Talk:Thor: Ragnarok/Archive 1

Official Logo
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1DdMSwCMAAWqWB.jpg:large
 * Images are not allowed outside the main space. Will add once it is moved to the main space. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Taika Waititi confirmed?
This Variety article about Mark Ruffalo seems to indicate that Taika Waititi will direct Thor: Ragnarok. - Richiekim (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Deadline's does as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait for confirmation from Marvel. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't need confirmation from Marvel if we have other reliable sources, and I would be happy to use the Variety and Deadline sources as confirmation of Waititi (but not Ruffalo, since they say he has not yet finalised a deal). - adamstom97 (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * True. But it's also always the situation of, are they actually confirmed, or are these sources just using the fact that they were in negotiations and nothing fell through to mean he's doing it? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * EW and THR also say Waititi is directing, with THR saying the film is in pre-production (which I actually don't think. It's a bit early given it starts filming next June.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I redact my bit above. It actually might be plausible that it's in pre. Eight/nine months out of filming, which also correlates with Doctor Strange (June 2014, against the original March 2015 filming start) and GotG 2 (June 2015, against February filming start). But then again, every film is a bit different based on when we get the info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Forbes article
Will this article by Forbes be useful? It also seems to confirm that Hulk has been cast, through its headline. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For the Hulk bit we would have to use the Joblo source since that is who Forbes' credits with the confirmation. Not sure how reliable they are but Forbes' seems to think so.-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 11:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For casting, don't believe it's changed in the one day since other sites said he was in negotiations. As for the commentary on the character's use, it may be useful, but I don't think here. Maybe at Hulk (comics) in other media. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Final in Thor trilogy?
Digital Spy says, "Thor: Ragnarok will be the final part in the Thor trilogy, picking up from Loki (Tom Hiddleston) taking on his adopted father Odin's (Anthony Hopkins) persona and claiming the throne." Worth adding? Kailash29792 (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is pretty obvious, since trilogy means three films, so no, it isn't worth adding. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Mark Ruffalo confirms Cate Blanchett?
According to Entertainment Tonight, Ruffalo seems to confirm that she will play the villain in Thor: Ragnarok. Richiekim (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * At first I was going to say it seems more like he was confirming talks, but with them quoting the co-star bit and his excitement for her to be a baddie bit, plus the Kimmel part where he asks confirmation or dodging and she says not dodging, I'm inclined to call this confirmation that she's in. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a confirmation. The ET source with Ruffalo is all about his excitement for her to potentially play a villain, and Ruffalo himself said he only went up to her asking to make it work, but didn't say yes or no either way. As for the Kimmel interview, she is totally dodging the question. She's making a joke out of the question, to avoid saying anything. So for now, I'd say talks are still happening, but no outright confirmation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Nick Fury?
This article from the Gold Coast Bulletin says that Samuel L. Jackson will appear in the film as Nick Fury, as well as confirming Cate Blanchett as Hela.Richiekim (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought this was really solid until this part: "His Skull Island casemates John C. Riley (Guardians of the Galaxy), Corey Hawkins (Iron Man 3) and British actor Toby Kebbell (Fantastic Four) have also enjoyed roles in Marvel movies that could bring them back to the Thor set." Hawkins had a very minor role in IM3, and Kebbell is not an MCU actor so he can't be brought back (at least in that role). But other than that (which could be overlooked?) I thought it was good info to include. Your thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am going to add that it's going to be at Village Roadshow Studios. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Strike that last bit. We already had that in the article. So yeah, I guess its a matter of the cast info than. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, are you aware of this publication and if it could be considered reliable? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems legit to me. @Favre, I wouldn't worry about that quote. The author is just trying to show other ties between Skull Island and the MCU. Could it bring them back to the Thor set? Anything is possible. Will they? Probably not.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. Just trying to cover all our bases! I'll add to the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I also think they were just stretching to make more connections with that bit. They are pretty definitive with the statement that Jackson is returning, and it's not like we have had rumours about that already that they could be following here. I'm sure if it's wrong we'll find out soon enough. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also thanks for totally fixing my major gaff of saying Blanchett was Hera and not Hela. I was wondering why the Olympians were being brought in and didn't think Hera seemed super villainous... haha. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha that's alright, I figured you had just misread it or something. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hiddleston unsure if he's returning
If we can mention that Jaimie Alexander is unsure whether she'll return for this film (we have no idea if she has a contract with Marvel or not), I guess we can do the same with Hiddleston (as told to MTV). Kailash29792 (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That was back in September, when he hadn't heard from Marvel for a while. This is Alexander telling us now that not only is the script being rewritten, but that she may have a scheduling issue to deal with. That is why Alexander's comments are included, and why I don't think Hiddleston's should be. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Here he says it will be his last time.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ...and then he says that he doesn't actually know. I think it is safe to say that Hiddleston will be in this one, per Feige's comments, and that if he is in more, he just doesn't know yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * He says "I don't know", when asked about Avengers: Infinity War but in any case Feige's confirmation should be enough.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Alexander not returning
As per THR, she will not appear due to scheduling conflicts with Blindspot. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll add it in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, standby on this. Alexander tweeted this. Seems she will be involved in some way at least. Maybe right at the top of this filming at the end of June/early July since Blindspot won't resume filming until mid-ish July. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Any reason to mention this?
Is there any reason at all to mention how Goldblum teased in mid-April that he was joining a superhero universe? He obviously doesn't mention Marvel or DC at the time, but we now know it was this film. I'm leaning a bit more towards no on including, but just wanted to make sure others thought the same. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would lean towards yes, in the development section, since we know he is in this now. But I'm not too worried. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Move to mainspace checklist
Hi all! It's that time again. This is the shortest time span, I believe, between two MCU films actually starting production. We've seemed to have gotten a break from all the casting announcements for Spider-Man: Homecoming but Marvel has still yet to "officially" give a start of filming release. Hopefully they aren't waiting until SDCC! Anyways, this film will be starting production on July 4 in Australia, which means for all you fellow American editors, due to the time difference, this article can enter the mainspace around 6 pm EST on July 3. And then we can all look forward to whatever Marvel will be announcing at SDCC!


 * 1) Move to the mainspace! This can happen in two ways: contact an admin to perform the move (which requires the deletion of [the article] in the mainspace). User:Czar has been helpful in the past to moving the drafts, and I will most likely contact them again. OR place  at Thor: Ragnarok. DO NOT CUT AND PASTE! ✅
 * 2) If the moving admin does not do this, be sure to remove Draft article and unhide the categories. ✅
 * 3) Change the template at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films section and Thor (film) and Thor: The Dark World from further to main and update the table at the list of films page. ✅
 * 4) Replace the whole Thor: The Dark World section with the content at Thor (film) (refs will already be formatted and named the same to make it a simple copy and paste job). ✅
 * 5) Upload the Phase Three film logo (which you can grab from here) to File:Thor: Ragnarok logo. ✅
 * Since production is hours away from beginning, I've already uploaded it as this. The file may have to be renamed, though. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be an okay name . - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Fix redirects here to the new mainspace article. ✅
 * 2) Add the article link to all the nav boxes used in the article. ✅
 * 3) Since Marvel has already provided us with a press release for casting, be on the look out for one "officially" indicating filming starting.

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, this draft is ready to move to the mainspace. Thank you!! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✓ done czar  21:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Eric Pearson a screenwriter?
Taika Waititi tweeted this picture that shows a chair on set for Eric Pearson (writer of some of the One-Shots) with the title "Writer" underneath. I know on sets the screenwriters generally watch the filming. Is this something we can use to state that Pearson is a writer on the project? When I saw the image I first, I didn't feel it meant that, but thinking now, I don't know what else "Writer" could mean in this sense. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * He could just be doing a bit of uncredited on-the-fly production writing, since he does work for Marvel (he also worked on some of the tie-in comics) and is no longer being kept busy by the Agent Carter writers room (RIP). I think we'd need more precise information on his role than just "Writer" before adding him. I do think we could use this as a source for Dan Hennah as production designer though. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah you better articulated how I felt when I first saw it, the fact that he could be doing uncredited work as a production writer, much like Gabriel Ferrari and Andrew Barrer were on Ant-Man. And agree about the production designer. Will add the content in now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Comic Con
https://mobile.twitter.com/AgentM


 * Details about where Thor was during Civil War. Rusted AutoParts 01:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

[Spoiler] to appear?
So set photos have indicated that Thor and Loki may be visiting this Marvel Universe location. Should this be mentioned here yet? Or would it be more appropriate at this time, if at all, to put on the List of films page for our "third paragraph" content, where we cover the things that are connective tissue that appear in each film? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is still possible (though unlikely, I think) that this is a minor easter egg—they are there for something else, but give a nod to it—which could be cut out, so i would say wait until later for all pages. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Darryl Jacobson may appear in Ragnarok
Director Takia has hinted at the possibly of Darryl appearing in Ragnarok. Npamusic (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Sam Neill
In this interview, Sam Neill seems to confirm that he's in the film (Skip to the 3:00 mark). Richiekim (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for other input, but I find it usable. It's not said in a joking tone. We'll obviously need a better cite than YouTube, though. Rusted AutoParts 14:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Would the source be usable if the channel had the "verified" sign? Because I think it is the official YouTube channel of ShortList, but has yet to be assessed by the site's admins. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's the print text from ShortList. Seems legitimate/reliable to me. Will add. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Warriors Three Appearing?
So this source shows the actors (two, anyway) have been in Australia with Ray Stevenson quote being "Look who just stopped by our Gold Coast studio, to get some ink in between filming THOR! It's Ray Stevenson! Awesome work on the tatt Dai!" Thoughts? Npamusic (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Favre1fan93 says that them simply being on set does not confirm that they are part of the film. Perhaps they were simply visiting? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would they go for a 20+ hour plane ride for a set visit. That doesn't make sense tbh. Npamusic (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to make sense, it needs to be sourced from reliable sources. Asano's only says he's in Australia, with absolutely nothing to do with Thor. And Stevenson's "confirmation" is from a tattoo parlor, which is not a verified Instagram account. Additionally, the whole thing comes from Comic Book Movie, which is unreliable, so WP:FRUIT. WP:NORUSH as always. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter if the sources said they're not in the movie, if they went to AU, then they're probably confirmed and probably Fandral too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgyptianGamer (talk • contribs) 07:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, if they are confirmed for the movie then we can say. Them going to Australia is not them being confirmed for the movie. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. that is the very definition of WP:OR. Since you seem to have trouble understanding when it is or isn't correct to add cast members to these articles, I highly suggest you read WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS and WP:V. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh shit, I was in Halifax, Nova Scotia when they were filming Amelia there. Can I add myself to its cast list? Since I was there I'm probably confirmed as being in it. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 3:02 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We'll just gonna have to wait till Marvel announces them being in the film. - EgyptianGamer —Preceding undated comment added 11:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you trolling or something? That should've been obvious when you first started this discussion. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:05 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Interview with the cinematographer
Here's an interview with the cinematographer, but it is in Spanish. I could use Google Translate, but that can be hit or miss at times. If anyone watching this article speaks Spanish to translate and add to the article, that'd be great! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I do, but he speaks mainly about his personal experience and what he felt during production. Still interested? Facu-el Millo (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Does he say anything of note that we could add to the filming section, even if it is brief? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the only paragraph dedicated exclusively to Ragnarok:

"—How has it been to enter the world of Marvel and blockbusters through Thor: Ragnarok? —A totally different experience to what I've done so far. The experience can be qualified as a weird combination of satisfaction and frustration. As a cinematographer your dream of doing a personalized job and this is not the case, quite the opposite. You disappear. Your function is to achieve a technically impecable image, to the service of the director and a key figure of production, which is the visual effects supervisor. The film isn't finished until much later. You don't get to see it. Anyway I'm very happy to have been able to respond to such incredible technical requirement. But, in the other hand, I'm also a little frustrated because you really don't know very well where you are inside the movie. It's complicated in films with a budget over two hundred million dollars where there's so much at stake. But it has been an incredible experience. You get dizzy just by watching the cast: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Mark Ruffalo, Cate Blanchett, Idris Elba, Anthony Hopkins, Jeff Goldblum... I'm so excited to see how my work turned out! Post-production is very complicated, it lasts many months. I hope it gets released after next summer.""

The article also says that he's been immersed in the project for six months, with nine weeks of pre-production and seventeen of filming, with him saying he has "all the means at my disposal that you can imagine. It's a big blockbuster, I never thought I could be immersed in a project of such magnitude." Let it be clear that this is not a definitive translation, just tell me which part you think is important and I'll translate it better. Facu-el Millo (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The first part of the quote up until "Anyway I'm very happy..." could be used. It's definitely an insight into what he was feeling working on the project. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the "definitive" translation:

"A totally different experience to what I had done so far. The experience can be described as a rare combination of satisfaction and frustration. As a cinematographer you dream of doing a personalized job and this is not the case, quite the opposite. You disappear. Your function is to achieve a technically flawless image, to the service of the director and a key character of production, which is the visual effects supervisor. The film isn't finished until much later. You don't get to see it."


 * Facu-el Millo (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll add this in to the article. Appreciate the help. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I added it in here, plus a few more bits outside what I said would be good. If you can make sure what I added is correct (mainly the last sentence with the partial quotes), that would also be amazing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Facu-el Millo, this doesn't seem particularly useful. He doesn't offer any specifics just a vague generalization about his experience.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Lou Ferrigno
Ferrigno is included in this source as part of the cast. I'm figuring it's just him doing Hulk voice over again. But should we add him onto Ruffalo's section or as being in an "undisclosed role"? Rusted AutoParts 05:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Are there any other sources for this? It seems odd that they've dropped this in but no one else has said anything about it. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not too odd for sites like Deadline, Hollywood Reporter and Variety to do that. Typically they're the three major casting news websites. Seeing as his voice work will likely go uncredited like his other contributions to the Avengers and Age of Ultron, I doubt that he'd warrant a full webpage confirmation. If this was a site like Screen Rant or Comic Book Movie I wouldn't be bringing this up. But since it's Deadline I think it's a substantial and strong enough source to use as Ferrigno's confirmation. Rusted AutoParts 06:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No other sources have stated this, and in Age of Ultron, the voice was solely Ruffalo, if I recall, so I feel this could potentially be a time where Deadline is assuming he will return. I think we should hold off until we get something a little more clear. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, since they didn't say who he is playing (even though we can make a good guess) I think it won't hurt to hold off on it for a bit. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Sif
Sif has been confirmed for Ragnarok already, by Alexander herself. Why isn't she included on the article's cast list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.193.142 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Please provide a reliable source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 129.1.193.142, are you not up to date with the facts? Scheduling conflicts with Alexander's TV series Blindspot meant that she could not appear in this film, at least as of now. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  03:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also "Don't worry ;) ...." is very non-conclusive, as we note in the pre-production section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and she hasn't appeared on any cast lists since that was tweeted.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, if she's even in the film at all anymore, she'll probably be filmed and added during reshoots, because those are probably going to land during Blindspot's hiatus this year. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * According to an interview she did with MTV, she is definitely returning. http://www.mtv.com/news/2210966/jamie-alexander-thor-ragnarok-lady-sif/ In contrast, the guy who tweeted about her not coming back due to Blindspot was using secondhand sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.71.136 (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That interview was over a year and half ago and she hasn't appeared on any of Marvel's cast lists in that time.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

We Should Add This To The Marketing Section
Howdy! Just thought we should add this news piece confirming the first Thor: Ragnarok trailer as the most-viewed Disney or Marvel trailer ever to the marketing section. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/thor-ragnarok-trailer-is-marvel-disneys-watched-ever-24-hours-992978 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdinthebasement95 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Zene Baker is the film editor
I found the film editor Zene Baker's Twitter account and he's been retweeting alot of Taika Waititi's tweets about the film. Obviously that's not much to go on bu there is this tweet. Is that enough to add him in? Rusted AutoParts 18:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems a little WP:SYNTHy in my eyes. Also, his Twitter account is not verified, so we wouldn't be able to use it anyways. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

"was set to score"
Regarding this edit, can you provide a source that says it does not imply this? I'm a native English speaker, received eighteen years of education in an English-speaking country, have been working variously as a translator/proof-reader and English teacher since 2011, and this wording clearly reads that way to me. Seeing that you reverted me, I checked a few idiom dictionaries online to make sure I wasn't going crazy, and they all seem to agree that be set to do something means "likely to do something", but if we were that uncertain about it we wouldn't be including it per WP:CRYSTAL.

While I haven't been able (it's past my bed time, and I'm kinda sleepy) to locate any sources specifically stating that, when used in the past tense, it implies that the following verb wound up not coming to pass, surely you agree that "By August 2016, he was likely to compose the score" sounds weird, no? To me at least it sounds weird because it implies he didn't compose the score, and because, if it had been a rumour that was disproven, we would only be reporting it if we had something more to say, but we don't.

Do you have any particular problem with the wording I changed it to? I mean, other than your assumption that everything on Wikipedia is reported, which is false (e.g., some of our articles, such as Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, should consist primarily of scholarly speculation, not what was reported in the mass media). If there is some specific way in which my wording was worse than the wording you restored, then we can have a discussion as to how to better address both issues, but I'm not seeing your point.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * While this did address my concerns, it's inappropriate use an edit summary to summarize what someone else said on the talk page, and the summary was pretty poor ("could" should be "should", and "because the previous wording is misleading" would have been better). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh, that's not really appropriate. But as for the wording "was set to score", that was used because we are discussing the announcement of his involvement, not his involvement itself, and the announcement is a past event. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Then why not say "announced to score"? "set to" means "likely to". While looking for some way in which Triiiplethreat's reading could make sense, I did come across "set to work composing the score", but that requires "work", again differs slightly in meaning, and is somewhat low-register. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah the edit summary was fine as it was expect for the repeated word. I wasn't summarizing what you wrote. As I said I didn't read it. Just stating the obvious that there are far simpler solutions then getting bogged down in whatever you are trying to discuss here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In future, please think twice before reverting me (or anyone else, for that matter). I clearly had already thought a lot more about my edit than you did before reverting it, and have now wasted yet more time trying to convince you to think about it. My solution worked fine (you ignored my request to explain what you thought was wrong with it), and your alternative solution works fine. If all you want is for your alternative solutions to problems, which others noticed and had already tried to fix themselves, to be the version included in the final article, that's ... well, it's not a good thing, but it's also not a discussion for the article talk page. I think we're done here. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや )

Poster
My edits to the poster keep being undone. In it's previous form, the bar to the side displays the teaser poster that when clicked on, links to the theatrical poster. The purpose of my edits were to fix this problem and have the theatrical poster displayed on the main page instead. These however are being deemed 'unnecessary'. Why is this?
 * I just updated the page before I saw this. According to the documentation, only the file name should be specified. If this is still an issue for you, I suggest taking the discussion to the template talk page. - DinoSlider (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Whoever this unsigned user is, they may need to purge the article to see the correct poster. The coding is correct and does not need to be adjusted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Jaimie Alexander
Waiting for the episode/source to come online, but I saw an advertisement for Talking with Chris Hardwick and he has Alexander on this episode and the advert noted her as Thor: Ragnaroks Jaimie Alexander. Not sure if that will work as confirmation but I'll be keeping an eye. Rusted AutoParts 19:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is still unlikely she will be a part of the film. The only time she could have had to shoot for Thor 3 was the time period between Blindspots second season finishing broadcast, and third season beginning production. But season 3 has already begun production as of July 2017, and there's been no news of her being on the sets of Thor 3. -- Kailash29792'   (talk)  07:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I also saw the teaser, but I think that's pretty thin to go on, unless Alexander actually talks about being the the film. It's very possible they screwed up with that teaser. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyone happen to catch the episode? <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 19:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just checked, so far she was introduced as "a bonafide denizen of Asgard in the Marvel Studios blockbuster Thor and Thor: The Dark World".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay just finished skimming through the episode and didn't hear any mention of Ragnarok. Let me know if I missed anything.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The YouTube video (just uploaded yesterday) still states Thor: Ragnarok in the description though.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I watched it on Sunday and Ragnarok was never mentioned. - DinoSlider (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If it isn't clearly stated in the video then I think we should wait for a better source. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Press kit
The Press kit of the movie is already available, with full cast, crew and production notes. --Escudero (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Writer credits are given as "ERIC PEARSON and CRAIG KYLE & CHRISTOPHER L. YOST". Other than that I can't see anything new that we should include at a quick glance. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that's worth to mention the return of Tadanobu Asano, Ray Stevenson and Zachary Levi as Hogun, Volstagg and Fandral. --Escudero (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also Charlotte Nicado as "Actor Sif"? Whats up with that?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That is underneath some characters who are not even named but just merely numbered, so I don't imagine it being something significant. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Actor Sif" makes perfect sense based on a scene I heard about. I won't say here in case people are spoiler sensitive. - DinoSlider (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur with Dino about "Actor Sif" and why that may make sense. Also of note, at the Blindspot NYCC panel this weekend, someone asked Alexander if they would be able to see her in Ragnarok, and she said she couldn't say, still. Take that as you will. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

AMC Theatres has confirmed to me the runtime for Thor: Ragnarok
AMC Theatres has confirmed to me that Disney has told them that Thor: Ragnarok is 2 hours and 10 minutes (130 minutes) long: https://mobile.twitter.com/Warmustbeend123/status/900475114004897793. Please read my whole chat with them to get the proof and make sure you add the runtime to the film's wiki page. Please. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.120.51 (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Runtime should not be added from theater chains/ticketing sites, as they many times, all have some variation within a couple minutes of one another. Wait for the classification source from BBFC to be available. We are in no rush. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But, they said Disney told them it was that running time. That alone should be proof to put the running time on the wiki page. Even Fandango has it listed like that, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.120.51 (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. We still wait for classification sites per the reason I stated above. Regardless, Waititi debunked it anyways. So again, WP:NORUSH. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Taika's tweet came from before I asked AMC Theatres about Thor: Ragnarok's runtime 30 minutes later, so it's likely he was joking around, like he does sometimes. He also previously implied he was joking about that 100 minute runtime back at Comic-Con, because he told MTV (http://www.mtv.com/news/3026924/thor-ragnarok-taika-waititi-80-percent-improvised/) he had three different cuts of Ragnarok: a 100-minute cut, a 2 hour cut and a 2.5 hour cut. So, since this tweet from AMC came 30 minutes after Taika's tweet, he was probably joking around with his tweet. So, yeah, Thor: Ragnarok is 130 minutes long regardless of what u think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.120.51 (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't about right or wrong. Theaters notoriously vary in accuracy for runtimes. The studio probably did give them an approximate runtime so they can plan out screening times; however, the film is three months away, so the final cut may not be locked down yet. It is better to wait for the film to be submitted and classified. - DinoSlider (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Other theaters have also given the 130 minute time, with one already accepting bookings at that listed time. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We should still wait, because Marvel has previously attached additional scenes/material after their premieres, which adds to the runtime. We don't have any indication this will not happen again. That's why we should still wait for it to classified by the BBFC to add the time. And if it happens to be 130 mins, then great, we did not harm in waiting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Alexander out
Now that it has been made official that she is not part of the film, can we remove the "Don't worry" tweet made by her from here? I think it was just a joke with hardly any encyclopedia-worthy information. Besides, the THR article which first mentioned she could not appear in Ragnarok due to Blindspot has been proven right, even if Feige does not explicitly state why she is absent. So can someone please update the article accordingly? -- Kailash29792   (talk)  11:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it is worth mentioning as it added to the confusion surrounding her casting but I did copy edit the section to reflect this and make it more concise.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The tweet doesn't say she'll be in it, but rather about her character. Even still she could be in an after credits scene, as Marvel movies have added new scenes after the early movie viewings. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Writing credits
Per this IP's edit, I found the newly released poster for IMAX has the following, different writing credits on it: "Written by: Eric Pearson and Craig Kyle & Christopher L. Yost". If a third-party source does not pick up on this, should we make the change ourself, even though it is different than what is on the poster currently? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like this change has already taken place but it was confirmed in the press kit. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Why is it wrong to credit Stephany Folsom in the infobox? Because some dumb WGA rules says so and this encyclopedia has to abide to its rules? The news that she was hired to partially have written T3 is right there in the section "Development" and her appeal against the regulations in post-production. Go to and click on Next Year Preview where Folsom is still credited. Why is nobody deleting David Leitch (director) as uncredited second director in John Wick if some of you are so persistent in following the rules of the WGA/DGA (WP is not their puppet)? --H8149 (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson
Scar-Lo makes an appearance in the movie through a recording which was made during Age of Ultron. Thor activates it to calm the Hulk down. The camera zooms right in on her for a few seconds. I think it’s worth mentioning her in the Cast section. Smithy Chris (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Someone added her. Nice one! Smithy Chris (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Summary
Although it is excessively detailed, it is missing one critical detail. I heard somewhere that Surtur destroys himself and Hela along with Asgard, or something like that. 68.150.5.99 (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Surtur said at the beginning of the film that he couldn't die until he had fulfilled the prophecy (which fact is not in the summary), but at the end he wasn't explicitly shown to have either survived or been extinguished. Pastychomper (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Valkyrie
Valkyrie does not become Valkyrie until halfway through the film. She is originally known as Scrapper 142, but only becomes Valkyrie once she agrees to help Thor. We also have to further disambiguate&mdash;the name Valkyrie refers to both a character and an organisation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; whoops, meant to tag you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * She does not, at any point, "adopt the name Valkyrie." If you really want the synopsis to refer to her as "Scrapper 142" for the length of time that she's using that as her title instead of just calling her Valkyrie for means of simplifying the write-up, fine - I mean, I don't agree, her temporary abandonment of the Valkyrie name is a trivial point that doesn't warrant specific callout in the synopsis, but fine - but she doesn't "adopt the name Valkyrie" when she decides to go back with Thor. She does not "become Valkyrie." Further, you yourself have just said in an edit summary that we can't call her an "ex-Valkyrie," - which means you're saying she's always a Valkryie and there should be no problem with calling her Valkyrie throughout the summary, rendering her temporary alias unremarkable. - Chris McFeely (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Except that you're using "Valkyrie" as a title and a name at the same time. I also said that we cannot refer to her as "the" ex-Valkyrie as if that were her name because Tessa Thompson is credited as Valkyrie. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it is both those things. She doesn't even HAVE a proper name in the film, just the title/rank of Valkyre, and the alias of "Scrapper 142." Your contention, by your phrasing, is that she is "not" Valkyrie while she is Scrapper 142, but now you're saying she can't be an ex-Valkyrie? Which is it? She either is one or she isn't. - Chris McFeely (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

She is an ex-Valkyrie, but we can't refer to her that way in lieu of a name. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

"Two years"
We cannot say that the film takes place two years after AOU. The film clearly establishes that time flows differently on Sakaar. Even if it is two years from Thor's perspective, that does not mean two years have passed in the wider MCU. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thor literally says that the events of Age of Ultron were two years ago. There's no reason to think the different timeflow on Sakaar relates to what he's saying - he doesn't have any idea how long the Hulk's even been there. It's just inventing reasons to disprove something there's no reason to try and disprove. The film was released two years after Age of Ultron, and Thor says Age of Ultron was two years ago in the film. This isn't some puzzle or some kind of tricky conspiracy double-speak for you to unravel. - Chris McFeely (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * ''"There's no reason to think the different timeflow on Sakaar relates to what he's saying"
 * Except that he and Loki are thrown off the Bifrost Bridge moments apart, but Thor arrives on Sakaar weeks later than Loki. You are correct in saying that it is down to Thor's perception of time, but that perception has been skewed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But it hasn't. He knows how long ago it was to him, and it was two years, because two years have passed for him before winding up on Sakaar. Thor doesn't pereive those extra weeks as happening - that's not how time dilation works. From his perspective it's instantaneous. He says it was two years ago because it was two years ago. This is not a puzzle. - Chris McFeely (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware that time dilation works that way. The problem is that he experiences time differently to others, so we have no idea how much time has passed in the MCU. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * When Thor contacts Heimdall and gets advice on how to leave Sakaar, both the audience and Thor himself are shown Asgardians in hiding from Hela's troops. Thus the passage of time on Asgard matched Thor's perception, unless Hela's takeover had met some serious delays, so "two years" for the MCU is accurate.  What we can't be so sure about is how long the Hulk had been the Hulk from his own point of view. Pastychomper (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that Heimdall has been marshalling the refugees for some time. Loki declared him a traitor because of his supposed connections to the resistance. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The passage of time during the film doesn't really matter; Thor says it has been two years since Age of Ultron, meaning that when the film begins Thor has been searching for Infinity Stones for two years. How time unfolds after that is irrelevant, since we are only stating how long it has been at the start of the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Spelling convention
There seems to be a minor edit war going on over the spelling of "recogni(s|z)es". As Thor:Ragnarok was produced by a US-based company, I vote we stick to US spellings for this article, which I believe would make it "recognizes". Pastychomper (talk) 08:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say US spellings sounds best. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's how it works. If the television show is part of the US, then we should be using US spelling, date formats, etc. It's a simple concept, so the edit war is really more one-sided and the only one who should face potential consequences is the one who's changing the spelling to the British spelling (S). Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 14:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2017
IN THE 4TH PARAGRAPH OF THE PLOT, PLEASE REMOVE LINK TO VALKYRIE TO THE LINK TO VALKYRIOR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valkyrior

CHANGE SENTENCE FROM: Thor recognizes 142 as one of the Valkyrie, a legendary force of female fighters who were killed defending Asgard from Hela long ago.

TO: Thor recognizes 142 as one of the Valkyrior, a legendary force of female fighters who were killed defending Asgard from Hela long ago. LynnSATX (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Umlauts?
Why does this article spell it "Ragnarök" everywhere except where it's quoting the title of the film? "Ragnarök" is a sometimes-controversial variant spelling, and it seems we are only spelling it this way to conform to the current title of the Wikipedia article, but if we applied the same standard to names from Norse mythology whose Marvel Comics equivalents do have their own standalone articles (regardless of whether they meet GNG or not) we would get Hel, Fenrir and so on. The film itself, as well as all its promotional materials, clearly spells it "Ragnarok", and I can't figure out why we do otherwise. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 19:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The film title is Ragnarok, but whoever began the plot summary obviously decided to use "Ragnarök" when referring to the actual event. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Post-credits scene
The final sentence of our plot summary is misleading. Saying he "confronts" them and "declares" it a tie gives the impression that he was still in a position of strength, but the film itself presents him as cornered and trying to beg for his life. Given that Goldblum is a name actor who probably won't show up for cameos, it seems pretty likely the character will never reappear unless there is something interesting to do with him and Marvel see it as worth hanging a significant portion of a future film's plot on him, so the assumption that he is dead seems a lot safer than the assumption that he isn't. And given that it's a nonsense gag scene, I really don't think we need to include it in the plot summary to begin with. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 19:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is included because it refers back to previously established events; if we wrote "the Grandmaster confronts his subjects and says funny things" then I might agree. And it is not misleading to say that he "confronts" them, because that is what happens. Analysing the mindsets of the characters or the probabilities of certain people returning in other films or anything like that is inappropriate and silly. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "confronts" implies agency. We wouldn't say Saddam Hussein "confronted" the US forces who arrested him. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And given that you restored text that had us being suckered in to repeat clearly marketing-motivated speculation that the character would be back in future films, it seems highly inappropriate for you to be calling me "inappropriate and silly" when you are the one doing that speculation in the article. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If Saddam Hussein walked out of his house as the US forces approached, then we would indeed say that he confronted them. The same happened here—the Grandmaster walks/crawls out of his ship to deal with the people outside, it's not like they busted in on him weapons first, or dragged him out. And I still think you are acting quite silly. The producer of the film expressed interest in seeing this character and his brother together in the future, so why shouldn't we say that? - adamstom97 (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "walks/crawls out of his ship to deal with the people outside"? Really? He looked surprised to see them. You are engaging in some serious speculation about what the character's unexpressed feelings and matter and his intentions are, and that kind of speculation should not be in the article unless it is attributed to third-party reliable source.
 * Anyway, we shouldn't include the bit about Collector/Grandmaster because it's 100% clear Feige is just trying to fuel the hype machine in order to keep the free advertising chain going and sell more tickets. And also possibly to get people to travel to California to go on the Guardians ride: If you go on the Guardians of the Galaxy: Mission Breakout attraction at California Adventure in Anaheim is difficult to read as anything but advertising. It's just like how he and those around him actively misled people about the identity of Ben Kingsley's character in Iron Man 3, and we on Wikipedia were the chumps who wrote our article in accordance with the adveculation.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As is not unusual, I need to warn you about your personal feelings clouding your better judgement Hijiri. You may have a problem with certain decisions made regarding the promotion of this film or any other, but I am afraid that this is not the place to address those concerns. Does Feige say they are brothers? Yes. Does he express interest in seeing them together at some point? Yes. Are those pieces of information that we would usually add to an article? Yes. Did he just say them to promote the movie? It's likely, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't include it. Almost all of the information in the article is from promotion of the movie. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not my personal feelings, though. It's yours. You are trying to insert original interpretation into the article, and I am trying to take it out. Whether I am right or wrong in my interpretation is irrelevant, because I'm not the one arguing to keep it in. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Beta Ray Bill?
I'm not sure; are comicbookmovie and screenrant reliable sources for this? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ComicBookMovie is not a reliable source as it user generated content, but what does this article have to do with the Beta Ray Bill article? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

"142"
C'mon. Referring to Valkyrie as "142" for the entirety of the plot summary is stupidly pedantic. She's Valkyrie. She is based on the character Valkyrie. She is credited as Valkyrie in the credits, on IMDB, and in all promotional material. I know this, and you know this. It makes sense to introduce her as "Scrapper 142", but the third sentence of the third paragraph should read "Thor recognizes 142 as Valkyrie of the Valkyrior..." and refer to her as such from that point on. Morgan695 (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Apart from the credits, the film does not indicate whatsoever that she is called Valkyrie. Saying "Thor recognizes 142 as Valkyrie" would be a lie, because he does nothing of the sort. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, unless I saw a print of the film that had the word "Valkyrior" completely edited out, the same is true of Thor recognizes 142 as one of the Valkyrior. The film I saw had Thor recognizing her as "one of the Valkyrie". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Either way, the character is Valkyrie. The fact that Thor doesn't recognize her or name her as such doesn't change that. Morgan695 (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The film makes clear that she is a Valkyrie, but in no way establishes her name. - DinoSlider (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead grammar
Apparently this is a touchy subject for some, who prefer that we keep every MCU film article in exactly the same format. Just because a grammar improvement wasn't suggested years ago in the first MCU articles, doesn't mean we can't correct and improve upon it now. Also keep in mind that the desire to keep these consistent across articles is not supported by any policy or guideline, as long as we're following the general recommendations laid out at MOS:FILM. Now that we have the disclaimer out of the way, hopefully we can approach this with some objectivity.
 * Original: "It is the sequel to 2011's Thor and 2013's Thor: The Dark World and the seventeenth film of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)"
 * Proposal: "It is the sequel to both 2011's Thor and 2013's Thor: The Dark World, and is the seventeenth film of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)"
 * The problem with the current text is simple. The use of and three consecutive times without commas implies that "It is the sequel to" has three targets: "2011's Thor", "2013's Thor: The Dark World", and "the seventeenth film of the Marvel Cinematic Universe". The proposed change makes it clear that only the first two are the intended targets.


 * Original: "Waititi joined the film as director a year later—after The Dark World director Alan Taylor chose not to return—and Ruffalo joined the cast in his role of Hulk from other MCU films, leading to elements of the 2006 comic storyline "Planet Hulk" being adapted for Ragnarok."
 * Proposal: "Waititi joined the film as director a year later, after The Dark World director Alan Taylor chose not to return. Ruffalo joined the cast reprising the role of Hulk from previous MCU films. With the Hulk's inclusion, elements from the 2006 comic storyline "Planet Hulk" were adapted for Ragnarok.
 * Why are we cramming so much into one sentence? It's less awkward and flows better by breaking it up. The proposal is just one way to do it and doesn't have to be accepted in its exact form. Also, "in his role of Hulk from other MCU films" doesn't have the same ring as "reprising the role of Hulk from previous MCU films".

Pinging and  to see why these changes require talk page approval. I'm glad to see the addition of a comma wasn't reverted. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it is just better to sit down and explain our intentions before proceeding, if there is contentious editing happening. Looking at your two proposals, I would probably be fine with the second one. For the first, it looks to me that someone has just forgotten a comma after "World", no "both" required. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, we shouldn't have knee-jerk reactions that result in wholesale reverts, as this and this were good opportunities to sit down and discuss. While it's reasonable not to agree with every change, reverting a proposal in its entirety can cause tempers to flare, especially when some of the proposed changes were minor (including a few punctuation fixes).So we agree on the 2nd proposal above. As for the 1st, I can compromise by excluding "both". However, a comma isn't the only thing needed here; we should be adding "is" as well after the final "and" to form, "...2013's Thor: The Dark World, and is the seventeenth film..." Waiting to hear from Brojam who decided to join the fray. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I feel as Adam said, for the first sentence we are questioning, a comma just needs to be added after World and that will be fine. For the second, can I propose a second option: Waititi joined the film as director a year later, after The Dark World director Alan Taylor chose not to return. Ruffalo joined the cast reprising the role of Hulk from previous MCU films, which allowed elements from the 2006 comic storyline "Planet Hulk" to be adapted for Ragnarok. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I can get on board with that. However, the first sentence needs more than just a comma. See my reply above, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll give the lead a c/e to try and solve these issues. Let me know if there is still an issue. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as we're clear this doesn't set a precedent or expectation that any time someone wants to edit the article, they need to bring it up here first so you can approve and make the change. I brought it up here per WP:BRD, but I would generally expect to also make the change myself once the dispute is resolved. Feel free to do so this time around. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Charlotte Nicdao and Gabby Carbon
This topic is mainly intended for adamstom97, although other editors can have a say.

I had added Brisbane actresses Charlotte Nicdao and Gabby Carbon to the cast list for their respective roles as the Asgardian actors playing Sif and Jane Foster in the Dark World play sequence alongside Sam Neill, Luke Hemsworth and Matt Damon - these credits were deleted for not being "noteworthy" enough. I would be more likely to concede if these parts amounted to walk-ons or featured speakers, but both received an onscreen credit for their performances, and both play representations of well-established characters in the Marvel Universe. Even if they don't have as much onscreen presence as the Big Three, I believe that it is reasonable to give them credit in the article given the roles of their characters in the previous film(s). PatTheMoron (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me how they are notable enough to be mentioned other than playing actors playing notable characters from another film? They are barely shown onscreen, and don't appear to be significant people in real life. The other three are all notable regardless of who they are playing, were clearly focused on in the scene, and have been discussed by reliable sources who found their inclusion to be notable. That is why only those three are listed. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

four or six previous Thor outings?
Why are we dead set on putting four times here when Hemsworth himself says it been six times? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q-baxvsAZY) SassyCollins (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The reference used with the sentence clearly says that he has played Thor five times, including this film. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, should the reference be changed then? Please see interview in link. SassyCollins (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the current reference? It is correct in that he has played Thor five times (Thor, The Avengers, The Dark World, Age of Ultron, and Ragnarok). - adamstom97 (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The current reference is not taking into account a) Civil War and Doctor Strange, and b) Hemsworth's own words that it's been seven times now. SassyCollins (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "...after portraying Thor four times previously." is simply incorrect. SassyCollins (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thor was not in Civil War (don't know how you thought that) and the Doctor Strange appearance was footage from this film, so that and Ragnarok count as one, even if we notate it differently. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Albeit not IN Civil War, he (and Ruffalo) were certainly in character for Team Thor. I'll leave well enough alone, but Hemsworth's own words (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q-baxvsAZY) seem not to matter at all. SassyCollins (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What I mean to say is: in keeping with the jist of the whole point - sick and tired of the character as it stood - why would the actor's own words not be used in this part of the Thor: Ragnarok Wikipage? SassyCollins (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Cast and credits
This is belated; I've have a busy spate of work. From the press notes: Note: For some reason Stan Lee's cameo appearance is not on these press-kit credits, nor are Sam Neill, Luke Hemsworth and Matt Damon, though all are credited onscreen. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Directed by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TAIKA WAITITI
 * Written by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ERIC PEARSON and CRAIG KYLE & CHRISTOPHER L. YOST
 * Produced by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KEVIN FEIGE, p.g.a.
 * Executive Producer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LOUIS D’ESPOSITO
 * Executive Producer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VICTORIA ALONSO
 * Executive Producer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BRAD WINDERBAUM
 * Executive Producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THOMAS M. HAMMEL, STAN LEE
 * Co-Producer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DAVID J. GRANT
 * Director of Photography . . . . . . . . . . .JAVIER AGUIRRESAROBE, ASC
 * Production Designers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .DAN HENNAH, RA VINCENT
 * Edited by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .JOEL NEGRON, ACE; ZENE BAKER, ACE
 * Costume Designer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAYES C. RUBEO
 * Visual Effects Supervisor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JAKE MORRISON
 * Music by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MARK MOTHERSBAUGH
 * Music Supervisor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DAVE JORDAN
 * Casting by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SARAH HALLEY FINN, CSA
 * CAST
 * Thor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CHRIS HEMSWORTH
 * Loki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOM HIDDLESTON
 * Hela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CATE BLANCHETT
 * Heimdall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IDRIS ELBA
 * Grandmaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JEFF GOLDBLUM
 * Valkyrie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TESSA THOMPSON
 * Skurge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KARL URBAN
 * Bruce Banner/Hulk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MARK RUFFALO
 * Odin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANTHONY HOPKINS
 * Doctor Strange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH
 * Korg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TAIKA WAITITI
 * Topaz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RACHEL HOUSE
 * Surtur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLANCY BROWN
 * Hogun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TADANOBU ASANO
 * Volstagg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RAY STEVENSON
 * Fandral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ZACHARY LEVI
 * Asgardian Date #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GEORGIA BLIZZARD
 * Asgardian Date #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AMALI GOLDEN
 * Actor Sif . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHARLOTTE NICDAO
 * Odin’s Assistant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ASHLEY RICARDO
 * College Girl #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SHALOM BRUNE-FRANKLIN
 * College Girl #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TAYLOR HEMSWORTH
 * Lead Scrapper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COHEN HOLLOWAY
 * Golden Lady #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ALIA SEROR O’NEIL
 * Golden Lady #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SOPHIA LARYEA
 * Cousin Carlo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STEVEN OLIVER
 * Beerbot 5000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HAMISH PARKINSON
 * Warden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JASPER BAGG
 * Asgardian Daughter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SKY CASTANHO
 * Asgardian Mother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SHARI SEBBENS
 * Asgardian Uncle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RICHARD GREEN
 * Asgardian Son . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SOL CASTANHO
 * Valkyrie Sister #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JET TRANTER
 * Valkyrie Sister #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SAMANTHA HOPPER
 * Asgardian Woman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ELOISE WINESTOCK
 * Asgardian Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ROB MAYES


 * Actually, I see another editor already linked to this in the footnotes. So this might be unnecessary here except as quick-access reference I guess.


 * By the way, this article is excellent. I think it should be submitted for GA status if it hasn't already been. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The cameos may have not been included to keep it a surprise, even though it was pretty obvious Stan Lee would be in it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The press kit for this film was found online, so we were able to use it to source some things in the article actually. And we'll submit to GA once allowed. Films currently in theaters can't be nominated until they have finished their box office run, in case you weren't aware. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah! I was not! And let me offer kudos here to my two compatriots who answered and elucidated — love working with you guys and with the WikiProject Comics crew! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

How to handle Johansson
Hi all. Wanted to discuss how to handle mentioning Scarlett Johansson in the cast section. As of me creating this section, the plot does mention Romanoff, so I definitely feel that we should include Johansson in the cast section. However, how the best way to do so is where it gets a bit tricky in my eyes. An IP recently added the content with this source. The source speculates that it actually isn't stock footage of Johansson used, but rather a brand new recording (obviously made to look like stock). I also have not found any other sources that state anything differently than what I just provided. So how should we technically note this? Johansson did not get any credit, so the wording we use depends on if we feel this is actually archive footage, or a new recording as the source speculates (and I personally can see being true myself). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would agree if you can find a source that verifies that it is not borrowed footage from Age of Ultron. The source you mentioned says "presumably".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Until that happens (if at all), would it be acceptable to simply state: Scarlett Johansson has an uncredited cameo reprising her role as Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow.? The reason I don't really like that is "uncredited cameo", to me, implies it was a new recording, which we don't know entirely if that is the case. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, if we cannot verify that it was filmed for this movie, then it doesn't belong.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In Ragnarok the character of Romanoff speaks directly facing the camera, but in Age of Ultron she is not directly facing the camera. Could possibly be have shot from another angle or another take. The hair length is identical in both the scenes, but in Ragnarok it looks like it has been brushed back a bit but this is difficult to tell from the different angles. What I think could happened was that unused footage form AoU was used, unless I am thinking of another scene or remembering incorrectly. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should wait for confirmation on the nature of the footage before stating anything, but if it isn't new footage and we don't want to have her in the plot section without being mentioned in the cast section, we could use a note. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have heard that some of the MCU directors reply to questions on Twitter. Someone with a Twitter could ask at https://twitter.com/TaikaWaititi/ --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Since it seems most are leaning towards excluding a mention of Johansson until more info is known, I think she should not be mentioned in the plot and I will go ahead and remove her. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I still think she should be mentioned in the plot section, otherwise it doesn't make much sense why he suddenly turns back. That is why I suggested a note if we aren't going to put her in the cast section. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just because something is mentioned in the plot doesn't mean it needs to be in the cast. The same is true for the reverse.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thor's Full Potential
I have tried to make this minor, but important change a few times now, but it keeps getting changed back. See my suggested changes below:

"During the fight, Thor briefly unlocked his full potential and gained the upper hand against the Hulk but the Grandmaster sabotages the fight to ensure the Hulk's victory."

and

"Thor, facing Hela, loses an eye and then has a vision of Odin that helps him to realize his full potential. From the vision, Thor also realized that only Ragnarök can stop Hela."

This is a major plot point, not just for the movie, but for the entire Thor trilogy. From Odin claiming Thor "is not worthy" in the first film to Odin relinquishing the throne (by allowing himself to die) and confident that Thor will be fine as king in this third one. This also ties in with the destruction of Mjolnir. As it was mentioned in the film, the hammer is a tool to help Thor to control his powers. Thor's real powers lies within. If people do not like my edits, fine, but Thor finally realized his full potential should really be included in the Plot summary.

Also saying Thor almost defeated the Hulk is highly opinionated... in my opinion. Thor knocked Hulk down, that's a far cry from defeat. Therefore, gained the upper hand is a better description... in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.63.168 (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, nobody deleted your post. From what I see, another user moved your post to the bottom of the page. On Wikipedia, new posts are always at the bottom of the page, so by placing your post at the top of the page, you are actually less likely to get responses. - Vanstrat ((🗼)) 15:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks Vanstrat. I fixed my mistake.  Now, Somebody please tell me why my edits are wrong or unacceptable.  Otherwise aren't you all being a bunch of bullies ganging up on me?  I am trying to include a major plot point in the Plot section and yet all of you are against that?  My reasonings should be pretty obvious but if you all want reference here, it's from the mouth of Thor himself, the almighty and one true Hemsworth.  My edits are minor and it vastly improves the plot.  So please tell me what is wrong with it. 99.243.63.168 (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No one is bullying anyone. Your suggested edit is POV speculation, since nothing in the manifest content of the film itself says one word about "full potential." That's just one person's interpretation. And actors can say anything they want to about how they approach a character, but they are not the writer or the director, who may have something different in mind. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It is not POV speculation. The entire conversation between Odin and Thor in the vision after Hela cut Thor's eye is about Thor reaching his "full potential".  If people don't like the words "full potential" fine.  Use something different.  Like I mention above this is the whole point of the Thor trilogy and this movie. It is his hero's journey.  Starting from a man-child who wants to be king (first film "You're not worthy") to declining the throne in the second ("I'm not ready to be king") to this one where he finally became king.  Odin tells Thor in the vision that he does not need the hammer that he is "stronger enough".  Thor was surprised with his power ("true power", "full power", "full potential" etc.) the first time it happened (fighting the Hulk) and then mastered it the second time fighting Hela after the vision with Odin.  This is not speculation or interpretation it was literally spoken aloud in the film.  Am I the only one who actually saw the film???  The fact that this is so obvious and yet everyone keeps refuting it on account of me seems awfully like bulling.   And congratulations you all win.  I won't bother with editing on wikipedia any more since this what I have to go through.  Now I know why so many editors are burned out and why wikipedia is losing active editors.  You're all welcome.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.63.168 (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think the entire change you're trying to make is all that unreasonable. There is some merit in mentioning the brief vision of Odin during the Hulk fight. However, keep this in mind: we are trying to stay under 700 words for the plot summary per WP:FILMPLOT. Currently, it's sitting at 693 words. Consider trimming your addition in half (or more) and suggest ways to trim other areas of the summary to make room. For example, "During the fight, Thor has a vision of Odin and summons lightning to gain the upper hand. The Grandmaster decides to sabotage the fight...". So one possibility here is removing "full potential", since that can be implied without explicitly stating it. We should be able to find some middle ground that pleases both parties. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thor: Ragnarok now predicted to open to $125M
If we can add this to the box office section on it's wiki page, Deadline is now saying Thor: Ragnarok will open to $125M in it;s opening weekend: http://deadline.com/2017/10/ben-affleck-justice-league-gal-gadot-box-office-projection-1202195005/

Infinty gauntlet
Should we discuss that the gauntlet is fake and the one that thanos has is the only real one Underdog0123 (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Already discussed in the post-production section. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Loki and the Tesseract
It is implied that Loki has taken the Tesseract before Asgard was destroyed. As the next film involves the Infinity Gauntlet and the Infinity Stones, there's no way they would have left the Tesseract in Asgard. Furthermore, Thanos picked up Thor's ship. Loki spotting the Tesseract while finding Surtur's crown should be mentioned in the Plot as it is a key plot point for the series. starship.paint ~  KO   07:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In Thor: Ragnarok, Loki looks at something. That may possibly become significant to another film that we have not yet seen. It is not significant for the plot summary of Thor: Ragnarok. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Normally I would agree with Adamstom.97, but our Thor: The Dark World already breaks this rule by directly referring to the Tesseract as an Infinity Stone despite this having precisely nothing to do with the plot of that film and relating exclusively to Marvel wanting to fuel fan speculation about future films. I would say that if it's okay for that article's uncited plot summary it should be okay for this one too, but honestly I would prefer if both were kept out of the "plot summary" sections and only included in "analysis" sections (or "Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-ins" sections) with a reliable source. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The difference is that in The Dark World, they talk about the two Infinity Stones, so we do too. Here, Loki looks at one, and we generally don't mention that sort of thing. The reason the OP wants to mention it here is that it matters in another film, which is no good reason to add it here. Strip away the other film relevance from The Dark World and you still have a conversation about the film's McGuffin and what is being done with it. Removing that would be like not mentioning where the Ark ends up at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark. This isn't about making some silly blanket rules like "No Infinity Stones!", it's about summarising this film and not the next. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * they talk about the two Infinity Stones, so we do too [...] Loki looks at one, and we generally don't mention that sort of thing Well, yeah, but we generally don't mention random 30-second discussions between weird characters that either do not appear or do nothing of note in the rest of the film. The two Broker scenes in GOTG are both longer and have more to do with the specific plot of that film than the Collector scene in T:TDW -- they were even incorporated into the film proper and directed by the same person; but our plot summary for that article doesn't mention the scenes at all.
 * The reason the OP wants to mention it here is that it matters in another film, which is no good reason to add it here Again, that's the only reason our T:TDW mentions the Infinity Stones. The fact that the Aether is an Infinity Stone is so peripheral to the plot of that film that it wasn't even revealed until mid-way through the credits.
 * which is no good reason to add it here Again, I agree. But we shouldn't be picking and choosing based on arbitrary things like "the actor said the word as opposed to looking at the prop".
 * Strip away the other film relevance from The Dark World and you still have a conversation about the film's McGuffin and what is being done with it. Removing that would be like not mentioning where the Ark ends up at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark. The Tesseract is a McGuffin in Captain America: The First Avenger and The Avengers; it is only vaguely alluded to throughout the majority of Thor: The Dark World. Maybe if the last paragraph of the plot summary was rewritten to read The Aether is taken by Sif and Volstagg and entrusted to a figure called "the Collector". with the phrase "Infinity Stones" and the quote "One down, five to go." cut entirely your Raiders analogy would make sense. The simple fact is that "strip[ping] away the other film relevance" is something we don't do in our article on this film's direct predecessor, so presenting a hypothetical like that is not helpful.
 * This isn't about making some silly blanket rules like "No Infinity Stones!", it's about summarising this film and not the next. Again, I agree. But our other MCU articles, including the one most closely tied to this one, don't do this; they wikilink easter eggs for fans that were included in the film to make them speculate on future films; I don't recognize the difference between "a mid-credits scene featured an actor saying this line" and "the film proper featured an actor looking at this prop". Both are equally bad rationales for inclusion in the plot summary, as far as I am concerned.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. The plot summary's focus should be on the film itself and should not cover elements of MCU canon. If it's not explicitly mentioned or depicted in the film, then it shouldn't be mentioned in the film's plot summary. This isn't the place for loose interpretations and possibilities. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, so how do you feel about the other MCU-related articles whose plot summaries do cover elements of the MCU canon then? We seem to be in basic agreement that the OP's proposal is bad for this article, but I'm not buying Adamstom's distinction between this and the other ones, which feels arbitrary. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If the summary describes an action that took place in the film (that is significant to that film), then sure it can be in there. However, forecasting an action or result that may or may not appear in a later film would improperly reach outside of the plot summary's scope. I'm trying to generalize here, but looking at a specific example would help narrow the focus. Perhaps that's something that should be brought up on the respective film's talk page should you encounter any push back when cleaning up. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri, it is really nice how you completely ignored that we were having this discussion and decided to remove the content anyway. That was just great to see. Now, do I think that the line as it is is the best that it can be? No, looking at it now I probably wouldn't have written it just like that. I especially would remove the "One down..." line. But I think we should still be mentioning why they would be giving the Aether away, otherwise it doesn't make much sense that this would be so important and then they just hand it over to a random at the end (and we can't expect our readers to go watch the film to understand why they do that, the summary needs to work on its own). I am happy to discuss alternative wording that still explains the Infinity Stone thing so that it makes sense, but puts less emphasis on that. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please keep discussions to the appropriate fora. Yes, I did technically make the edit to the other article based on GoneIn60's advice above (which kind of undermines your claim that I made it in spite of this discussion), but now that the edit has been made further discussion of it belongs on that article's talk page, in the same manner as most of what you have been writing on another article's talk page probably belonged more on my user talk page if anywhere. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So it was just me that you were ignoring. Nice. I came here before I saw that you had started a second discussion at another article with another editor, so I think I can be forgiven for making the mistake of continuing this discussion here at that time. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)