Talk:Werewolf by Night (TV special)

Collider officially confirms WereWolf By Night's running time
According to Collider, Big Screen Leaks' reporting is correct that the runtime for Marvel Studios' Special Presentation WereWolf By Night is 52 minutes and 37 seconds long, estimated at 53 minutes: https://collider.com/werewolf-by-night-runtime-gael-garcia-bernal-disney-plus/.

Hoping we can add this into the special's wiki page. MarvelDisney20 (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I have added the source to the runtime, as it appears Collider is independently reporting on this aside from BSL's report. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Erik Beck
Are we sure he puppeteered Bloodstone? I thought the credits just said he was a puppeteer in general and there are other elements that could have been puppeteered in the film. Also, I think the description of Bloodstone as a talking corpse in the cast section is a bit misleading, they play a recording of him from before he died and sort of make it look like the corpse is talking. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm also unsure the extent of Beck's performance, so we can definitely change that wording. For Ulysses, what was on the article before release was no longer accurate, so I tried finding the best descriptions I could within reviews to alter it and "talking corpse" was the best I found in The Verge's review. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 27 December 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Werewolf by Night (TV special) → Werewolf by Night (film) – This article is about a film, as can be seen by the categories it is placed at. Both WP:TVF and WP:NCFILM say to simply use "(film)". Gonnym (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose: The creatives behind this and the Marvel Studios Special Presentations have said these are television specials and inspired by prior TV specials such as A Charlie Brown Christmas and Frosty the Snowman (TV special). The Marvel.com page for WWBN lists it under "TV shows" while the Disney+ page lists it under "movies", as this is a shared medium. I believe there should be more categories to better reflect this as a television special, which are lacking on Wikipedia, rather than taking the present categories as how to classify the project. "Television show" cats are also in use in this article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A "television special" is just a marketing gimmick and does not say anything about what type of media it is. A special can be a limited series, it can be a live broadcast, and in this situation, it can be a film. Are you really saying that Werewolf by Night is not a film? Gonnym (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is is not a film, per say. Marvel made it clear that this is in fact a television special, not just as a marketing gimmick. It is in the film format but released as a TV special. As InfiniteNexus pointed out, (TV special) is used on numerous other articles for clarity on this format. If the categories are the concerns, then there should be TV special-specific cats made as there are also TV series/shows cats in this article, not just film ones. It's a blend of both mediums, so to say it is exclusively just one (based on some of the cats alone) is not taking into account what the creatives and reliable sources state it is. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose – This is a television special, not a film, per the several sources in the article. A quick search shows (TV special) is a commonly-used disambiguation for TV special articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per InfiniteNexus' comment. —El Millo (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: If the reason for renaming the article is due to the categories then we should address the lack of categories for television specials (such as creating "American horror television specials" as an example). The categories that have "films" in them could be removed since they are not sourced in the article. Centcom08 (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the renaming, highly support the creation of new categories... needs another easy million edits.-- ☾Loriendrew☽   ☏(ring-ring)  15:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, plus the WP:TV discussion on the matter that occurred here, which consensus did not sway from "TV special" not being featured in WP:NCTV, did not mean it was an incorrect disambiguation. Reliable sources should help in this matter (for this and any other "specials") and it's clear that this is a "TV special". If we need better categories created, then let's do that as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above comments. This is not a film. — SirDot (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Shot on film or digitally?
This article states that that Werewolf by Night was shot on film. The cited source is an interview in which the following is stated:

"Werewolf was on film— we put it out to film and scanned it back in."

This does not necessarily mean that the special was shot on film. In fact the technical specifications on the IMDB page list Arri Alexa cameras, which are digital cameras. Presumably, the digital footage was then printed on film and "scanned [...] back in" to achieve a film look. Arcademiker (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * IMDb is not a reliable source. However, as the one who added the "shot on film" statement from that article, I do see how I possibly misinterpreted the part you quoted here. If you have a suggestion on how to convey what was said in that quote for the article, please feel free to make that adjustment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted that wording. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)