Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

ScreenRant source for filming in the US?

There is a source in the pre-production section that states that ScreenRant confirms that partial filming will take place in the US. Here's the source: http://screenrant.com/ant-man-movie-locations-edgar-wright/ and with that source it's actually reverts back to three other sources, Deadline, Fandango, and Screendaily. It should be noted that those sources only talk about Edgar Wright's Ant-Man film, and that it briefly mentions that The Avengers will be shot in the U.S., but doesn't specify the sources of this claim. I know there has been chatter of the film shooting in Africa, and the UK but there hasn't been any talks of the film shooting in the U.S. 71.188.17.123 (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

So no one's going to address this concern? It doesn't make sense that ScreenRant would say something that may, or may not be true, and since when is that site a source? It's more of a third-party source rather than an actual source. Npabebangin (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Still nothing? how is that a third party source a definitive source, no other news outlet has stated that AoU will be filming in the US. Hello?? 71.188.21.128 (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This Article Fails to Meet Notability Guidelines

Read here, especially "The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no 'sure thing' production." If there is no contention, I will move the article to a section under the Marvel Cinematic Universe page on Saturday. — Enter Movie (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Even if it isn't made, the film would be independently notable due to its high profile status, its widespread coverage in third party sources, and the resulting high profile failure. It would literally take the deaths of a good dozen people for this film to not be made. So I think you will find a little contention. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 22:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The article overwhelmingly surpasses the general notability guidelines which supersedes project-specific guidelines. Also please see the archived concensus (which is Wikipedia policy not a guideline) to move the article from the incubator to the mainspace.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

However, that's the previous consensus. Changes can be made to that, and that's what achieving consensus is all about. Let the current consensus fall under scrutiny. Discuss away. On one hand, the notability guidelines for films do fairly firmly say "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles", but on the other hand, this article has no trouble meeting the criteria for the general notability guidelines. I seem to recall that the first Avengers film was allowed an article long before production started because it met the notability guidelines, but also because it was an exception in that it was the first multi-franchise crossover/team-up film of its kind. It was such a notable film project, and was labelled such: The Avengers film project. I'm not suggesting we go either way with this. I'm simply weighing in. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

True, but guidelines should not be interpreted as hard and fast rules. With over 50 used sources and countless unused sources if there should ever be an exception to WP:NFF, it is this one.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the page should stay, due to it meeting WP:GNG and the fact that it is notable in itself due to its high profile status. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you guys for the input. Your arguments are very convincing, and thus, I will leave the article alone. - Enter Movie (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Baron Von Strucker has a role in the sequel.

Here's the source via HitFix. 71.188.21.128 (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Source leads back to Latino Review, which is unreliable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

it shouldn't really matter, HitFix is a reliable source and has broken news on Don Cheadle's role as Rhodey. 71.188.21.128 (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does. You have to see where a reliable source like HitFix is getting it's info, that they are reporting on it based on the Latino Review source. So no, this time it can't be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's the official source 71.188.18.94 (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Already added. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It should also be added to the pre-production section. 71.188.18.94 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It's there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Avengers head to South Africa, but not Cape Town.

Here's the source, take it as you will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.16.34 (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Kim Soo Hyun cast as Doctor/unspecified role.

Here's the source. Hyun will reportedly play the major role of a doctor who will appear within the middle act of the film and serve as a partner to Robert Downey Jr's Tony Stark/Iron Man. 71.188.16.34 (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

 Undone: Source appears to be a celebrity/gossip site, if true a more reliable source will pick it up.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait for a more reliable source. Althought she and a bunch of other asian actresses were in consideration for the role, it seems like she landed the part, but, time will tell. Hopefully Marvel / a more reliable source announces this. 71.188.16.34 (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have just added a source from Twitch Film, including info on shooting in Korea. Richiekim (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Richie. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

this is why i don't edit pages... Paul Bettany cast as Vision.

According to Dailymail, Paul Bettany has been cast as Vision. I tried adding it, but I guess I did it wrong? I don't see how. But I did. Npabebangin (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI, Variety has confirmed the Daily Mail report. Richiekim (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Per this discussion, while the use of the Daily Mail isn't strictly prohibited, it seems consensus is that we should use more reliable sources when available and should not generally be used to reference BLP issues. So if we have another more reliable source, we should use it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Variety seems like the best replacement? It states that The Daily Mail "first" reported this news, which implies that the information ultimately checks out, per Variety's fact-checking. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Erik: I'm confused by the question mark, are you questioning if it is the best replacement or saying it is the best replacement?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I do find it reliable. My tone was because I was not sure why you replied about using more reliable sources when Variety was already mentioned. :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Because the Daily Mail article, was the one being used in article. So if we have a more reliable source like Variety then we should use it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Just my luck. I recently added the Variety source into the casting section, and my edit was reverted before this discussion ever took place. Oh, well... ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 22:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Apologies on that Jedi. I didn't see the point of replacing the ref when we had the direct one, but obviously the Variety one is more reliable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

That's alright, Favre1fan93. ;) ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 00:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Filming scheduled to start tomorrow, Feb 11.

Here's the source. They state:

“The great thing about this movie is that they are shooting Johannesburg as Johannesburg,” said Desmond Mthembu. “Often you will find filmmakers will shoot in Johannesburg and portray the location as Los Angeles. This time around the first 10 minutes of the film will be of Johannesburg." - 98.110.8.56 (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

 Undone, the site appears to be a blog, which according to their website is a "online news and media aggregator", so no self-editorial oversight.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's a better source from The Sunday Times (South Africa).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Will change source if you haven't already. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

thanks guys! 98.110.8.56 (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The pre-production section

The pre-production section is kind of a mess. A few thoughts:
1. We don't need to note every actor's return. Most of them are under contract to return and these reports are little more than "Yes, I'm coming back". They don't provide any insight into the movie's production or a timetable of return or anything. Noting their return in the cast section is enough.
2. We're being a bit too beholden to the dates here. Keeping the dates and giving an idea of a general timeline is important, but keeping the section readable is important too. For instance, the information about Johnson and Olsen's casting is spread all over the place. There's far too much "This happened, then this other thing happened, then this third thing happened, then there was an update to the first thing."
I'm going to go ahead and be bold and make a few changes to the section, obviously feel free to revert and discuss if it's an issue. -Fandraltastic (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. I'll just see what you do and adjust if I see anything that should not be changed, but I think what you are going to do sounds fine imo. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying and agree with some of it but I think there was some overreach. For instance, the "filming" section does not refer to the act of filming but a specific stage of filmmaking like pre-production. Things like location scouting and scheduling are key pre-production activities so they belong in that section. And as we're dealing with stages of filmmaking I think it's important to keep a general timeline of things as they occur but some editing could be done for readability and to avoid repetitiveness. I already had some ideas about this, give me a few days and I can try somethings when I have sone more time.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

None of that was location scouting. It's simply a list of filming locations, "these are the locations where we're filming." That doesn't add any context. That just means the information will end up being repeated in both sections. If we had in-depth information about why those locations were chosen, that could belong in a pre-production section. We don't. Just the one fluffy quote from Feige about Korea, which works fine in the filming section. I understand what the sections are for, and I understand the desire to give things context. I believe there was plenty of context in the version before the revert. There's contextualization and then there's over-contextualization. We're erring way, way, way on the side of the latter here, and the article is worse for it. -Fandraltastic (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It's scheduling, which is a pre-production activity. The filming section will be expanded as it occurs. The Avengers (2012 film) is a good example of this, as there is difference between what is scheduled and what actually occurs. The filming section will be expanded as it happens. Like I said some clean-up is warranted.--TriiipleThreat (talk)

It's not scheduling. It's internet reports about where filming will take place. The dates of those reports are not relevant to the reader and don't add any meaningful context to the information. I've read the Avengers page (I helped write it, remember?), there was haggling over a location before Marvel finalized it. That's what's in the pre-production section, and that's why it matters. There's none of that here, filming was set to primarily take place in the UK a year ago, and I left that in the pre-pro section. The rest can comfortably fit in the filming section, since there's no info except "Hey, we're also filming there" -Fandraltastic (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It's is scheduling. There is absolutely no difference between the Forte di Bard Association's announcement and Bill Richardson's and John Kasich's announcements.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

There absolutely is a difference, in that the location changed and was the source of continued coverage for the first movie, and did not here. And either way I'd point you to WP:OTHERSTUFF, which I know you cite often. The inclusion of one or two sentences on another page doesn't mean we have to structure this page exactly the same, if it's to the detriment of this page. We should do what we can to tighten and improve the prose here. Perhaps the first film's page could use some tightening, too. -Fandraltastic (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, since you seemed focused on the announcement(s) of filming locations, I tried again, this time keeping the three filming announcements in the pre-pro section. Does that work as a compromise for you? -Fandraltastic (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The filming in the US isn't even confirmed, and the source is not reliable, as to where they got their source is unknown. Screenrant states that filming will be done in the US, but it doesn't specify where they got that piece of information in the first place. How does it get added to the article when it could very well turn out to be false information from an unreliable (see: un-useable) source? 71.188.20.247 (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Screenrant is not unreliable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I just checked out the source for the US filming, and I kind of agree with the IP user. That seems like a rather large piece of information to drop in the middle of an article nonchalantly like that, and I'm not seeing it corroborated elsewhere. And I don't ever see Screenrant doing original reporting. Seems like it may have been a mistake -Fandraltastic (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I hid US filming ref for now, until we have better verficiation.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I was okay with it for the most part. I did however re-add the returning characters in a very abbreviated manner. Even though they are returning characters and have contracts, Marvel isn't forced to use them. The section just seemed incomplete without it. I also moved scheduled productions from filming. The section will be updated with what actually happens. I hope all is good.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Claudia Kim confirmed for AoU

here's the main source. 71.188.20.247 (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Info has already been adjusted accordingly on the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

okay, awesome. Thanks!!!! Npabebangin (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Kretschmann signs multi-picture deal

Here's the source. I think it merits some sort of mention. 71.188.20.247 (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

We should avoid foreign language sources. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's an english language source 71.188.30.224 (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson's pregnancy

Is it worth mentioning that in the Production section? -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be just a rumor at this point. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Its tabloids eating up one measly report from someone not integrated in her life. Scarlett hasn't made any confirmation herself, so its currently a mere rumour. Rusted AutoParts 23:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

What's the standard of proof? Is Time Magazine considered reliable? http://entertainment.time.com/2014/03/03/scarlett-johansson-is-pregnant/ -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Its only worth mentioning if we know how it will effect the production if at all. E! says they'll fast track her scenes. Entertainment Weeky however says that is just a "speculated solution". Either way, I think we should hold off until more concrete sourcing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

IP 24..., the Time article sources People, which both source back to E!, so it is the same info. Even in Time and People, they stated that Johansson's reps had no comment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Favre1fan, that's no reason for ignoring those sources. If Time or People are considered reliable, then those sources should be used. Just because they list E! as a source, it does not mean that they do not have additional sources. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Time is sourcing People and they state that People "confirmed" it, meaning People independently verified it. However neither Time or People mention anything about this film, so its irrelevant to this article until we know more.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, but People got their intel from E!, so its still unconfirmed by Johansson herself. People can't really confirm anything without any word from Johansson. Rusted AutoParts 22:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't need confirmation that Johansson is pregnant, we need verification that production will impacted if she is and if so, how.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Which all falls on when or if Johansson confirms it. Her pregnancy is just a rumourful report. Many female celebrities endure pregnancy rumours. Jennifer Aniston, Penelope Cruz. Until otherwise, we simply cannot publish this gossip. Rusted AutoParts 22:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I see we're still learning how to use sources on here. If a reputable source such as Time or (to a lesser extent) People publishes something, that should be more than reliable enough for inclusion here. As to whether or not it's relevant, as TriiipleThreat noted, I believe it's not until a statement is made to that effect. When you start asking "but how does X (a reliable source in every other topic it covers) know?/what is X's source?/who told X?" (or variations thereof), you've began down the road to madness. The right questions are, is it relevant (for whole articles, not content within articles), is it from a reliable source, would including it present a neutral point of view, and would the sources cited support the statements we're going to make? —Locke Cole • t • c 11:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

We're not still learning how to use sources, bud. Time and People are using info obtained from E!, which acknowledged its currently unconfirmed by Johansson. Rusted AutoParts 13:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't matter that it's unconfirmed by Johansson. It doesn't need to be official to be considered reliable, which is why Locke Cole is explaining the proper use of sources. But yes, because the relevance is currently unknown, we shouldn't include the information just yet. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Look, I could be a "source close to Juatin Bieber", say that he's going to be a father, though I have nothing evidence wise. E! Would report it, which would then spread madly through the media to places like People and Time. News on Bieber sells, so they'll publish anything. Same with Johansson. "It doesn't need to be considered reliable"? Are you delusional? We don't deal in unconfirmed gossip. People and Time got their information from E!'s article, which then said the news was just a report, thus cancelling out People and Time's articles, as its simply a different spin on other material. It would only become relevant when she does confirm and Joss Whedon addresses the pregnancy's impact on the film itself. Rusted AutoParts 14:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I see you're using quotes, but the text within the quotation marks was never actually said by anyone in this discussion. It's fascinating the path you imagine a story takes, from the mouths of people, to unreliable sources and gradually up the food chain that is the news/media, but none of that is really relevant here. The only thing that "cancels out" a reliable source's information (and truly, it doesn't "cancel out" the source, as the fact that incorrect information was reported is now noteworthy in and of itself) is the source being deemed unreliable through a history of poor fact checking/reporting. As to that quote I mentioned? Not going to dignify that with a response, because as I said at the start: nobody said that. Nice straw man though.

To reiterate: a reliable source does not need to be "official". It does not need to cite a source (and if it does, that's not relevant anyways, because if the text presented is from a reliable source, we take it as such). It does need to be reliable, obviously, and the criteria for that can vary from medium to medium and from subject to subject (you wouldn't, for example, go to Daily Variety for sources on astrophysics, but you would definitely use them for anything to do with movies/entertainment). Please stop misusing the policies and guidelines here on Wikipedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's just boil this all down to, which is true, that regardless of if she is pregnant or not, even with these reports, it does not seem that it is affecting production, other than her scenes being fast tracked, which does not seem to be an impact on production. So as TriiipleThreat has been saying, until we learn if, at all, produciton is impacted, we don't really have to add the info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well to be clear, I think her scenes being fast tracked might be relevant but as I stated earlier even that is being disputed right now by various sources. I agree we can table this discussion until we learn more.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

So we have our answer. Production is going ahead as scheduled with no changes as result of any pregnancy. As far as I am concerned this topic is now mute.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It still leaves whether or not the pregnancy is even true still. It's all confusing. Not once does she say "I'm pregnant" in that quote. Rusted AutoParts 20:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, she doesn't confirm or deny that she is pregnant, but that's an issue for another article, not this one.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

well it seems as though it's true that she is indeed pregnant, with Fiege congratulating her. 71.188.30.224 (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

No. We already had reliable sources stating she was pregnant. If that information was relevant to this article (i.e. affected the production of the film), then it would have (or should have, rather) been placed in the article with the sources from People or Time. No need for confirmation from Fiege, or even from Johansson. That's not how Wikipedia works. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTGOSSIP. In statements like that, we need confirmation from the person. Rusted AutoParts 13:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Everyone. Can we please end this discussion here? We got the info that was relevant to this page, per Triiiple's article find. If you want to question the "Is she/isn't she" status, please take that over to Johansson's talk. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTGOSSIP does speak of scandal mongering, and that extra care should be taken when using sources dealing with living people. But it does not say that confirmation from the person involved is necessary. "Official Confirmation" is never a requirement for sources on Wikipedia. And sorry Favre1fan93, but this discussion does seem to be relevant, as editors are continually mistreating sources. ---ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Warning this discussion contains/implies major spoilers for Captain America the winter soldier

"Working for S.H.E.I.L.D" should probably be removed from hawkeye and black widow's bios as well as fury — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.114.220.133 (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Paul Bettany himself confirms he will play The Vision

He appeared on Jimmy Kimmel Live and confirmed it himself. Here's the video of it here.Richiekim (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there anything that we have to add from this? We have it that he was cast, and he doesn't add much about the character. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I was also curious as to what could be added, but since neither Marvel of Kevin Fiege have officially confirmed his involvement, and only Variety being the only 'useable' source, it could be added as additional confirmation. Wouldn't hurt. 71.188.28.100 (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

If anything wants to be done regarding this, here is an article with the info, to cite and archive. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thor's character entry

His entry is the only one that breaks continuity with the other entries. All the others describe the characters in terms of the movie.

If this entry is to be consistent, it should state that the Norse mythological deity is based *on him*. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.55.200.20 (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Not what the Source says, which is why it is written like that. In-Universe writing style is discouraged on Wikipedia--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hayley Atwell in Avengers: Age of Ultron

Here's the source take it with what you will. 71.188.28.100 (talk) 07:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done, ComicBookMovie.com is not a reliable source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It was confirmed by her boyfriend on his Twitter account, https://twitter.com/Evan_keepup. She tweets with the account which proves that it's a real account. I believe this is enough confirmation. --User:Orcson11 (User Talk:Orcson11) 09:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The account is unverified nevertheless. Still we prefer secondary sources whenever available.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

New Iron Man Armour

Robert Downey recently revealed the new suit Tony Stark will wear for Age of Ultron. Where will this news fit in the article? Kailash29792 (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere, without any specifics detailing what makes it different. Simply stating Tony will have new armor isn't exactly notable as he has new armor in every film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The source did not even provide a link to the Instagram posting, in any event that Downey had commentary in the description of the photo. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, that instagram post is of a statue of an Iron Man suit, not particularly the one he's going to wear in the film. The on set suit has been seen in set photos, and the one featured in the Instragram post was not even remotely close to the one seen. It may just be a statue. 71.188.21.140 (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2014

Josh Brolin has been cast as Thanos. Rjvollert (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The info has already been added to the page. It is at the bottom of the cast section, and in the filming section as well. In the future, if you use the edit request feature, make sure to include a source for the information you want to add. The burden is on you to do that for the helping editor, as they may not know where you have gotten this info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Lou Ferrigno as the voice of Hulk

I'm wondering why this (and this) hasn't been added? Is it unreliable? Is it unconfirmed? Here are a few more sources, source 3 source 4 source 5 They all lead back to Nuke the Fridge, But I still don't know. 71.188.21.140 (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

We had a discussion about this somewhere, which I can't seem to locate. I think it was determined that Nuke the Fridge was not the most reliable, and we don't know the full extent of his involvement. It could be like TIH, where he was credited, or the first Avengers, where only elements were used in a mainly Ruffalo voice. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

FILMING: Incheon, South Korea?

In this article, it claims that avengers 2 will be shooting in Incheon. Anyone know if there's any truth to this? 98.110.8.213 (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This is from January, so any relevant and reliable info regarding the South Korea shoot is in the filming section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Filming at the University of East Anglia campus in Norwich, UK

As of June 13, 2014, Filming has started at the University of East Anglia. Here are two sources. source 1 and source 2 source 3, source 4. I know that they are from Comic Book Movie, but yeah, they are indeed legit. A more reliable source would neat! 98.110.8.213 (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Remember WP:Verifiability, not truth. It may very well be true, but we cannot verify it without a more reliable source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem! I figured I'd bring these images and those websites (Flickering Myth). (EDP24.co.uk) as further sources. not verifiable I guess. 98.110.8.213 (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Filming at Dover Castle, Kent UK

Here's the source. 98.110.8.213 (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Robert Downey Jr. done shooting AoU?

On RDJ's official facebook page he has stated: ... Just wrapped the Avengers: Age of Ultron gig... That is indication that he's finished filming his scenes, right? 71.188.21.238 (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is an indication that he has wrapped most likely. Though, I think it would be best to just indicate when general filming has wrapped, lest we get into "X finished on Y date, while A finished on B, etc." That's not really encyclopedic. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll take it. We can consider this discussion, closed. 71.188.21.238 (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Lou Ferrigno

Returning as Hulk voice [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.94.238 (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

See the above discussion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

But they're reporting something he directly said? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.87.20 (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The issue is we don't know if it will be credited. He did not receive credit for the voice in Avengers, because it was mainly Ruffalo's, though the audio mixer took elements that Ferrigno had recorded for use in the new voice. So it could be the same situation, or it could be how it was in TIH, where he was credited as the voice. So since we don't know, it is best to hold off on including the information. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Brolin / Thanos - uncomfortable without further verification

The various news sites reporting this are referencing latino-review.com, which Im pretty sure we do not use as a reliable source. furthermore, the articles all state that he is expected in at least one Avengers sequel. This could mean Avengers 3. Nothing states Age of Ultron with confidence or confirmation. A lot of them say "rumored", too. I find our...haste in adding this here to be kind of alarming. Guardians seems fine, but we should wait on this for here.|| Tako (bother me) || 21:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Variety confirmed the Latino Review rumor. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

In regards to Guardians, sure.

Thanos, who first appeared in the post-credits scene in “The Avengers,” is a major villain in the Marvel universe and is also expected to appear in one, if not both, of the upcoming “Avengers” sequels.

Age of Ultron, though, thats up in the air.|| Tako (bother me) || 21:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

They are referencing latino-review as having broken the story, not as the source of their information. The Wrap article that we are referencing does not say "rumored", and states that the reporting was done independently. -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should trust anyone saying "an insider told us" - we can write that someone reported it, but I think that's the limit until we get an official statement. || Tako (bother me) || 21:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We try to avoid saying "reported" as that is what the ref tag tells us. But The Wrap seems to check out with their own sources, confirming his inclusion in this film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't need an "official statement", we need a reliable source. The Wrap is that. Movie studios often try to keep things secret. As long as the information is verifiable there's no reason to exclude it. -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Tako, I understand completely where you are coming from. I'm one to usually wait for the official source, especially with these movies. But as I have seen the past couple of months, the news breaks before Marvel releases the info. And grabbing it from The Wrap, Variety, Hollywood Report or IGN, to name a few, is fine, as long as they aren't referencing an unreliable source (aka Latino Review). And in this case, The Wrap is not using Latino Review, so that is why theirs is okay, even though it is still "reports". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This should not be on until Marvel officially confirms it. Which if true will probably not be announced too long.

That is not how WP:V works. Let's not start another Jeremy Renner situation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

He is for SURE not in it. He will be in Guardians Of The Galaxy and Avengers 3. NOT this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.82.208 (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

And your proof otherwise?? We have a source stating he is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Andy Serkis role

Can we take a look at this? I don't believe he is speaking about an acting role in the film. The quote from the Variety source has him saying: "The Imaginarium is the performance capture consultant, and I’m playing a role (in both films). On ‘The Avengers,’ I’ve been working closely with Mark Ruffalo." I read this as a role such as a consultant (which we know he is for Ruffalo), not a role as in "my role is Soldier 1". Unless, does the next question indicate he has a role, when answering if his face will be seen, he says, "I’m not at liberty to mention."? Too me, this is too questionable at the moment to put definitively that he has an acting role in the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This source is one of many that have appeared online in the past few days in which Serkis says he is playing a role; http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a581078/andy-serkis-joins-avengers-age-of-ultron-cast.html#~oICRRQDNK7CYTP Frogkermit (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

But they all cite Variety, so we have to look at the info there, and I'm not convinced that it is confirming anything. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, Variety asked him about appearing in Star Wars: Episode VII as well as Avengers, and Serkis replied that he is playing a role in both. Since it's already been officially confirmed that he will play a character in Star Wars, I'd say that he will be doing the same in Avengers according to his response.

Also take note of this quote from Variety:

Will we actually see your face?

I’m not at liberty to mention. But it’s all the same to me. I’ve never drawn a distinction when playing a role, whether it be live action or performance capture. Acting is acting. It’s just basically what you wear to the set that’s different.

This strongly indicates that he will appear in the film as a character, and not just as Ruffalo's consultant.Richiekim (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Anthony Mackie

I doubt this is a reliable source, but I figured i'd leave this here. 71.188.30.244 (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Trailing the sources (your's, to here, to here) is the same info we have had before: he was spotted on set, but that is not confirmation that he is in the film. He could have very well just been visiting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly Cover

The Entertainment Weekly cover features a First look at Ultron, as well as insight on his origins, and motives in the film. 98.110.0.214 (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Info from the article has already been added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems like your info has been reverted. Shame. 98.110.0.214 (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I questioned myself while adding the part in Ultron's character section. We should be all good now I believe. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Paul Bettany as J.A.R.V.I.S.?

Has there been an confirmation that Bettany will voice JARVIS again? 98.110.0.214 (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

No confirmation that he will in the film. Only the fact that he has in the past and it isn't a coincidence that he is playing the Vision. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Info on Johansson's pregnancy

Is any of this info useful to add? I know we determined not to mention the pregnancy unless it affected the filming schedule (which it didn't), but this talks about some of the things done to combat the pregnancy. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I think so, that's more info than we had before.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No Thanos

According to this article in Collider, Thanos will not be appearing in this film.

Are we going to get any Thanos in Avengers? How much of a long play is that? I’ve seen Guardians of the Galaxy and there are some teases there, but it’s clear that when he gets a movie it’s going to be a big deal.

FEIGE: Right. I’m glad it feels that way. That’s the idea. He’s not a part of Avengers 2.

Richiekim (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw that in the Superhero Hype interview I believe. The official release (which is odd that it is the "official" one so late now) said he was in Guardians and "any future Marvel films". But wasn't it only the Wrap source that said Avengers, and everything else just said Guardians, way back when it broke? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Wait. That collider article is the same as the Superhero Hype one I read. It must have been a round table interview. If you need that source, it is already on the page, sourcing the "Future" material. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Well the sources are all round table interviews, but it was never stated that he won't be featured in the film. It was a toss up, i guess to try to throw us off. But the source at Variety has stated that Brolin is signed on for Avengers 'sequels' (see: Sequel(s)), but at the same time the article stated that he may not even be featured in Age of Ultron. So I guess this discussion is closed. The weird thing for me is, Brolin came on stage at SDCC'14 on The Avengers: Age of Ultron panel. 69.248.243.150 (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I have the source saved in my sandbox if we need it. I think looking at him coming out at the Avengers panel was kind of a "tease" as RDJ said to the future threats. So basically, a small tease that Thanos will be the villain of Avengers 3. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

So this THR article is saying that Thanos is in the film, and that Marvel confirmed it. I don't remember this/this is now contradicting what Feige said. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Vision/J.A.R.V.I.S.

Just incase anyone was wondering if they are the "same" character or not (I mean, it hasn't been the best kept secret that since Bettany is portraying the Vision, J.A.R.V.I.S. is someway the "mind" for Vision or whatever), Bettany says in this Superhero Hype interview regarding the voice, and characterization of him, "He is not J.A.R.V.I.S. and he is not a child of Ultron, he is the Vision... He’s J.A.R.V.I.S. but yoked." So they should, as they have been, be considered two separate characters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering, should we include Bettany as part of the main cast, considering he made an appearance with them at SDCC?-Richiekim (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Richiekim: I'd wait wait until we got some sort of billing wether it be a poster or a part of some press release since he hasn't starred yet and don't know the size of the role.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing Richie. I do believe he will get billing, but at the moment we don't have that. I have started compiling a crude "paragraph" for him in my sandbox. Just so we have it since all the info is there. If either of you find anything else to add to one if he should get the bullet point, feel free to drop it in there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Bettany has said their is a 'relationship' of sorts between Vision and JARVIS, so does that confirm that he is voicing JARVIS by this statement? Can't tell you. I can tell you there is one. I'm supposed to keep it "vague and mysterious," which I will do. Everything is a double-edged sword; - (Source) 69.248.243.150 (talk) 04:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No confirmation yet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I realized there is no official confirmation from Marvel, but his point that he does indeed have some sort of relationship with JARVIS, should count for him basically saying (as he is) that JARVIS is indeed in the film and has some interplay with Vision. 69.248.243.150 (talk) 07:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Stellan Skarsgard as Erik Selvig

I know CBM isn't a source, but the source link for TotalFilm isn't available. Source 2601:C:780:234:A1E4:5968:3DB0:ACD4 (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Release date in infobox

Shouldn't the UK release date be present in the infobox too? LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMRELEASE, only the first release as well as the country of origin dates should be included. We do not know that the UK release is the first release (and very likely isn't as there will most definitely be a premiere date). Thus it is not included. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Plot Synopsis..

In the PRemise section it says they find something 'familiar' in Vision, but the official synopsis states that they " meet an old friend in a new form when Paul Bettany becomes Vision". I think the Premise on the page sound be altered to reflect that The Vision, and JARVIS are connected. 69.248.243.150 (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

also, speaking of Vision, "feels paternal to a number of people in the film, particularly Scarlet Witch" he doesn't feel "paternal" to Scarlet, he feels 'very protective' of her.Source That 'Paternal' portion I think is speaking of how he feels fathered to either Ultron/Tony Stark. 2601:C:780:234:8BC:599B:2E7:9077 (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done To the first IP, as we have no official confirmation that the two are related. Additionally, saying "an old friend in a new form" is a WP:COPYVIO.

 Done To the second IP, slight word change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Mackie

I see no mention of Anthony Mackie in the cast list, but the film is in his filmography over on his page. Is he in or not? 2601:7:1900:A0D:210C:608A:346:2F7E (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It does not seem like he is confirmed. This from August 5th says he's not sure. Don't think there are any more recent updates. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

He was 'spotted' on set (cloaked, looking at Steve Rogers bike), but nothing is confirmed. 2601:C:780:234:21A2:1F9A:CA7C:402F (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Guardians of the Galaxy DVD/Blu Ray to feature exclusive look at AOU

Here's the source. Should go into 'marketing', right? 2601:C:780:234:21A2:1F9A:CA7C:402F (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Depends on what it actually is. At the moment, it does not warrant inclusion, because it could just be the teaser trailer (which will likely have debuted before the Blu-ray release). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2014

Drmilesmarvel (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC) To be added to the character list: Eric Morcos as The Agent/Rick Mason

 Not done Please provide a reliable source stating such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done and no, IMDB is not a reliable source. 2601:C:780:234:2D41:84DD:1CFD:1C7A (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Disney XD airs special BTS look at AOU

Here's the source don't know if it should be added to the page. 2601:C:780:234:C176:B080:E120:A9C2 (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Russos

Okay, so the Russos are strongly rumoured to be directing Avengers 3 & 4 (I added this info previously), and I think it should be kept because it is pretty major/notable, and very similar to the Captain America 3 RDJ and Civil War info recently added to other MCU pages. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not the same as the RDJ/Civil War info. This is a rumor, with not much confirmation. I'd wait until there is more evidence that this is the case. One way to note the difference: other trades such as THR and EW independently confirmed the Variety report (which had no mention of this), while no one else is confirming the Russo info, only reporting on Badass Digest's rumor. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Related AfD discussion

There is an AfD discussion related to this page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Ultron (disambiguation). It does not effect this page directly but the issue of which page is the primary topic, out of those called "Age of Ultron", has arisen.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2014

{Budget: $250,000,000} http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2395427/business?ref_=tt_dt_bus 104.139.112.91 (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done iMDb is not a reliable source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2014

Due to various sources the trailer had been leaked on October 22, 2014. Because of this Marvel had decided to put the full trailer on YouTube through their YouTube channel. 71.170.90.32 (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Info has been sourced and added properly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

MARVEL releasing a piece of footage from AOU on October 28, and November 4

Here's the source 2601:C:780:234:1179:13E7:EA6F:CDD1 (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

What about the piece of footage they're going to debut on "Marvel 75 Years: From Pulp to Pop!" a week after the episode of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.? Doesn't that merit inclusion too? 2601:C:780:234:1179:13E7:EA6F:CDD1 (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The footage itself isn't notable, its the analysis per WP:FILMMARKETING. I was able tie the October 28, to the trailer analysis but I couldn't for Marvel 75 Years: From Pulp to Pop! since it was already scheduled to air. It can still be added later, if analysis is written about it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense. Alright, we'll just wait :) 2601:C:780:234:1179:13E7:EA6F:CDD1 (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2014

2:00, 26th October(EST) To be added to the character list: more information on War Machine/Colonel Rhodes Sources http://marvel.com/universe/War_Machine_(James_Rhodes) Karthikbmax2000 (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Per WP:FILMCAST - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hiemdall and Loki

Various news sites today, after an interview with Idris Elba published in the Daily Telegraph, have stated that Elba and Tom Hiddleston are returning as Hiemdall and Loki for one scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.12.29 (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the article (Bottom of the cast section) it has already been noted.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Cobie Smulders, Stellan Skarsgård in 'main cast' section?

how come Cobie Smulders and Stellan Skarsgård are in the 'main cast' section at the top, but not referenced at the bottom as returning cast members? Shouldn't they be featured as the 'additional' cast coming back from the film and not the main cast section at the top since they're merely going to have 'cameos'-in-a-sense in the film? They aren't part of the 'main cast'..2601:C:780:234:889D:4AD9:BD4B:D161 (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

As is stated in the hidden comments, they were listed as main cast members in the teaser trailer that was recently released, and for now that is what we are going off of. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

So where are these hidden comments, and where is this proof, where's the source for this inclusion? I saw nothing that stated that James Rhodes, Maria Hill, and Erik Selvig is in the main cast from the TRAILER released. We SHOULD be going off the official synopsis, and what it states. I'd just like to see proof of their inclusion in the main cast, that's all 2601:C:780:234:D5D9:4A24:D031:330D (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is the billing block. Rusted AutoParts 03:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the screenshot Rusted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Notable?

Marvel issuing a subpoena regarding the trailer leak? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting but seems incomplete. Maybe we should until we know how it turns out.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The Expendables 3 has a similar section on action taken on piracy. But I agree with Triiple, we can wait to see how this all goes down.Richiekim (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The sequel section

The current sequel section starts off with quotes from July about Marvel having plans for a third movie, that actors were contracted, and they wanted a 3 year gap. It's immediately followed by more current information with actual dates and such. Is the older, out-of-date material being left in for posterity, or should it be removed? Argento Surfer (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

As this is an encyclopedia, we do not necessarily remove information when it becomes outdated. That is why articles such as this have such long development sections, so that readers can learn about how the end product came to be. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I get that in a development section, because development doesn't change and is by definition chronological updates on progress. I don't get how it's useful to anyone to have a sequel section that says no release date has been discussed, followed in the very next sentence by the release date. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Tie-In Episode with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. confirmed

Here's the source. 2601:C:780:234:8AF:A80C:7901:667 (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Already in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

J.A.R.V.I.S. officially confirmed.

Bettany has officially confirmed that he will portray J.A.R.V.I.S. in the film. Here's the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:780:234:ADDA:7B97:6C75:F022 (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Already in the article. Sock (tock talk) 17:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You haven't properly sourced it correctly. Look at the other sources as examples. 2601:C:780:234:ADDA:7B97:6C75:F022 (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't add the information, I just told you it was already there. I'll go fix the sourcing now. Sock (tock talk) 18:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Richiekim, why did you remove the information? I can't see the article you sourced (blocked at work) but I assume it said Bettany was playing the part again. What changed? Sock (tock talk) 18:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC) Ignore that. Good work as always, Richie. Sock (tock talk) 18:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Wording should be changed to "who portrayed JARVIS in previous films" to "who portrays J.A.R.V.I.S." 2601:C:780:234:ADDA:7B97:6C75:F022 (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanos

Has this source expired or is there another reason why information about Josh Brolin voicing a some-kind-of-appearance-making Thanos missing from this article? CAJH (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Not very signinficant role, but bigger than in the first Avengers film. CAJH (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

This was discussed previously at Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron/Archive 3#Brolin / Thanos - uncomfortable without further verification.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I just read through the discussion you linked to Triiiple, and the consensus (at least as far as I can see) is for using that source, rather than against it. Unless there is another discussion that I am missing, I think we should re-add this, or at least re-discuss its inclusion. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

"The news was first reported by Latino Review."

Yeah, no, we shouldn't include this. Sock (tock talk) 04:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, has there been any more recent mention of Brolin being in this film? If you read closely, the insider told The Wrap that "the character will have a more prominent role in the studio’s Avengers sequels". The Wrap then said Brolin would be in Avengers: Age of Ultron. Just theorizing (original research) here but I wonder if they interpreted "Avengers sequels" to mean this film and Avengers 3. Ofcourse now we know that Avengers 3 will be two films. So technically the insider could be correct and The Wrap could be wrong. And yes, I know this has no bearing if we can use this particular source but more recent sources verifying the same information would lend credibility to it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about this, I just noticed that the previous discussion seemingly found consensus to use it. If you guys don't think we should then that's fine. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

These pages are blocked by my work filter, but from Google's sample they seem to imply Brolin will have some sort of role in AoU. This one doesn't seem so sure. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The first source just says Brolin joined the cast on stage at Comic-Con, I can't access the second and as you say the third source is ambiguous.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we should hold off still for the time being. I have the sources saved in my sandbox should we need to readd the info. I agree with Triiiple's comment above about The Wrap and their insider. I don't believe any new info has come out indicating he will be in AoU. Most of the more recent comments he has made have been about Thanos in general and how he will be portrayed in Infinity War. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Filming in NY

Just watched the exclusive preview on the GotG Blu-ray, and in it they confirmed they shot in New York. Here is the segment on Youtube (at the 0:25 mark). We have a source from Screenrant for filming in the US hidden already in the article. Can we unhid it and readd it, maybe along with this (officially sourced from the GotG Blu-ray)? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll be bold and add it in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Tom Hiddleston as Loki

The source that was referenced for his involvement did not directly say he was in it. Also, both Joss Whedon and Tom Hiddleston have said that he is not involved.Screen Rant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckmarvelous (talk • contribs) 22:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It says that Elba is in the film, doing a scene with Hesworth as Thor and Hiddleston as Loki. And just because they have told us something, like Loki not being in the film, doesn't mean we should hold that as the truth. They most likely meant that he isn't going to be in it like he was in the first film, but in the end he may pop in for a small cameo, something they probably wanted to keep secret. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Elba states directly that Hiddleston will appear in the film: “Ironically, yesterday I had to…” Elba chuckles. He’s not meant to talk about this, but he clearly enjoys doing things he’s not meant to do. “I’m in Avengers,” he reveals. He means that his Thor character, deity-cum-sentry Heimdall, appears in Age of Ultron, the second instalment of the superhero ensemble franchise. “And I’m doing a scene with Chris Hemsworth [who plays Thor] and Tom Hiddleston [Loki], and they’re like, [whispers] – ‘Aren’t you [meant to be] in Ibiza?’ ” Richiekim (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Samsung CES 2015

In addition to footage from the film (which I have already added), there were some other Marvel/Avengers related stuff at the event (Here and here). Should either link be used here in the Marketing, or on another MCU page? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I would use both, mentioning the technology like the phones and stuff, and explaining the whole VR experience, as that seems like a reasonably unique marketing event, even if it was more focused on Samsung than on the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2015

78.18.33.47 (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Anthony Mackie as Sam Wilson/the falcon

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  14:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

schmoesknow.com

@TriiipleThreat: Are you sure this site isn't reliable? Has this been established somewhere else previously? I have no issue with removing the issue until other independent reports or official confirmation comes out, but I am just confused that this was the reason you gave for removing it now. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The site appears to be a WP:BLOGS (not to be confused with WP:NEWSBLOG, which are published by news organization) or WP:SPS. I see no journalistic credentials or evidence of editorial oversight. If true a more reliable source will definitely verify it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Run time?

isn't the run time 150 minutes? 2601:C:780:234:DD26:E73D:F338:9A88 (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that we can use then we're open ears, but sadly we do not currently have one. Also IMDB cannot be used per WP:Citing IMDb--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

my bad, it's 170 minutes 2601:C:780:234:201D:DD69:D93B:4E54 (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Real names vs. superhero identities

In the Premise section, the Avengers are mentioned by their superhero names. However, in most of the MCU films, the summaries mention the heroes by their real names. Per WP:BRD, I'm going to avoid an edit war and start a discussion on this matter. That said, should we change the superhero identities to their real names once the full plot summary is available after the film's release? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with say Widow and Halkeye being changed, but Hulk to Banner shouldn't happen because it is his alteregos fighting, not Banner himself. I'm iffy on Cap and Stark though. But for consistency throughout that sentence it should probably stay as just their superhero names.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

We don't use their real names for all the other articles (Captain America: The Winter Soldier, for example), and in this case their superhero identities are more appropriate, as they are their 'celebrity identities', which is what the Avengers are by this point. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I think for now the superhero names are fine in the premise, but once the film is released and the actual plot is created for the article we can use their real names. Richiekim (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think even in the plot, there superhero names should be used for stuff and their normal names for non-superhero stuff. Kinda like Stark in the synopsis as it is, it says that he created Ultron and then later states that Ironman will have to fight Ulton. So it depends on the context and on what is actually happening in that particular scene.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The premise is based on reliable source, so we use what is used there. The plot however is based on dialogue so we use what is most generally there, which typically isn't the code name. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible marketing?

Can we use this for marketing? And over at Cap Civil War? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Its a little cynical to call an act of charity "marketing". Perhaps we can add it to the release section with the premiere information. Placement on the Cap page is more difficult, it might have to go under marketing as no other section fits.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't this question imply this article is advertisement and does not meet at least one of the pillars?Dannydohrmann (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Marketing; Trailer #3

This should be added to the marketing section. Merits inclusion as the Trailer will have it's broadcast premiere during American Crime, jus as the second official trailer had it's broadcast premiere during the football game. Should be included in the Marketing section. Npamusic (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:FILMMARKETING. We can't just add statements such as this (ie X trailer debuted on Y date.) without proper analysis. That will come after the trailer is released, hopefully. So that's when it can possibly be added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't this question imply this article is advertisement and does not meet at least one of the pillars?Dannydohrmann (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Peer Reviews

Since the GA-topic wants this page and Ant Man's page peer reviewed, when do people think we should put them in for that?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 11:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Tell them that when those movies' theatrical run ends, then the time is good. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll be creating them now, so we can get these passed by April 2015, when Cap Civil War starts production. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

So I can only do one review (per the instructions). I'll take Ant-Man. Ditto51, could you create one for this? Or maybe TriiipleThreat? Instructions are here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Doing it now--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 00:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Some of the topics discussed seem to appear more of native advertisement than any other type of viewership reading. Does the article not meet the threshold of the pillars? If it does, could someone explain?Dannydohrmann (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Those discussions are about including information about the film's marketing. It is documented is a factual and encyclopedic manner and is not itself marketing. See WP:FILMMARKETING. Reach Out to the Truth 22:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

First release date - LA premiere

Looks like the first release is going to be at the LA premiere on April 13, 2015. We should be on the look out for a reliable source, because I don't think the one I linked is reliable (though it's good just to get a ballpark date/location to be looking for). London's is a week after on April 22. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'll keep a look out for anything of use.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The same Hollywood property owners association as before is reporting street closures on that date for the premiere. It's still not usable source but it looks to give some credence to the information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't this question imply this article is advertisement and does not meet at least one of the pillars?Dannydohrmann (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Danny Elfman

According to the latest trailer, Danny Elfman is now given equal billing to Brian Tyler (The "Additional" moniker from the poster is now gone). Would this justify adjusting Elfman's credit on this page? Richiekim (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The only question I have on that is, would they potential remove the moniker for space reasons or simplicity? If not, then I say maybe change it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Mackie ECCC

This has a little bit of stuff that could be potentially added to this page or the Civil War page, or both. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Cast in lead

I think that's currently too much of the cast is listed in the lead. We should limit it to just who appears on the top of the poster, which would be "Robert Downey, Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, James Spader, and Samuel L. Jacksvon". I'm going to be bold and do that. If you disagree, you can undo it and discuss it here. JDDJS (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

All actors listed on the theatrical release poster credits are listed. This is consistent with all other MCU pages. See Thor: The Dark World, or Guardians of the Galaxy for examples. Richiekim (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This film has a much bigger cast than those other films. And there are more actors getting top billing in this film. Honestly, how does having that long list of actors in the lead really help the page? All of the actors can be found in the infobox. There is no rule stating that all of the MCU articles must have the same exact page format. While poster billing is almost always used at the base for the infobox, many articles vary on what cast is listed in the lead. And honestly, I think maybe we should reevaluate who is listed in the lead for Thor: The Dark World, but that's not relevant here. JDDJS (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

As discussed in the peer review this is an ensemble film, which by definition have a large cast. The infobox and lead should reflect the ensemble nature of the film. I see no reason for change.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

World premiere location

If we need it, here is a source saying it is in Los Angeles. I'm sure though we'll get one eventually confirming it is at the El Capitan, which is likely. Or it could be at the Dolby, like GotG was. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

EW has confirmed it's in LA. Richiekim (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: Julia Deply and Linda Cardellini in Age of Ultron.

Any merit to this source? Npamusic (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Already in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay cool! Didn't catch it there. Thanks :) Npamusic (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

ScreenRant has updated their article with an updated premiere sheet that only includes Julia Deply and not Linda Cardellini. What does this mean now, Favre1fan93? Npamusic (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Cardellini is no longer attending? It doesn't mean that she is no longer in the film, if that's what you were thinking. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Newsarama is saying she has now been moved to the "Special guests" lists versus the "From the film" list. Wonder if Disney actually goofed and that rumor from a while about Cap Marvel is true and Cardellini is here.... @TriiipleThreat and Richiekim: your thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

We if we have updated sources that is removing Cardellini from the cast then we need to update the article as well, anything beyond that is just speculation.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Just because she's been changed lists doesn't mean she's not in the film. I seem to remember that the Doctor Strange went off one source while load of us said that is was unconfirmed. It could simply be a mistake on Newsarama's part.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 12:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Cho's full name revealed + additional details.

Here's the source. Npamusic (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we need a better source than filmpolicereviews.com. But we don't have long before the film itself can verify such in-universe details.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks for the heads up. 18:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat Here's another source for Dr. Cho's full name. Npamusic (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's a better source. It's late for me, and I didn't look at it well, but seems helpful for Cho and Klaue (not Klaw). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Linda Cardellini redux

This EW article (which says there will be no post credit scene but a mid credits scene) confirms Linda Cardellini is part of the cast along with Julie Delpy. Richiekim (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

A revised guestlist shows she's just a guest, with Delpy the only one confirmed to be part of the cast. Rusted AutoParts 19:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Rusted, I think you missed the point. We have a new source, straight from Feige and Whedon, saying that they are both in it. As far ss I am concerned, I think Cardellini should be uncommented now. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Some eagle eyed people spotted Cardellini in Downey's Avengers cast dinner photo taken on location almost a year ago. DinoSlider (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Chitauri A.I.?

Source for that inclusion? Npamusic (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

"'Avengers 2′ Story Details: Ultron & Vision's MCU Origins Clarified". Screen Rant. April 9, 2014. Archived from the original on April 9, 2015. Retrieved April 9, 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Press screenings

Press screenings are occuring tonight in NYC and LA, with reactions already coming in via Twitter. Is the film considered released yet, or do we have to wait for the world premiere next week? Richiekim (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but isn't the release used supposed to be one where at least some general population can view it? If I am understanding this correctly, it would not apply to this, as these were only limited to select members of the press, versus say the premiere or at a festival. We can probably use some of the reactions though. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)