Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Four/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

What If and Specials

Are What If...? and the Halloween and Guardians specials still considered part of the Phase? since they were not included on the presentation at Comic Con, where it was stated Black Panther 2 ended the phase 170.239.28.58 (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

What If season 2 premieres in early 2023, so it's Phase Five. Info on the specials will probably be revealed at D23/Disney Plus day in September. -- Zoo (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm talking about Season 1. It was not included when Marvel showed Phase Four at this Comic Con — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.239.28.58 (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

They only included live action projects. Animated projects were talked about the day before. -- Zoo (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Halloween and Guardians specials are still part of Phase Four as far as we know. — SirDot (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there an updated source for this? Especially since Feige clearly stated that Phase Four ends with Wakanda Forever, which makes me question the position of the Guardians special. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

He said Phase Four end with Wakanda Forever and Phase Five starts with Quantumania, so either the special doesn't belong in any Phase or it was just left off the list (saving it for D23?) for now. I think we need to decide whether we are comfortable going with the previous sources/assumptions of it being in Phase Four or if we should play it safe and leave it out of a Phase article until we get confirmation. It's a similar predicament for the animated shows since they clearly had them separate from live-action for Comic Con but previously they included What If...? in the Phase Four list. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He also said Phase Five starts with Quantumania, so the Holiday Special wouldn't be part of Phase Five either by that logic. For now, we should stick with the info we have, which is that it is in Phase Four. —El Millo (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting fact. Disney+ channel says that the Special is in Phase 4, while TV Guide says it's in Phase 5. I didn't find more reliable sources about this. IKhitron (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

What's On Disney Plus isn't a reliable source, TV Guide nowadays is also a bit questionable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm completely guessing here, but my assumption was Wakanda Forever was noted as the last thing of the Phase (much like Endgame originally was) and the Holiday Special might serve as a coda. The Halloween Special (which is still not officially acknowledged), would in theory be before Wakanda Forever releases so that should be ok. But I agree, that might be revealed at D23 in September, if they don't surprise drop it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The Guardians special could be a transitional project between Phases 4 and 5, like how Far From Home was between Endgame and WandaVision. Either Disney Plus Day or D23. — SirDot (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

James Gunn has confirmed the Holiday Special is the epilogue to Phase 4. So basically what I said. — SirDot (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

She-Hulk

I really think we need to stop consistently relying on D+ for timeline placements. In the past it has screwed up some of the time placements and this contradicts the view the director said it took place. Likewise it makes more sense to have in after Shang Chi because Bruce has the de-hulking bracelet on his arm, in addition to a cast for his damaged arm, both of which were seen at the end of Shang Chi and I highly doubt he would be wearing that for over a year. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

That's your assumption. We know that Gao as said it's a "relatively short time" after Shang-Chi, so it can frankly be anywhere after that title on the timeline. For the moment, based on the general public only seeing one episode, it's placement correlates with Gao's comments. Should future episodes put that into question, we can reevaluate, but until then, what Disney+ says is an acceptable placement. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Reception and/or commentary on the phase being about family and legacy

In finding a number a sources to cite the World War Hulk teases this week from She-Hulk, many of them discuss how the phase has been about family and introducing legacy to many of the original characters. (Here is an example.) This topic might be something that would be good to add to our reception section here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

There are also sources that I have seen about the trauma exploration in many of the projects, including the trauma coming from Endgame that I think one of the MS executives made a comment about recently. I've been meaning to do something about those at some point, as well as adding an update to what we already have about the Kang/Secret Wars announcements. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Films, television series... and specials?

Traditionally the content in Phase Four has been split into films and television series, but given the emergence of these "Special Presentation television specials", I would recommend splitting Werewolf by Night and The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special into a third separate section for Specials, given that they've been given their own official designation and they don't quite fit under the descriptor of "Television series". -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

See User:Alex 21/sandbox2 for my thoughts on the layout. (I may actually modify {{Series overview}} to remove the redundant "Special" text in the Season/Episodes columns when an overview consists solely of specials.) -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed.... And there are also shorts like I Am Groot. — Starforce¹³ 04:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that we do have a Draft:Marvel Studios Special Presentations being started with this in mind. I would not be opposed to moving the specials to their own sub-header after the Television series one and I've thought it's something we should have done for a while now. Given the release of the first special now, I don't see a problem with this, though would love to hear out others on this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a good idea, especially considering they said they would start doing these specials more often. —El Millo (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I had recommended this in this discussion (Talk:List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_television_series#A_Marvel_Studios_Special_Presentation). My only change from Alex's sandbox would be to use "Television specials" for the heading, over simply "Specials". Alex 21 if you can modify {{Series overview}} as you said, that'd be great. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed on this per others. — SirDot (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll also add, I'm trying to find some general reception to the television special format in reviews/articles from Werewolf by Night, and I think if that gets added, the draft might be good to move to the mainspace. Any help with it would be appreciated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Specials still considered part of the Phase?

I have been wondering if the Special Presentations should be still be considered part of the Phase (and maybe also What If...?) given they were not included on the lineup of Phase Four shown sometime ago. I think the Specials are standalone entries like the I Am Groot shorts (which are included here as tie-in media). And I know they are all included on Phase Four on Disney+. But this might be something like the Marvel One-Shots. Yes, they are included on Disney+ as part of Phases One and Two, however both wikipedia articles have them listed as tie-in media. I suggest moving the television specials to the tie-in media section. I would know if someone thinks the same about the status of the Specials. AxGRvS (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

This was already discussed at the list of MCU TV series talk. Personally I place GotG HS as "between Phases 4 & 5", while Werewolf By Night as Phase 4 because it's between the two penultimate episodes of She-Hulk. — SirDot (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The first two Special Presentations, much akin to I Am Groot, are released during Phase Four, and we have James Gunn who confirmed the GotG HS as the ending of that phase, with She-Hulk as the last series and Wakanda Forever as the last film. The SDCC line-up image excluded What If as it was discussed at a panel the day prior, while WWBN wasn't included there because it wasn't officially announced then, and the HS was excluded as it's a side thing from the main projects of the phase, like I Am Groot, which is also part of the phase. Unless we had any source or creative concretely stating they aren't part of the phase, they should remain in the article. The only reason I Am Groot is labeled tie-in material is because the canon status of it is questionable, whereas these two SPs are confirmed to be directly canon. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok I understand the I Am Groot situation but what about the Marvel One-Shots? They're canon and still are listed as tie-in media in the articles for Phases One and Two. Also, I was not suggesting removing the Specials from the article, just that, as you said, those are side things and not part of the "main" installments of the Phase which are the films and TV shows. AxGRvS (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The one shots canonicity status is no different from that of I Am Groot shorts. But with Werewolf by Night, Feige said they're introducing a world and characters that are going to be important to the MCU going forward. That's also part of the reason he specifically requested inclusion of Man-Thing here because it's a core part of whatever they're building. So, they're not just side things - the only real difference here is the length and format. — Starforce¹³ 18:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, now you're saying I Am Groot is 100% canon like the One-Shots, so there's no difference with the specials. Maybe we should remove I Am Groot from the tie-in media section and put it on a "shorts" section or something (and maybe do the same with the One-Shots in the Phases One and Two articles, obviously without the Team Thor ones which aren't canon) AxGRvS (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Timeline

Hi. Should the timeline section tell something about mentioning Jane Foster as Lady Thor in She-Hulk finale while Disney+ timeline puts them in opposite order? IKhitron (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The timeline is a very simplified way of putting the projects in order. Love and Thunder could have happened in between She-Hulk episodes, so the Disney+ timeline isn't necessarily incorrect. In any case, unless we have reliable sources addressing and discussing this, we shouldn't include anything. —El Millo (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, She-Hulk takes place over several weeks/months while Love and Thunder lasts only a couple of days. So, it's totally plausible that Love and Thunder happened somewhere in between. Overlaps are pretty common even between two movies like Black Widow/Civil War, AMATW/Infinity War.— Starforce¹³ 18:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Director by Night

Director by Night should be distinguished as a separate documentary, as it is not part of the Assembled series, it is an independent thing and even marketed as a Special Presentation, which hasn't happened with any of the other documentaries. AxGRvS (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Because Director by Night is its own documentary special just for one particular property, it should not have its own subsection as it already has a subsection at the Werewolf by Night article that covers the relevant info for it there. It was noted with the Assembled specials as it is similar to those as both are behind-the-scenes specials. Keeping in mind that the Phase Four article is supposed to serve as an overview of the contents included in it. Now that we know Director by Night is a Special Presentation, it is noted at that article, as well. For now, it should be a brief sentence explaining the documentary special. If a similar making of Special Presentation releases for the GotG Holiday Special, we can probably have a subsection dedicated to those, but it is ill-advised to have a subsection for a singular property here when it is better explained at the primary topic, which is the Werewolf by Night subsection for it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Timeline: James Gunn on GotG Special and Thor 4

What do you think about this James Gunn's tweet about the amount of time between Thor: Love and Thunder and the Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special? He says there's a "long time" difference between both titles and the Guardians were with Thor for a few weeks, which contradicts what's stated in this article (Thor 4 and the Special being in the same year)

https://twitter.com/JamesGunn/status/1598825177756110848?cxt=HHwWgMDUoefBlbAsAAAA AxGRvS (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Gunn's tweet should be incorporated into this article and others. The current source being used for the HS' timeline placement is outdated and does not mention any year point. It is best to use a third-party source reporting on Gunn's tweet. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I found this source: https://www.cbr.com/james-gunn-guardians-of-the-galaxy-thor-time/ AxGRvS (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Analysis on grief and identity

I found these interesting articles about the themes of grief, loss and identity in Phase Four. I think something of each one would be good to add to the reception section or under an 'analysis' one: https://collider.com/marvel-phase-4-loss-grief/

https://screencrush.com/marvel-phase-four-theme-connecting-everything/

https://comicbook.com/movies/news/how-marvel-studios-phase-4-follows-the-7-stages-of-grief/ AxGRvS (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Fixing the table

Something about the "Television series" table screws up the rest of the article. If you find out what screwed it up, please try to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red4Smash (talk • contribs) 16:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey, if you're referring to the header of that table https://ibb.co/Vv3HQT7, then issue reported at the template talk page Template talk:Series overview#Mobile view. Everything else looks fine my end but if other issue then probably related to the recent edits on that template. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I Am Groot is not a tie-in

I Am Groot is not a tie-in it's a proper part of the phase, i don't get how such a contrafactual thing can be defended here on wikipedia Norschweden (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Norschweden As has been explained to you by @Favre1fan93 and myself, we are classifying I Am Groot as a tie-in because it is akin to the Marvel One-Shots that were in prior films as both are short film collections. IAG is just branded as a series of shorts, and is classified as a television series, though is very similar to Olaf Presents in how it is released. This classification was from the sources used in the IAG section and at its article. We do not require a source to confirm it is a tie-in when it is clearly not a main TV series or special presentation, but is still part of the phase. As such, it is in its own section part of "tie-in media". You have violated the WP:3RR (three-revert-rule) by edit warring in an attempt to keep your preferred vision in place, going against what has been the WP:STATUSQUO of the article for two years now. I gave you a warning on your talk for this, and since you appear unwilling to discuss with me and continue to revert, I have no choice but to report you. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

How did you not reply and only dicuss with me in the edit notes until you are able to report me? It doesn't matter if it seems to you like being the same as earlier one-shots, that were tie-ins, but these are not tie-ins, they are a propper part of the phase, yes they are shorts that's why the new section was there Norschweden (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

you can undo my edit now, since finally someone came to the discussion here, i won't undo that again, it's just that otherwise noone would have listened to it, as again, IAG as a tie in is wrong Norschweden (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Reverting until someone responds to you is not how you conduct editing on Wikipedia. I have already reported you for your behavior and policy violations for not willing to take the initiative in halting your reversions first to listen to others. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Claiming there is a consensus where is none and holding up an unsourced version that is contrafactual is also not how you conduct editing on Wikipedia. but back to topic, do you have anything beides seeing IAG as akin to the oneshots that holds up it being tie-in? Norschweden (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Claiming there is a consensus where is none: Please see consensus formed through discussions here, here, here, and here, and has been noted at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series/FAQ which is visible on the television series list talk page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for prooving my point. there is no consensus what so ever to call it a tie-in, my last edits gave it it's own section as "Series of shorts" for which consensus is given Norschweden (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101 "you have no new consensus to override the past consensus established for this," there was never a consensus for calling it a tie in, but there is a consensus for series of shorts. My edit is backed by the past consensus, your revert is not. stop claiming consensus for something that wasn't even discussed before Norschweden (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

We do not need to create a "Series of shorts" section when there will only be one entry in it. I Am Groot is part of this phase, just like the Assembled and Legends content. Those all do not need their own sections, so we bundle them under the collective "Tie-in media" section as that is what they are, additional materials part of the phase. We are not discrediting them as lesser or not part of the phase, just add-ons to it. I Am Groot was put in the "Tie-in media" section when it was announced, and has been upheld by editors since. It is a simple headerspace, a consensus is not as serious to need for them usually. Generally speaking, if you feel there should be a change to something on Wikipedia, you should discuss it first before making changes, and especially avoid reinstating your edits without listening to others, as it is considered WP:Edit warring. There is not a clearly defined consensus for this practice, although it has been used for over two years now, so an abrupt attempt to change what was already established would generally warrant discussion to form a clearly defined new consensus, even if the prior agreed upon approach that was in place for years was not clearly apparent. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

No matter which definition of Tie-In media you look up, it always referes to supplementary meaterial or to put it in pop culture franchise terms "lesser stanges of canon", andthat does not apply to IAG, a comic addaption of it would be, a behind the scenes would be, but IAG is a fullfledged part of the MCU, no supplementary material, and you will find no official or reliable source calling it a tie-in, while you'd find them for actual tie-ins. and no putting stuff that has just one entry into "tie-in media" is not a common practice, as you can see with The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special, which was listed as TV show before the second special came to be. And btw. now you say that there is no consensus needed while the other guys reverted my edits claiming this consensus would exist which was false, how should i listen to someone that claims non existing consensus exists and is not listening to me, unless i force them to via revert? Norschweden (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

We know there is WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS for this because the heading has stood unchallenged for two years until now. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)