wrong word to use. To classify something is to assign it to a particular category, to pigeonhole it if you will - for example, you could classify The Avengers as an action movie. You don't 'classify under' you 'classify as', and you can't say it was 'classified as Marvel Avengers Assemble' because that would imply that 'Marvel's Avengers Assemble' is a category or genre of movie. However, I also agree that 'retitled' can't be used, as that would suggest a universal retitling. The simplest way to put it would be 'released under the title Marvel Avengers Assemble in the UK and Ireland'. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadetonoir (talk • contribs) 00:18, 24 May 2012


 * It's the British Board of Film Classification. That's what it does. It classifies films. As for its release title, according to Disney / Marvel, it's "Marvel's Avengers Assemble," but some dispute that based on what that outside agency calls it. The wording as it stands is the compromise version between these two viewpoints. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to admit I haven't read every single comment on here, but which version of the title is actually shown on-screen in Britain? Shouldn't that trump whatever this BBFC thing calls it? In America the title is first clearly shown on-screen as just "The Avengers" and then "Marvel's" appears above it a second later. I haven't seen the British version so I don't know how it shows up there, but whatever it says, whether it be "Marvel" or "Marvel's", shouldn't we use that and just cite the film itself as the source? I feel like people are over complicating this. I also think "released as" would be the best word choice. --DocNox (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There's now a clear consensus to remove the term "classified under the name" from the lead. I tried leaving a message on the mediating admin's talk page over two weeks ago pointing out that he'd misjudged the consensus here, but they haven't responded.
 * I've redone the "Release" section to clarify that at some point shortly before release, Marvel and Disney decided to add the apostrophe-s. We've got the initial press release confirming the title change to Marvel Avengers Assemble and the the fact that this title was submitted to both the BBFC and the IFCO (sorry, Tenebrae, but the claim that the BBFC "got it wrong" doesn't wash). As pointed out above, there's no shortage of references to this title in UK publications. There's also the fact that both Marvel and Disney are continuing to refer to the film under both titles, even if the apostrophe-s version is now wider used. Barry Wom (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * At least two editors on record in the edit summaries have pointed out there is no consensus to change a stable page. By reverting TriiipleThreat, talk is edit-warring rather than discussing, as protocol dictates he should be doing. The movie is clearly titled "Marvel's''..., and a classification service can only classify &mdash; it cannot title a title. If this continues to bother our fellow editor Barry Wom, he should talk about it try to persuade other editors, which is the proper way to do things. Please do not edit war; we have at least one admin who has addressed that issue, and I'm sure he wouldn't want to see more edit-warring. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No, only exactly two editors have shown any support for use of the term "classified". The clear majority are in favour of it being removed. As expanded upon in the "Release" section, it is incorrect to state that the movie is clearly titled "Marvel's Avengers Assemble"; quite the opposite is true. And as I said above, the admin who addressed the issue was wrong about the consensus here and hasn't responded to a request for comment. Barry Wom (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Simply untrue, and I'm not sure we share the same definition of consensus. And if you'd like to tell the admin he was wrong, you can do do.


 * This compromise was reached long ago. And after a page has been stable for some time, that is implicit consensus that cannot be changed without discussion of the issue in contention. Certainly, no single editor can unilaterally decide to make a change to what he personally favors after a compromise version has been reached.


 * You may want to call for an RfC to reopen the issue. That would be the proper channel. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What's simply untrue ? Regarding consensus - in the discussions on this page and the archive, ten editors have vociferously expressed the opinion that the term "classified" should be replaced. Two further editors have expressed the opinion that the title of the film is the onscreen title, which is Marvel Avengers Assemble. One further editor argued that they "wouldn't argue against either classified or released". Only one editor - you - has consistently reverted the removal of the term "classified". And for the third time - I have already pointed out to the admin that he was wrong, he has failed to respond.


 * The "compromise" was installed by you, a minority of one. And as you point out, no single editor can unilaterally decide to make a change to what he personally favors. Barry Wom (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Barry Wom that current terminology can be improved and with Tenebrae that the title is debatable so the term "titled" should not be used. Therefore I am now in full agreement with GDallimore, JamesAM and DocNox that "released as" is the best compromise; it is less confusing than "classified under the name" and side-steps the debatable title.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've asked for further comments over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film Barry Wom (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will go there. I believe the fact that the onscreen title is "Marvel's...." obviously has some weight. ---Tenebrae (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It would appear that the official UK DVD release is Marvel Avengers Assemble, based on pictures of the cover art from several UK retailers. "Classified" is a clumsy word.  I'd suggest (based on WP:MOSFILM and WP:NCF, although I know it's not a foreign-language film, but we can apply it here), the opening paragraph should start as follows:
 * Marvel's The Avengers is a 2012 American superhero film produced by Marvel Studios and distributed by Walt Disney Pictures, based on the Marvel Comics superhero team of the same name. It is released as Marvel Avengers Assemble in the UK and Ireland.
 * --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * With all respect, DVD cover art is not the arbiter of a film's official title. It's what the owner says it is and what appear onscreen. And two friends in London say there's an apostrophe-s onscreen . --Tenebrae (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looking further into it, sources appear to be mixed. Here's one objectively discussing the title, without an apostrophe.  In any case, that "classified" bit should go.  How about the following, until it can be verified:
 * Marvel's The Avengers is a 2012 American superhero film produced by Marvel Studios and distributed by Walt Disney Pictures, based on the Marvel Comics superhero team of the same name. It is released as Marvel (or Marvel's) Avengers Assemble in the UK and Ireland.
 * --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why the classified bit was first suggested as it bypasses Marvel vs. Marvel's, because there is no debate as to what the classification boards call it. Though as GDallimore pointed out above that legally one cannot release a film in the UK under a different than what classification says it is.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Unlike some of my esteemed colleagues, I, for one, am absolutely open to compromise to flexibility. My one copy-edit is that I would have the full titles in order to be as clear as possible: "It was released as Marvel Avengers Assemble or Marvel's 'Avengers Assemble in the UK and Ireland. (Sources differ.)"


 * You should take this chunk of discussion, including my agreement with you, to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I spotted that the BBFC site shows Marvel Avengers Assemble and thought that legally this must be the onscreen title, but the sources differ so greatly, we cannot be sure. I wouldn't propose showing "(sources differ)", just showing sources by each title.  Incidentally, the discussion is best centralised here, rather than the project page, as that was a request for comment.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So:
 * Marvel's The Avengers is a 2012 American superhero film produced by Marvel Studios and distributed by Walt Disney Pictures, based on the Marvel Comics superhero team of the same name. It is released as Marvel Avengers Assemble (/refs) or Marvel's Avengers Assemble (/refs) in the UK and Ireland.
 * The name controversy, etc, could even be discussed in the article for editors seeking clarification of the differences. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's certainly a reasonable alternative.


 * Since I'm not the editor who began the discussion at WikiProject: Film, I really have no say in whether it should move back here. I can only suggest that out of respect for our colleague's earlier decision to movie it there that we comment there; he wanted to get a wider set of comments, and that's not unreasonable. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The BBFC site shows Marvel Avengers Assemble; you're correct in stating that this is the legal title and this is exactly what appears onscreen. The Marvel/Marvel's difference is discussed further in the "Release" section; I'm not convinced it's necessary to clutter up the lead with both versions. Barry Wom (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ... or at least, the Marvel/Marvel's difference was discussed further in the "Release" section until my wording was reverted. Was this really necessary ? I thought the conflict was confined to the lead. Barry Wom (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Barry, I know you're operating in good faith and want only what's best and accurate. So do I and so does everyone else here. I just want to say I know where you're coming from, and I do respect your intent, if not necessarily the way you express it.


 * Two of my British friends say there's an apostrophe-s onscreen, and they have no dog in this fight so I believe them. As for the word "legal": A reasonable person might differ with you and say that the only legal title is what the legal owner of the film gives it &mdash; no one else can title a film. The BBFC can call it anything it wants to for its internal classification system (and it is the British Board of Film Classification), but it cannot re-title a film. And the legal owner, the only voice that matters, calls it Marvel's Avengers Assemble.


 * But I and other editors agreed to a compromise. I hope you're not averse to compromise. Neither side &mdash; neither good-faith interpretation &mdash; gets to have its own way fully, but gets to have a middle ground both sides can live with. That's the nature of consensus and compromise. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yet the "legal owner" continues to call it Marvel Avengers Assemble in press releases, as late as May 2012.


 * Having waited a week or so for further comments, I think the only solution now is to go to Dispute Resolution. Barry Wom (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * See Live Free or Die Hard, The Boat That Rocked, Ice Cold in Alex, Whisky Galore! and Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, which all had changes made to their original titles for different territories. None of them is "classified" so why is this film different? It's the wrong word to use. Chris 42 (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In this case, there are different sources giving at least two different titles, so this was the consensus compromise: The one thing that everyone agrees on is that the British Board of Film Classification has classified the film under "Marvel Avengers Assemble," though Marvel/Disney for the most part, and some theater owners and others, give the title as "Marvel's Avengers Assemble." --Tenebrae (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 July 2012
I think there are enough sources to cover this: add "American science fiction action films" cat,

StarShopSTX (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Bump — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarShopSTX (talk • contribs) 16:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

✅ --TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 July 2012
Add "2010s adventure films" per which lists it as a Sci-Fi Adventure film. StarShopSTX (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

StarShopSTX (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ --TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually it appears some of these categories are the parent categories of some of the categories that are already present. For example, Category:American science fiction action films is the parent of Category:Avengers films. I could use a second-opinion if these should be cleaned-up. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Filming
I'm not sure why it mentions how Paltrow and Bettany became apart of the film, but I think it is irrelevant to the section. The filming section discusses just that, and reading about their casting threw me off. It just seem so off topic to me. To avoid confusion, I think that bit should be placed in the pre-production section. —DAP388 (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 July 2012
Add cat "American action thriller films".

StarShopSTX (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Done Andie  ''  ▶(Candy)◀  14:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * At what point does this film fall into this category? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * . Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Allmovie, which is used in List of thriller films of the 2010s to cite the genre, does not include this genre. We need to limit categories to what is verifiable and not base it on original research.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering most of of action films are thrillers, and action is a sub-genre of thriller, and the action in this film belongs to the thriller action scenes, I just suggested. StarShopSTX (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source? Wikipedia policy is no original research.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've found a source, but it's in German (well I found another but that was in a blog site) here it is StarShopSTX (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That you had to go to a German source probably shows that it isn't a common thought. Please read the article on Thriller, the Avengers is not a thriller. Sleeping with the Enemy is a thriller. Tell me where is the overlap there between that film and this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * , ,, Is this sufficient? StarShopSTX (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First, if you want to link to something, add square brackets around it [, not ref. Second, no, a reviewer describing something as an action thriller does not actually place it in that genre, magically enough and the Virgin one specifically states what it's genre is then calls it something else in the review, showing how superfluous those mentions are, and the FilmReview one doesn't say Thrill or Thriller at all. Doesn't even say Thri. So you're down to three sources, one of which contradicts what you are claiming, the remaining two are reviews by non associated people being stated in a review. And of course there's that simple fact I've mentioned a few times that it does not fit into the description of a thriller in any shape or form. You had to go to Germany to find a source, now you're scraping the barrel elsewhere, so it obviously isn't a prominent opinion that this is an action thriller. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The Movie it's also distributed by Paramount Pictures
The Avengers it's also distributed by Paramount Pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucasmoura (talk • contribs) 01:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't distributed by Paramount Pictures. See note 1 for more information. :) Ha  dg  er  02:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"Outside North America" box office
Worldwide the film is in third place, but excluding North America, as that header implies, the film is the fourth highest of all time: http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/?pagenum=1&sort=osgross&order=DESC&p=.htm Behind Titanic, Avatar, and the 8th Harry Potter film. Either the header needs to change or the info does. Cheers -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Scarlet Johansson - sequel
The New York Post article stating Johansson is getting $20 million for the sequel is actually sourcing this article from The Sun. And as such, I am not sure it should be used. Thoughts?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree. The source is not reputable, and technically the entire cast (sans RDJ) is signed for the sequel. Whether of not they actually do it may depend on scheduling and other factors, and can't really be confirmed until production begins to start up. -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I used a reference from the Sun for Prometheus and it turned out to be completely false. So yeah, nuts to the Sun. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The Sun is known for being unreliable--88.111.114.152 (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanos in Avengers 2
Regarding this good faith edit by an IP in the incubator about Thanos appearing in The Avengers 2 and Guardians of the Galaxy, the source traces back to this Cosmic Book News article which states it obtained the information from a forum poster who says that she heard it from Jim Starlin. At this point, I would consider this to be rumor/hearsay and should not be included in the article until, we have something more official to go by.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, not a reliable source. -Fandraltastic (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Coulson name
Agent Coulsons first name is Phil The source is reliable--88.111.114.152 (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It is Phil Coulson. Even said in the film. Charlr6 (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Home Media request for edit.
The 'Home Media' section says it will be released on 25 september 2012. However, the cited source is about a 'DVD/Blu-ray Combo Pack'. The DVD is already for sale in Europe at the time of writing --21:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.119.189.36 (talk)
 * That is what I was trying to check because I saw Blu-Ray copies in legit stores in Seoul today. Korean website says it was released Sept 6th. I checked WalMart's US website and it says release date of Sept 25th, Amazon UK says the 17th, Amazon Japan 25th, so it looks like staggered release dates. I'll update. ₪Rick n Asia₪ 14:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed what read like an advertisement for a 10-disc set. It didn't add any material information to the content already here, and it was cited to a dubious report (itself citing someone else) that at least twice used the word "rumors" to describe what it was "reporting." --Tenebrae (talk) 08:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The 10-disc set has been confirmed but delayed!--79.69.105.94 (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Does it say why?--79.69.105.94 (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That's what the article says.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

post-credits scenes
Isn't it Red Skull the master of the Other whom is seen at post-credits scenes? --Javid44 (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Javid44
 * No. -Fandraltastic (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is Thanos!--79.69.105.94 (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ms. Marvel in Avengers 2
Does anybody else find this a bit questionable? Casting for a 2015 movie now sounds suspicious especially since to the best of our knowledge the first draft of the script hasn't even been completed. And yes I know I'm interjecting my own POV here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail is not a reliable source. It is a tabloid. -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree!--88.111.119.126 (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Chitauri
I've just looked throughout the archive, and I don't see any consensus for including the identifier Chitauri if they're not called that in the film. I don't recall that the alien race was named. Now that the video is available, could someone please confirm they are called that? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The Other names them in his opening monologue; "...And our force, our Chitauri will follow".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Triple T!! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thor also mentions the Chitauri by name on the Hellicarrier. Richiekim (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Turrrrrrn and face the strain / Ch-Ch-Chitauri . . . "


 * David Bowie fans? Anyone? :- )   --Tenebrae (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

TalkWorld Review
We should add mention of TalkWorld review http://wetalkworld.net/avengers-review/413 --88.111.114.152 (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Is the site notable enough? It only has 80 hits, if you hit 100 hits, then I'll consider it!--88.111.127.125 (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * * I think it is notable enough to be mentioned!--88.111.125.204 (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree!--88.111.117.148 (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Given the abundance of established film critics for major publications, no, it is not notable enough to be included here. And I do believe that the two 88.111 anon IPs are one and the same. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Preparation for GA review
I assume with the release of the Blu-ray, there will be another influx of editors to this article, after this dies down I see no problem with nominating it for GA review. However in the mean time there are a few things we can do help get it ready;

Tidy up the Box Office section. This section, in my opinion seems cluttered with minutiae. Also the referencing in this section should mirror the rest of the article. All citations should be moved to references section. There are a couple of bare URLs, citations needed in records section, missing metadata in the citation templates and every online source should be archived.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally the only edits people will make once the home release comes out is to the plot, so I think you would be safe to go ahead with a GA Nom once the issues you raise are fixed. The Box office records...I guess theyre notable, it is a big box office deal, but there must be a significantly better way of presenting them. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * True, I was just concerned about stability since it is a good articles criteria and I agree there must be a better way to present the BO section. Any ideas?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd probably lose the level 4 headers and replace them with ;'s, the level 4 headers just tend to look messy, and drop the worldwide header, that should just be the opening of the box office section, we make it clear in the following two sections where we are being specific, so the opening of BO I think should just be part of that general opening summary. The table I don't know what to do with. Is it going tobe eventually wittled down to nothing as records are surpassed or just repurposed to show the record it once held? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already replaced the level 4 headers so far. I think we should reformat the box office section to include the general section and commercial analysis section and create it into an article, probably List of box office records set by The Avengers. A very good example of this can be found in Avatar (2009 film) and Titanic (1997 film). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If other records can be found (there are probably some already there in the prose) a list could be a way to go. My issue with the table at the minute is that is it in a section called records, yet it represents apparently only the North American market place when two thirds of its box office wasn't made there. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone could find the records it set outside the NA market, then we could put them into the section/subarticle. As it stands, that's already a highly impressive list of records just in the North American market... rdfox 76 (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It set a ton of international records. I could track down a few of them but the list will get really, really long. -Fandraltastic (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and tagged the claims in records section needing citations. The quicker we get these taken care of the quicker we can move ahead with the nomination.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I filled in two, still need the one for adjusted opening weekend. Also the refs still need to be moved and archived (especially these records since they are fleeting).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem to be moving forward, have you contacted spinc or spinc5, wahtever he is called? He loves box office stuff, maybe he can develop a separate article for those records because they are an eyesore over here. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It just occurred to me becuase of this edit that all the records should be listed in the past tense, because wether or not they have been surpassed, they did happen.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Name?
Mention why it called "Avengers" in the U.S but "Avengers Assemble" in the UK please.--79.69.104.119 (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * See The Avengers (2012 film).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that!--79.69.104.119 (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Spin off the accolades section
Given this article's massive size, it's sensible to start looking to see where we can trim it better or spin off subarticles. The Accolades section is ideal to spin off into its own list page (see something like List of awards and nominations received by David Bowie for an example of the form this can take), and I have tagged the section accordingly. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Retcon
We should mention the retcon http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/09/17/have-marvel-retconned-the-avengers-on-dvd-or-just-censored-it/ There is a theory that this digital edit has been made as an act of retcon, enabling Marvel to backtrack on Coulson’s death in future movies It’s also worth pointing out that this change to the UK DVD and Blu-ray has not changed the certificate of the film. It’s still carrying the little 12 badge--88.111.114.152 (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This should be mentioned I think!--88.111.127.125 (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree especially now that #coulsonlives trended on Twitter and that it has been confirmed that he is alive!--88.111.117.148 (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * See The Avengers (2012 film).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * All of these 88.111 IPs here and in the TalkWorld Review section have to be the same person. Keep editing the same talk pages to give the illusion of support. Please stop the Sockpuppetry, especially for such trivial edits. -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This "trivial" edit is now extremly relevant with the annoucmnet of the Shield TV show.--88.111.123.155 (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Then mention it at the TV show, it still isn't relevant here. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe it should be on both pages?--88.111.123.155 (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

As I stated above, this is already presented and explained in the article (its not a recon).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * At SXSW, Joss Whedon confirmed that Coulson survived the events in the Avengers. http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Joss-Whedon-Tells-SXSW-Crowd-How-He-Bring-Coulson-Back-From-Dead-53483.htmlRichiekim (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * For the purposes of this article, it really doesn't change anything. It could be useful at S.H.I.E.L.D. (TV series) though.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * So has it been mentioned?--79.69.96.179 (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

More images
I think more images should be added to the article to improve it's quality.88.111.114.48 (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * We do not add images for the sake of having them, please read WP:NFCC.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Incubator for Avengers: Age of Ultron
This is just a notice that an article for Avengers: Age of Ultron is being incubated at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Avengers: Age of Ultron until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Does the included information have to be conformed or can it be rumours?--88.111.127.125 (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Think of it as an article. Source it and write it like you would an article. It just can't be in the mainspace until there is a ton more coverage for it, or it starts filming. Whichever comes first. -Fandraltastic (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thx for the info!--88.111.127.125 (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Science Fantasy category
I noticed the category Science Fantasy was removed in this revision, but I believe the genre is appropriate for the movie. Most Avengers got their superpowers due to medical or scientific experiments gone wrong or pure genius science, which indicates pure science fiction. But the inclusion of the Thor universe, where characters have certain "magic" powers, "magical" items, makes the movie fall under subgenre Science Fantasy. I'm curious what your opinion is on this, as I didn't want to just go ahead and revert the revision. Marjoleinkl (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * While what you say might be true, it was not verified by a reliable source and therefore constitutes original research.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * How can you add a reference to a category template? Do you use an inline reference or would you add it some other way by mentioning it in the edit summary? I'll be checking for some sources when I have some time. Marjoleinkl (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In most cases the category is supported by verified claims made in the body of the article. 201.43.35.190 (talk) recently added a source as a hidden message.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information and the tip on adding a reference to a categorization :) Marjoleinkl (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The Marvel Cinematic Universe established Asgard's "magic" as science we simply didn't understand yet. I think any references you find will likely back that up. Not sure how About.com is regarded as a source, but just an example. http://physics.about.com/b/2011/05/15/thorscience.htm ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a nice read, regardless of how it is as source, thanks for the link! Marjoleinkl (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This actually addressed in the Development section; In January 2010, Marvel Studios chief Kevin Feige was asked if it would be difficult to meld the fantasy of Thor with the high-tech science fiction in Iron Man and The Avengers. "No," he said, "because we're doing the Jack Kirby/Stan Lee/Walt Simonson/J. Michael Straczynski Thor. We're not doing the blow-the-dust-off-of-the-old-Norse-book-in-your-library Thor. And in the Thor of the Marvel Universe, there's a race called the Asgardians. And we're linked through this Tree of Life that we're unaware of. It's real science, but we don't know about it yet. The 'Thor' movie is about teaching people that".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead sentence
I've removed the corporate branding from the titles in the lead sentence as unnecessary. There are already Marvel-related links later in the lead section. Please let me know if this is an issue. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No, those are the official, formal titles of the movies, and the exact wording took MONTHS of negotiations and consensus. See the article's talk archive. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the discussion from last June. I think it is worth revisiting the consensus because in this context, we should emulate WP:COMMONNAME in the lead section since we are already discussing several Marvel-related elements. From what I can tell, the previous discussion was inappropriately hung up on official titles. I'll contact previous participants and also post a notice on WT:FILM. This was a problem with Pacific Rim (film), too, and we should head off sanctioning this unnecessary corporate branding in encyclopedic articles. For those joining this thread, this was the version I edited. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 23:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd hate to go through this again but I somewhat agree with Erik. The main topic of the previous discussion was what is the film's actual title, not if we should even use the official title in the opening sentence. Also the phrase "also known as" is simpler than "classified under the title" while side stepping the whole title debate.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, the old debate seems to be reopening, unfortunately. But first things first: WP:COMMONNAME refers only to article titles. That's why if you scroll up to the top of the page this link takes you to, you'll see it's called "Wikipedia; Article title." And the article title here already is the common-name title The Avengers. The article body contains the full, formal encyclopedic title at first mention, similar to saying "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III" at first mention at the article Bill Clinton.


 * Secondly, "also known as" suggests the movie had more than one title in the UK. The British Board of Film Classification cannot retitle films. All they can do is classify them internally by some name or other. That's why we use the specific term "classified as" as the most neural, accurate and specific phrasing consensus reached after months of debate. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not a biographical article, though. A creative work is different from a person, so it is reasonable that a different approach could be taken. I would say that this film is more comparable to older Disney films, many of which start with "Walt Disney's", such as "Walt Disney's Dumbo" or "Walt Disney's Cinderella" on the posters, yet from what I can tell, we do not pursue that prefix in these articles' lead sentences. Perhaps not surprising considering the ownership here, but I do not think we need to cater to corporate branding on a neutral encyclopedia. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 00:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME covers both biographical and non-biographical articles. To quote from it: The following are examples of common names that Wikipedia uses as article titles instead of more elaborate, formal, or scientific alternatives:


 * Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton)
 * Caffeine (not: 1,3,7-Trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione)
 * Down syndrome (not: Trisomy 21)
 * Guinea pig (not: Cavia porcellus)
 * The Hague (not: 's-Gravenhage)
 * Lady Gaga (not: Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta)
 * Romeo and Juliet (not: The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet)
 * Seven Samurai (not: Shichinin no Samurai)
 * United Kingdom (not: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)

In terms of titles, one can cite, for example, Rod Serling's Lost Classics as the article title and Twilight Zone: Rod Serling's Lost Classics as the full, formal, encyclopedic title. Or Precious (film) as the article title and Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire as the full, formal, encyclopedic title. This isn't a matter of mere branding &mdash; it's a matter of the copyrighted and trademarked name, which is what an encyclopedia has to include at least once before referring to something by its more common appellation throughout. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * To clarify my stance, I prefer using just the common name in the lead as it is much simpler but if it is agreed apon to keep the official title then the current wording is the most neutral.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * My feeling would be: Where else would one put the actual title of the movie if not at first mention? We shouldn't bury it. Also, I don't see anyone calling National Lampoon's Vacation just Vacation.


 * One of the primary functions of an encyclopedia is to provide the official, formal, copyrighted, trademarked names of things, which popular culture does not necessarily do. We don't given the full, formal name at every mention, nor even necessarily in the title. But certainly at the first mention to establish the factual foundation. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support use of official name in lead paragraph. While I agree that it is aesthetically (and culturally) ugly to do so, there is no other policy-based alternative. Suggesting that using the full name is "cater[ing] to to corporate branding" is a personal value judgement which we don't have the flexibility to impose. The current version as of this writing is fully consistent with WP:COMMONNAME: the common name is the title of the article while the full name is given in the lead. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Tenebrae said that most reviews use Marvel's The Avengers, but I reviewed the set of reviews at Metacritic and found that the majority of them do not do that. This is in contrast to other films that may have a longer title with reviews mentioning the full title anyway. (The film Precious seems to fit this.) I think that the minority use of Marvel's by film critics demonstrates that it is not truly a full title, and because of that precedent and indication of not being a full title in independent sources, we should not feel obligated to write the whole thing. Considering that we have truncated "Walt Disney's" from the older Disney films, it should be a viable option here as well. There is no doubt that the film is related to Marvel, since we have numerous links to several Marvel items. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 02:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely indisputably 1,000% agree that the common name for this film does not include "Marvel's". However, that is relevant only for the title of the article. WP:COMMONNAME is very clear about this. We are not discussing the title of the article. There are nine examples in this very discussion showing how WP:COMMONNAME works across many article categories, not just movies. The common name is not always the official name. The reviewers are using the common name, not the official name. Reviewers do not get to decide what the official name is. We do not get to decide what the official name is. Nobody calls Bill Clinton by his official name, yet the article is titled that and yet his official name is given in the very first words of his article. I do not know what the facts are regarding the Disney movie titles, and I don't think they should be used as examples until it has been determined what their official names truly are (and the articles updated to reflect that). Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The most applicable example from that list is Romeo and Juliet, and that article (which is Featured) does not even use The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet in the lead sentence. Should we not apply that example here? As I mentioned, the majority of film reviews do not use Marvel's The Avengers even though they traditionally state the full title. I think that the approach here is too pedantic. There's a worse example with Pacific Rim (film); the so-called "official title" is Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures Pacific Rim, as evidenced by this. There is a world of difference between the common title and its extension of a subtitle, and the common title and the company laying a labelesque claim to it. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Would everyone mind if we continued the discussion at WT:FILM? I think we are making similar points and counterpoints in both places, and I did not realize that the WT:FILM discussion would take off. That would be the better place to determine a general precedent for such cases. That discussion is here. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Disney distribution
Which of these Disney companies distributed the film, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures or Walt Disney Pictures? And1987 (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The end credits of the film clearly state Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures.Richiekim (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

But the Paramount Pictures is also distributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.64.150.137 (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Their credit (which is not a distribution credit) was contractually mandated, due to the agreement reached between Disney and Paramount. RicJac (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Jarvis
There is an ongoing discussion at the Edwin Jarvis talk page regarding the way we refer to Tony Stark's computer system. Could I please ask for your views on the matter? Thanks. drewmunn talk 10:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)