Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2019

I would like to edit this page because phase 5 movies have been secretly announced by reliable sources and would like to add in Phase 5 Dragon city fanatic (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Your account is nearly autoconfirmed, but please remember that any additions to articles must be verifiable and include citations to reliable, published sources. Unpublished information (whether from reliable sources or not) is not sufficient. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add Phase 5 even after you become autoconfirmed. We don't add things that have been "secretly confirmed" because there's no way to verify secrets. You should only add things that have been officially (and publicly) confirmed by Disney/Marvel.Starforce¹³ 13:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Cast table suggestion

The cast table obviously continues to grow. Would it therefore be best to split it into Infinity Saga and future? Otherwise it'll continue to get bigger and bigger and harder to interact with. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Wait until there's enough movies in the next saga to justify the split. There's no need to split the table now when there's only one saga that's complete. Starforce¹³ 13:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I think splitting by Phase may be a better next step. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Future films?

Do we have decent sources confirming that the projects for Blade, Fantastic Four, and the X-Men Feige mentioned at Comic-Con are actually films? If not then I think it's a big assumption to make considering he had just finished announcing a slate that included Disney+ shows as well as theatrical films. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

This article describes Blade as a feature film. Not sure about the other things you mentioned though. -- Zoo (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Blade film's name?

Do we know for sure the films title will be only "Blade", Blade is the characters name after all so it's not odd they're refering to it as "the Blade film". Maybe it should say "Untitled Blade film" instead?★Trekker (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Here's the official film logo. So yes, it's called Blade. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 12:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I see. Thanks!★Trekker (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Changing article to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe Marvel Studios properties

Since it seems like the Disney+ shows will be directly connected to the films, I propose grouping together only the shows produced by Marvel Television, change that article to "List of Marvel Cinematic Universe Marvel Television properties", and moving the Disney+ shows produced by Marvel Studios to this page and changing the name. TdanTce (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Hard oppose We don't even know what these shows will be like, and there is already an article named List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series.★Trekker (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Strong oppose Yeah...that's a bad idea. Nevermore27 (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Strong oppose - The Disney+ shows are for the List MCU tv series page. It doesn’t matter if they come from Marvel Studios or Marvel Television. FYI, the articles are about what’s in MCU, not what Marvel Studios produced. And for that, we split by TV vs films. Clean and straightforward. Starforce¹³ 11:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose — That would be too confusing and we already have List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series. --Mazewaxie 11:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Strong agree Marvel Studios presents these shows as being part of their phase four, unlike the Marvel TV shows. They also present these shows as heavily interconnected with their movies, unlike the Marvel TV stuff. So, indeed, it's a very good idea. Currently, it's quite strange to list phase four here, without half the projects it consists of and which form its continuity. There's a hard line between the Marvel TV stuff and the Marvel Studios stuff, visible among other thing in Marvel Studios' division in phases, and (as we'll see in the future, and as Feige has said multiple times) in its interconnectedness and two-way influence. Frankly, you'd only have to look at Marvel Studios' announcement of phase four to see it's a pretty obvious grouping: they themselves present their Disney+ shows and their movies in the exact same way, as being on the same level, part of the same phase, and grouped together apart from all the other Marvel Entertainment stuff. UnderIrae (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

We’re not listing Phase 4 MCU content. It’s for Phase 4 films. Also, TV shows can belong to multiple phases depending on the season. That would create a maintenance nightmare. And technically, AoS season 1 & 2 are part of MCU phase 2 because it was directly affected by Winter Soldier. Agent Carter’s version of JARVIS showed up in Endgame. Yes, I get that the Marvel Television shows aren’t as connected to the movies. But at the end of the day, it’s canon that they’re connected. Trying to argue based on how one is more connected than the other is just politics. Starforce¹³ 12:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not politics at all. When the phases are presented, Marvel TV stuff is never included (because the phases are a Marvel Studios thing). The presentation at SDCC 2019 confirmed that. Marvel Studios stuff is divided in phases and is interconnected, the rest is in a seperate category. And I realize this page lists phase 4 films, that why there is a suggestion to change that. Because it follows from how this media is presented. I don't understand your comment on maintenance: you wouldn't include the TV shows in the phases, because they are never presented as such. You present the Marvel Studios projects together on one page, because they are all Marvel Studios projects. The rest is from a seperate division within Disney. It's pretty straightforward. Presenting all Marvel Studios projects together on one page follows the sources, is a better and more clear presentation of the facts, and makes everything more intelligible. Seperating one Marvel Studios project from the other and grouping it with Marvel Television projects is needlessly confusing. Again, all ten projects presented at SDCC 2019 were presented as belonging together, as being the only content that forms phase 4 (as said by Feige, which means that no Marvel Television show is part of that), and as interconnected. I understand people still want to keep the 'canon' and the broader MCU together, but it isn't really feasible anymore. It makes way more sense to group the Marvel Studios projects together, and the Marvel Television projects together. UnderIrae (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. The list is already 419 kB and growing. It's on Special:LongPages and could soon top it with films alone. We should definitely not expand the scope with material belonging naturally in other articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Have to disagree strongly with 'Belonging naturally in other articles'. All projects by Marvel Studios are presented as belonging together, made very explicit in multiple ways at SDCC 2019. The article being too long could be solved by cutting out other stuff, such as as the recurring characters list. However that may be, length is a different discussion altogether. It's a bit odd to counter the sources themselves by artificially separating Marvel Studios' output. UnderIrae (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Once again, this is not about Marvel Studios. It's about MCU. If another studio, for whatever reason, produced an MCU movie without Marvel Studios involvement, we would still include it here. And if Marvel Studios produced a non-MCU film, we wouldn't include it. We split Star Wars films and TV shows into different articles despite the fact that they're all produced and presented together by LucasFilm. It's not about the studio. It's about the franchise and type of content. That's how these articles usually work. And by TV shows belonging to different phases by season, there is a chance that some of those Disney+ shows will get renewed for more seasons. Each season will likely reflect whatever the current phase they're on. Trying to mix TV shows with movies messes up with page format especially when the page is already so huge like this one. Starforce¹³ 14:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Hard Oppose. This page is for MCU movies, not shows. --Bold Clone 19:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems like this idea doesn't have a lot of traction. Fair enough; I just wanted to bounce the idea off of everyone. Thanks for the input! TdanTce (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Hard Oppose - Yeah, no. This page is strictly only for the films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Marvel Studios works on those and the Disney+ series, which are still television series in the MCU, so, they belong on the List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series page along with the other MCU series, just those other ones are from Marvel Television. The companies don't determine where the content goes. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Definitely Oppose. I can't possibly foresee why this would be a good idea, they are both two separate pages which are each only going to get bigger in size. Merging the two would be absolutely chaotic and would result in this page being unnecessarily and substantially bigger than it already is. It's a silly idea, but I understand what the user is suggesting (having both together would be convenient, but that's really the only foreseeable benefit that could come out of an idea this hare-brained). But really, there is no urgent need for this page to be any bigger than it already is/will be in future.

Wiki pages could perhaps be made for each Marvel "Phase" if they don't already exist, this is an alternative solution I would like to suggest. – Sean Stephens (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

There are four phase drafts right now. Draft:Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe), Draft:Phase Two (Marvel Cinematic Universe), Draft:Phase Three (Marvel Cinematic Universe) and Draft:Phase Four (Marvel Cinematic Universe). Feel free to work on those everyone.★Trekker (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with separating everything by phases, I do have a few suggestions, though (I am not equipped to make the changes myself). First, I think the recurring characters should have the same or similar criteria as they do here or else it will become too cumbersome. The Recurring Characters page is for having every single recurring character. Second, for Phase Four, I think there should be single table that has all films and TV series in chronological order as opposed to only having them split. Also for Phase Four, the TV series should be included in the recurring characters section. Feldssa95 (talk) 3:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Strong oppose In the real world context, Marvel Studios' films are still the most noteworthy aspect of the MCU and continue to be considered as a singular "franchise" of sorts. It is way too early to abandon that presentation. However, I do support creating the Phase articles and having one for Phase Four that includes all 10 of the projects announced at Comic-Con. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. While I like the idea of grouping Disney+ shows with the films, I don‘t think, yours is the right solution. i‘d Either give it an extra section here (akin to how a tv-movie would be treated in a list of episodes of a tv-series), Group them all together as „list of MCU media“ or leave as is, at least for now. When the shows are released, and if the Netflix shows get a reboot, we can talk about seriously changing article names.2003:E0:6F01:2999:4D75:717C:F9C8:63E (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 August 2019

In the "Recurring cast and characters" section, two characters are missing. Frigga has been in both the Thor and Avengers films (and appears in the billing block of Thor and The Dark World). May Parker has been in the Captain America, Spider-Man, and Avengers films (and appears in the billing block of Homecoming and Far From Home). By the stated rules, they should be included in the table.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1011:50f:210a:6acf:2ce1:29f (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This section will be changed soon to be for phases and not film series. So they'll be added then.★Trekker (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't Far From Home be in the Phase Three list?

Spider-Man: Far From Home isn't included in the Phase Three section, even though it's part of Phase Three. And this has knock-on effects, like the separate Outline article (which extracts this article's tables) showing it in the wrong place. While the facts are explained if you carefully read the entire article, it's pretty misleading to anyone who doesn't (compounded by the widespread speculation all over the internet that it would be in Phase Four, before the official announcement).

Unfortunately, he obvious solution—moving it to Phase Three—would probably be even worse—there would then be a section for "Upcoming" films that doesn't include the first upcoming film.

I'm not sure if there's a good solution without reorganizing the whole article again. And I suppose the problem will automatically go away on 2 July. But still, I don't think that's a good reason to leave this article and others confusing for weeks. --157.131.246.136 (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It will be moved to Phase 3 after it premieres. For now, it remains in the “Upcoming” section. If we start adding movies to phases before they premiere, it would open a whole new can of worms. Starforce¹³ 18:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

See Digital Spy article that calls it Phase 3. [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The Infinity Saga, italics, quotation marks or generic?

There have been some back and forths on this page on if it should be The Infinity Saga, "The Infinity Saga" or The Infinity Saga. Each time the section gets changed the redirect has to be updated to work for the page.★Trekker (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@*Treker: How about an {{anchor}}? Provided that stays in the same relative place in the target article, it doesn't matter how the section in the target is named or punctuated. Note that the anchor title should be different from the section title, so call it e.g 'infinitysaga' which will never be used as section title. The redirect The Infinity Saga would be to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#infinitysaga (which currently shows blue but doesn't work because there is no anchor to find). The redirect should be tagged {{R to anchor}}. Narky Blert (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the main issue here is to establish a consensus regarding which style we should use for The Infinity Saga. El Millo (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I vote for NEITHER italics nor quotation marks. The Infinity Saga simply a name that's not an official title for a piece of work/art. Here's my logic:

1. It doesn't qualify as "major works" like books or films or tv shows that require italics. - MOS:ITALICTITLE
2. It doesn't qualify for minor works like poems, chapter titles, episode names etc that require quotations. - MOS:QUOTETITLE
3. It is technically a sub-unit of a franchise - and franchise names don't use italics nor quotes. - MOS:SERIESTITLE
4. You could also think of it as a higher-level group of phases and we don't and shouldn't use italics or quotes for phases.
5. Aesthetics - The Infinity Saga just looks cleaner; so unless there's another qualifying or compelling reason to format it differently, we should keep it generic. Starforce¹³ 20:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, anchor sounds like a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It's all about the readers. The first priority is always to get them to the information they want as easily as possible. Stylistic issues in articles, while important (I've lost count of the number of {{cleanup section}} tags I've added for breaches of guidelines like WP:DATELIST and WP:ITALICS, let alone the many more such errors I've fixed silently), are never more than secondary. Narky Blert (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove "Untitled Spider-Man: Far From Home sequel" from Future section

Since it's been confirmed that Sony is pulling Spiderman out of the MCU and hence no FFH sequel, shouldn't we remove this from Future > Potential section? We could add another section for canceled projects next to repurposed projects. Starforce¹³ 17:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

As stated on the page: "However, Variety noted negotiations had "hit an impasse" and a new deal could still be reached". According to the Variety source in the page, a deal could still be reached, so the project isn't necessarily canceled, it's all up in the air, so, we should just leave it in the "Potential projects" section until further notice. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I would trust Sony's statement more than Variety's "sources" not only because Sony is a directly involved party but also because it came AFTER Variety's story, making it the latest update. Sony's statement is pretty clear that the deal is off for now and they will not involve Disney/Feige/Marvel/MCU. They just wished it could change in the future. Starforce¹³ 18:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd be fine with either a "Canceled/Undetermined projects" section or just editing out the info from displays but keeping the contents on the page. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. We should keep the content on the page (in a new section). Especially for now since it's of high interest. "Canceled/Undetermined projects" sounds like a good title for the section since it would work whether it's canceled or in limbo. Starforce¹³ 18:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2019

change the timeline to include all the films released so far by the marvel cinematic universe 2001:8A0:E88E:1801:9DFF:7D99:E4F1:C4B9 (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done We need official sources for that. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 10:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Iron Man alternate post-credits scene

Why can't we mention this in the Iron Man section? It's not trivia, as it shows that Marvel was thinking incorporate properties like the X-Men and Spider-Man before they even could. Contrary to what this edit suggests, something definitely came of it because they eventually gained the rights to those characters. And by that rationale, we shouldn't be mentioning the OsCorp tower in the section for The Avengers. JOEBRO64 10:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Did they gain those rights solely because of those scenes? No? Then nothing came out of those scenes in particular, making it, once again, trivia. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Then by that logic we should remove the Oscorp tower mention in The Avengers, because by your reasoning that's trivia because it did not lead to them getting the rights. JOEBRO64 11:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree - I removed the mentions of the OsCorp tower. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Timeline

the timeline set in the list of marvel cinematic universe films wikipedia page is highly incorrect and does not account by every mcu film released so far i wish to change that<ref> https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Timeline and the time set by the films themselves<ref> Abellapa (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikis can't be cited because they're are not reliable sources regardless of if some have more complete info. While the timeline section here is incomplete and outdated, it's based on Marvel's official release as opposed to in-universe content.Starforce¹³ 13:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

as i said the timeline in the list of marvel cinematic films wikipedia page is outdated and incomplete and i wish to change that,if the marvel cinematic universe wiki is not reliable,what about the dates that the films establish,exemples - captain marvel mostly takes place in 1995,black panther 1 week after civil war,spider-man homecoming 2 months after civil war,the information in the films should be enough to update the timeline in the list of marvel cinematic universe wikipedia page Abellapa (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I combined these because it's not really a new section. I agree that the timeline is inaccurate. Personally, until a reliable source is found, I would accept the removal of the timeline from the article. However, what can't be done is changing it without a reliable source. Equineducklings (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

isnt the dates set by the movies a reliable source ? Abellapa (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

It would be if they were consistent. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

the dates of the films are consistent Abellapa (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

They actually aren't. There are a few mishaps.★Trekker (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The timeline is a confirmed timeline from Marvel, and as noted below it, the timeline ignores the various mishaps in the movies themselves. Unless Marvel gives an updated timeline with more movies in them, it shouldn't be updated beyond adding a note below it as is the case right now.--84.195.72.221 (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)