Talk:Avengers: Infinity War/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Cast section layout

Hi all. Wanted to have a discussion about how to format this now that we have the poster. I created a version where the infobox and lead use top billing order, while the cast section uses the billing block for the main bullets. Then additional MCU reprises also get bullets and new cast in prose. TriiipleThreat also created a viable option, using only top billing in the cast section, and everyone else in a table. I think there maybe is a world where we possibly combine the two? Because I think we should use the billing block order in the cast section, even though it is larger than top billing. After that, open to ideas of how to represent the remaining cast. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we should keep it as is to keep the section length down and to be consistent with the infobox but am not entirely opposed to your suggestion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I think because we have virtually no production information here, we shouldn't feel so bad about the section length. As I mentioned, I do think the cast section should have the full billing block order (this also allows us to include relevant info about Sean Gunn as Rocket on set, and Notary mo-capping Groot). After that, I think a combo of you're idea with mine might work. I've made some mock ups to look at, with various options, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Still you’d be adding back in a bunch of other names without much info. If it’s that important to you we can add the Rocket and Groot info in the form of a note. Also its not about the size of the article but the size of the section. At some point it just becomes noise.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you feel we should be forgoing the character info we usually add, like what we have for Pepper and Hawkeye? Regardless, I will add in the notes for the Rocket and Groot info for the time being. We should see what others have to say on the layout. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Well if the role isn't significant enough to be one of the 19 names listed on the top poster, then I don't think we should worry about it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

But that's sort of the point I was trying to make regarding using the billing block. Those additional 10 names are on the poster, so I don't think we should be excluding them from the normal cast section bullets. Not to mention we have the situation with Guirira and Wright in the top billing, but not the block below. Obviously we don't know the behind the scenes dealing that determined who would be in the billing at all, and who out of that would get top billing, so it's hard to judge significance or priority. I'm fine if we separate out all the other cast members and lose any prose descriptions/commentary for them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it's best to have the poster's top billing be used for the infobox and lead prose, and then to use the full billing block on the poster for the cast bullet points. Any additional actors, such as Jeremy Renner, Paul Rudd, and Angela Bassett for example, we can figure it out as either paragraph prose like other MCU cast sections or something else. That's my two cents. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 18:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they are on the poster but they're not significant enough to be one of the top 19. 19 is already a lot (Age of Ultron and Civil War have 17 and 16, respectively). We don't really need to get into the details of the 27th listed cast member even if its a recognizable character from a previous film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Names at the top in Starring and bulleted section, anything else goes in prose below. We need to stop being so precious about what people get put in bullet form. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding edits like this and the laundry list of names, the table is more readable than prose.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the use of this table. It is giving more prominence to the supporting cast members than the main characters, unlike having prose paragraphs below the list, and is confusing to me on whether it is additional cast to those in the infobox or additional to the actual cast list.

I believe we need to be using the poster's top listing for the infobox and the full billing block for the cast list, with paragraphs below that for everybody else. The fact that it is going to be a really big section should just be incentive to us to be more concise with our list and think about what actually needs to be said about each character; for instance, we could try and keep discussion of specific character arcs or design elements to the production article in writing and design sub-sections.

I would also like to suggest that we go back to just saying and features an ensemble cast with many actors from previous MCU films in the lead. I know having three different lists in the article isn't ideal, but this is just getting ridiculous. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, I agree with Favre that the production section is going to be very small in this article relative to our other ones, so having a bigger cast section is not going to make the article too big. Not to mention that we were always going to have bigger and bigger cast sections, something that we have already dealt with (and I thought come to terms with) in the previous few crossover films.

On Guirira and Wright specifically, my initial thought is that they were put at the top of the poster for marketing reasons since we've just had Black Panther and they were a big hit in it. When using the full billing block, I wouldn't try to fit them in because they are at the top of the poster. I'd just have them be the first names in the next paragraph below the list. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the spam everyone, just trying to get all my thoughts down. Favre has put together the different options so far here, and I have added my preferred option for the cast section as Option 4. I have used the full billing block, and tried to cut down some of the prose content for each of the bigger paragraphs to try and keep it manageable (extra details can go in the production, as I stated above). I have then added the other returning characters in a single paragraph below the list, and I think this is much less intrusive and gives a lot less weight to the supporting cast than the table option does. The table just stands out heaps and draws attention to itself, which I don't think my little paragraph does. Let me know any thoughts. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I like Option 2. I think shifting from a bulletted list to prose for the penultimate section in Option 4 makes it harder to parse out the many names that are still left in that section. I do like moving to columns for the people of lesser prominence and prose is fine for things like Lee's constant cameos. Using tables of any sort does feel to me like it imbues those sections with extra and unwarranted prominence. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Just as another note, for people coming here who don't have much experience with other MCU articles, my option is the standard formatting (with an extra emphasis on being concise), and the other options are all new proposals that are being tried out. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the others that Option 4 is preferable because it follows billing order. But I also think the infobox needs to be fixed as well. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Adam, I like your Option 4. I think you did a good job of keeping things concise. This is how Option 4 would look in the article, and I don't think it is over bearing. One think I'd like to note. Regardless of what we chose for formatting, if the table we ahve now stays, we need to adjust its layout. As it stands, when viewing the article on the mobile site, this table comes first, which is really confusing to have the table of "Additional cast" before the actual cast. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Out of all the options, Option 4 looks the least fan-boy/fansite. Honestly this edit is ridiculous. Should have left it as it was before we decided that starring roles vs secondary roles need to be shown differently. Completely superfluous. You guys are over-killing it.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay this is looking ridiculous. It's better to use a sandbox for edits like this where apparently we're debating the format. Whoever decided and changed the layout to this - it looks ridiculous. It should have been left as is!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because they didn't fit EVERYONE's name on the poster doesn't mean we need a new infobox listing secondary/supporting characters. Each of them are in the film. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I came to the talk page specifically to complain about the cast section not being correct in the infobox. Manual of Style for film infoboxes dictates that the cast list should be based on the billing block order, and there's no reason that Infinity War should be an exception. The reason that it is based on billing block order is for the reason of consistency. Every film has random DVD covers, posters, etc, putting cast members into random orders that are inconsistent in style and meaning. But every film also has an official billing block which is consistent in style and meaning. Wikipedia bases their infoboxes on the latter.

Looking forward to somebody fixing this. Because I was quite confused by what we have now. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, wtf is going on? Prose is not hard to read, the entire bloody article is prose. Stop fanboying it and stick those extra names in prose. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

There appears to be some WP:SNOWBALLing that the additional cast should be presented in prose. What’s not so clear is if we should use the top of poster or the billing block for the bulleted list.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

On that last point Triiiple, and in response to Nikki Lee 1999's comment above, there was a recent discussion somewhere else (can't remember at the moment) where this idea of using the shorter listing from the top of the poster in the infobox was made. I thought that was a good idea for some cases, especially after the issue we had with Age of Ultron. For those who are unaware, the billing for that film included actors like Idris Elba who only really had a cameo in the film but was included in the billing likely because he is a big star in the franchise. We list him in all three of the cast lists for that article, which some editors protested.

After reading this suggestion recently, I started thinking that it may be a positive change to have the shorter listing from the top of the poster as the general cast listing when things start getting a bit much, but still use the longer billing block list for the actual cast section so that we are still following that official list, but cutting some of the fat, so to speak, for the lead and infobox. I think this would be a benefit here as well; use the full list from the billing block, but have the slightly shorter version in the infobox. I would also like to raise again here my suggestion that we avoid a listing all-together in the lead, since both versions of the list are just too big for that opening paragraph in my opinion. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It isn't Wikipedia's job to decide whose name is and isn't worthy of being on the billing block. That becomes original research and a personal judgement call. It's our job to present the information in a formal and consistent format. For what it's worth, Idris Elba is still in the infobox. If we were to use the random names at the top of the poster, for every film, then I suppose it would be understandable. But right now, this article is not in line with Wikipedia's manual of style for infoboxes. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it is our job to try and make the best encyclopaedic articles that we can, and there is nothing wrong with having any discussion that hopes to further that goal. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I completely agree with User:Nikki Lee 1999. When editors start over-analyzing information, when it is plainly given by the studio - it can come very close to personal research territory. Our job is to present the information based on facts. A studio's stance/position on their own movies is as straight forward as information could possibly get. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I changed my mind just a little bit when I saw the billing block for Spider-Man Homecoming. Only Childish Gambino and Tyne Daly were actually listed in the billing block. Other than that, I discovered that Mackie is not in the Ant-Man billing block, and that Atwell and Stan are not in the First Avenger billing block. All others were identical to Wikipedia. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Break

I've gone ahead and converted the section to prose. I also used the billing block order. Essentially I put in Option 4. We can still discuss which order to use and the prose paragraph formatting if necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

So glad this was resolved! And was not changed to those goofy fan-site formats. Completely ridiculous that editors were even pushing for those.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

New Infinity War trailer is third-most viewed ever in 24 hours

The Hollywood Reporter says the new Infinity War trailer is now the third most-viewed trailer in 24 hours with 179 million views: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/avengers-infinity-war-trailer-nabs-third-biggest-debut-ever-1096024.

Please add this to the movie's wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.50.246 (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Official website

Please add this address, but then I protection prohibits the change: http://marvel.com/avengers - Medjay Bayek (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Why? We have the one for this specific movie there. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Have meant change. Medjay Bayek (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

What do you want to change? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

From https://marvel.com/movies/movie/223/avengers_infinity_war to http://marvel.com/avengers. Medjay Bayek (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The current site is more specific to this film.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Box office projections for unreleased films

Because I mentioned this article and its inclusion of box office projections before the film's release date while opening a discussion at WP:FILM, I am notifying this page of such discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Box Office Predictions. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Music

I believe this article has a good paragraph of stuff that applies to our music section here, but I don't want to read it at the moment because I am trying to avoid Ready Player One spoilers, so I thought I would just drop it here in case anyone else wanted to go ahead and add it now. Otherwise, I'll get to it in a few days once I've seen the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There's a bit on it right at the end of the article I'll add in here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Infinity War budget revealed at $300 million

The Hollywood Reporter revealed in their interview with Marvel Studios VP of Production, Victoria Alonso, that Avengers: Infinity War's budget is $300 million dollars: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/marvels-victoria-alonso-keeping-avengers-infinity-war-budget-1099377?utm_source=twitter. Hope we can add that into Infinity War's wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.106.162 (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Deadline has first official projection's for Infinity War's opening weekend to be at $200M plus

http://deadline.com/2018/04/avengers-infinity-war-record-box-office-opening-1202358812/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.106.162 (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Most ambitious crossover event in history

Might be worth mentioning how the marketing of the movie called it the "most ambitious crossover event in history" which led to a lot of people online making fun of that statement by providing other examples of arguably more ambitious crossover events. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/avengers-infinity-war-marvel-ambitious-crossover-event-twitter-highlights-superhero-movie-a8266221.html CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2018

Social: Youtube Channel

Youtube

Sdfgdgdfby (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Avengers: Infinity War's final official runtime classified

Well, guys, the BBFC has spoken. #Avengers: #InfinityWar's official runtime has been revealed to be 149 minutes and 9 seconds, making it the longest Marvel movie by 2 minutes ahead of Civil War: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/avengers-infinity-war-film. Guess that 156 minute runtime was a placeholder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.53.84 (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done: thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Steve Rogers = Nomad?

I've seen a new [post] in the official Instagram account of the Russo Brothers, that Chris Evans is Nomad. Then I've edited Steve Rogers' part in the "Cast" section and added the reference. Rnsevenman (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The image is a fan poster, nothing official from Marvel. The Russos have already gone on record he will not be called that in the film, despite embodying the characteristics of Nomad. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: That may be true, but they have since posted the image as their official profile picture. The filmmakers may have A) changed their mind, B) been trolling fans, or C) Marvel continues to blow smoke and mirrors so as to keep the element of surprise within their movies. Common sense says that it's any combination of these scenarios. When the filmmakers state that "Chris Evans is the Nomad" with their profile picture...what else do you need for confirmation (That's not a question, that's a statement).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A director setting FAN ART as a social media picture is absolutely not any indication the character is taking the name. Especially when they have stated in interviews this is not the case. The directors can show support of fan interest/art. That doesn't mean it is factual. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

"10-Year Legacy Featurette"

Should we include mention of the "10-Year Legacy Featurette"[1], it has received third party coverage at [2] and [3]. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. While the featurette is to promote this film, its content is about the universe as a whole, and that doesn't really fit here. I also don't see it fitting in another MCU article, much like the release of the 10-year "class photo". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a new article needs to be created then where should things would fit into. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

But this isn't really material that would need to be discussed, so a new article wouldn't need to be created. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2018

5.200.172.185 (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2018

Farcry12345 (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Role of James Gunn

I understand that he is not included in the infobox as he is an executive producer and not a producer, should this article have more mention of him? A possible source [4] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Another one [5] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Budget

We have Marvel's head of production confirming a $300 million budget, but we can't include a budget amount of $353 million from the company filings?? I know Sylt's article said that was the UK spend, but he is wrong. The company filings are for all spending by the company...they even mention much of the turnover (spending) was in the United States, as Georgia is the primary filming location. Sure, they spent a short time in the UK, but is anyone going to argue that they spent $358 million only in the UK for only a tiny portion of the location shooting...especially when papers in Scotland reported last month that they only spent 11 million pounds there. The filings mentioned in Sylt's article have been used for the budgets on many films on wikipedia. Foodles42 (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

THR does not confirm $300 million, it says "a budget upwards of $300 million". --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10068015/filing-history Look at "Full accounts". --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

And that is different from most budget estimates how? most budgets for most films are reported as "estimated at" or "budget of roughly" and so on and we list them. In any event, we have actual documented spending of $353 million. Foodles42 (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

As I've been discussing with Foodles on my talk page, the Telegraph article states Accounts for the production show that £248m was spent in the UK on staff and services. (bolding mine) We can't say this is the full budget for the film, because the article doesn't state that. That would be WP:OR. And WP:NOTTRUTH also applies. As to the Scotsman source also provided here by Foodles, I see nowhere where it mentions 11 million pounds. The only monetary amount I see in the article says was worth an estimated £10 million to the economy, and that's not a budgetary number, it's the influx of business the production brought to the area during filming. And finally to the THR article, that is not a confirmed number, only a speculative one on their part to what the budget was, so that shouldn't be used. All in all, WP:NORUSH with this. The sources will come eventually confirming what was spent. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Virtually all reported budgets are speculative estimates. Very very few are based on an actual primary source showing the numbers. How many BOM citations are there for budget? Almost all use BOM for this and BOM uses reported estimates. So when THR says a budgets upwards of $300 million, that's the estimate....one that was not contradicted by Marvel. And fine, here is the Location Guide stating "local spend of roughly GBP10 million in Scotland, taken from a budget of USD400 million." So I am going to insert the $400 million, as the Location Guide is as authoratative as it gets and they are quite specific. I still think a range should be included, as the infobox rules are quite clear on this, but whatever.Foodles42 (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

One more thing, infobox rules for budget read: "Insert the approximate production budget of the film. This is the cost of the actual filming, and does not include marketing/promotional costs (e.g. advertisements, commercials, posters). Budget figures can be found at Box Office Mojo, The Numbers, the Los Angeles Times, Variety, etc. If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range." Emphasis on "approximate budget" and "estimates". That's what virtually all these budgets are. Here we have conflicting estimates, so following the rules, we include a range. Foodles42 (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia since you edited my earlier change to fix the source citations, I assume you are fine with using the well-sourced budget range? Foodles42 (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I support a range if the articles conflict, but I have not yet read the WSJ source. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. WSJ said "cost close to $300 million". And now Newsweek also used the "rumored $400 million budget", in addition to The Location Guide, which also said $400 million. Given the actual audited company filings for the film show just over $350 million spent, it seems the $400 million is closer to reality, but the rules do dictate the range, which we are good on. Foodles42 (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I've put the Newsweek source in the infobox. I'm also moving back the Telegraph source to also use in the infobox range. As more sources are reporting on this range, I agree now that it isn't plausible for the £248 million listed to have been spent only in the UK, despite the very misinformed wording the article uses. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 no worries, that article definitely botched up the details. :) Foodles42 (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The one thing we can be sure of is that Disney has spent at least £248 million on this film. The cost will most likely be higher because Disney won't submit its 2018 costs until later this year or even next year. This is pretty much the only fact we have, and all the other figures are simply estimates (and if they have been published since Wikipedia installed the information we have to be careful of WP:CIRCULAR sourcing). Fluctuating conversion rates also complicate matters: since the beginning of 2017, the dollar has fluctuated in value between $1.20 and $1.45, meaning the dollar equivalent of that £248 million is in the $300–360 million range. I think bearing that in mind the only thing we can be sure of is that the film cost over $300 million. I think for now a range of $300–400 million is a sensible compromise, but we should keep a look out for more HMRC figures so we can pin down a more exact figure. Betty Logan (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Burj Khalifa

Burj Khalifa [6] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Mass sell out

Mass sell out [7] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Update

Surely the premier has come on by now, right?

If not, can it be updated immediately after it does?

Even if those that saw the premier are still instructed to keep quiet until the 27th, we can at least change it to say it premiered rather than is scheduled to premier. Once the premier comes on, if it hasn't already. (I don't live in LA or even America so I don't know) 68.150.5.99 (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2018

Extended content

Immediately after Ragnarok of Asgard, the Asgardian ship is a wreck and almost everyone is dead. Thanos overpowers Thor and the Hulk with Power Stone which he acquired from Xandar. Loki gives the Tessaract to Thanos who crushes it and puts the Space Stone on his gauntlet. Loki tries to trick Thanos but is killed. Before Thanos could kill the Hulk, Hemidal sends Hulk to earth. Thanos teleports himself and the Black Order sets the ship to destroy itself. Steven Strange and Wong show up to Tony Stark and asks to join them. While they are talking, a Q-ship shows up and Wong, Stark, Banner and Strange try to help the people in the area. Ebony Maw faces off with Strange, captures him and takes him to the ship. Peter Parker sees the ship, suits up and gets into the battle. Stark sends the iron-spider suit to Parker before he runs out of oxygen. Stark blasts a hole in the wall of ship in the space which sucks Maw out to space and kills him. Strange nearly gets sucked out all the way but Parker saves him. The Guardians of the Galaxy arrive to destroyed Asgardian ship and save Thor. Thor, with Groot and Rocket, goes to Nidavellir to forge a new weapon, Stormbreaker while the rest go to the Collector where the reality gem is. Thor eventually manages to forge the Stormbreaker in Nidavellir and Groot gives his arm as the handle. In Scotland, Wanda Maximoff and Vision are attacked by Proxima Midnight and Corvus Glaive. Steve Rogers and Natasha Romanoff wound Glaive and Midnight, and they retreat. Vision, Rogers, Rodes, Maximoff, Sam Wilson, Romanoff, and Banner get to Wakanda. Drax, Mantis, Gamora, and Peter Quill reach Unknown. Thanos is already there questioning the Collector. Gamora goes and attacks Thanos and kills him, but Thanos was using the Reality Gem and Thanos has her in his grip. Thanos defeated and incapacitated them and he teleports away. Gamora tried to lie about her knowledge of soul stone, but Thanos totured Nebula until she reveals. Thanos and Gamora go to the planet to get the Soul Stone but Thanos has to sacrifice Gamora in order to get the stone. Gamora tried to kill herself before he could throw her with a double dagger. Then, Thanos gets the Soul Stone. In Wakanda, drop ships reaches and Black Order show up. Thanos's army begin pounding the force field and die. Wakanda army is assembled along with Barnes, Rodey, Falcon, T Challa and Banner in the Hulkbuster while Shuri is working on Vision. Dwarf and Midnight eventually get killed. Thor with Groot and Rocket show up and pushes back the Thanos's army. Meanwhile Stark, Parker and Strange crash land on Titan. The Guardians show up and start attacking each other, and eventually stop the misunderstanding. Thanos shows up on Titan and begins to fight. They are trying to prevent Thanos from closing his hand and Mantis holds Thanos in a state where he can't move. They try to remove the gauntlet but Mantis mentions that Thanos is remorseful of Gamora, and Quill loses control when he realizes that Gamora is dead. He hits Mantis which frees Thanos. Thanos goes full rage mode and slips the gauntlet back. During the battle, Thanos overpowers Strange, Parker, and stabs Stark. Then, Thanos teleports himself away to earth. Vision asks Maximoff to detach the stone from him and destroy. Maximoff is able to shatter the stone but it creates a blast that kills Vision. Thanos shows up and faces off Rogers but quickly overpowers him. Thanos undid what Maximoff had done and restored the stone. He defeats Maximoff quickly and puts the stone in his gauntlet. Thor shows up and stabs Thanos in the chest with Stormbreaker. Thanos hurts but snaps his fingers and disappears. Suddenly, people start to turn to ash and disappear, including Barnes and Challa. In Titan, Quill, Strange, Mantis, Drax and Parker turns to ash and disappear leaving Stark alone sobbing. In mid-credit scene, many people disappear in chaos in New York. Maria Hill starts to disappear as Nick Fury tries to activate a com with Miss Marvel insignia, and begins to disintegrate.

 Not done: Excessive plot from in-universe perspective, not appropriate for the article. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Per WP:FILMPLOT, plot summaries should be less than 700 words and per WP:V, anyone should be able to check that the information is reliable. So until the wide release (April 27) this is not possible.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The film will be released on 25 April in many countries. So it is possible that many wikipedians can check V. Is it your own opinion not to release plot until April 27 or is there any consensus among wikipedians? I think Wikipedia do not band spoilers.

Only a few, not many. Per sources cited in the article, the majority of releases is not until the 27th.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is worldwide. So it is irrelevant to wait until April 27. V is okay with a few countries. It is a systemic bias to hold the film plot until it was released in countries with many wikipedians. Is it your own opinion not to release plot until April 27 or is there any consensus among wikipedians?

For a summary sourced only to viewing the movie itself, wide availability is strongly preferred. However, there is now a spoilerific Forbes article that could be used to source plot points. Similar articles from reliable sources (not Reddit or other discussion forums) could also be used. --RL0919 (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That is by a Forbes contributor not a staff member. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Variety has a review by its chief film critic that confirms the plot. --RL0919 (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Word count is <700 in current version. Editors can modify after being added. This plot summary sourced to movie itself. The film is released on 25 April in countries including Aus, NZ, Singapore, Phillipines, Korea, HK, and so on. So Wikipedians should not object to include the plot for V reason. I think it is ok to add the plot on 25 April afternoon in East Asia time zones (around GMT 03:00-06:00). There is no valid reason to wait until 27 April.

 Not done Not yet released in origin country. Not hard to wait, see WP:NORUSH. -- Alex^TW 07:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

What does the "origin country" have to do with whether the plot is verifiable? --RL0919 (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It’s a made up rule for which there is no consensus. The film has been released. The plot can be added. Stephen 10:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• absolutely no consensus here to prevent the plot from being stated. The film is out in theatres. Plot is out. Articles are written. starship.paint ~ KO 10:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Michael Douglas in Infinity War

Hank Pym from Ant-Man had appeared in Avengers: Infinity War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.222.81.97 (talk)

• Source please. I watched the film, didn't notice him? When did he appear? Secretary of State scene? starship.paint ~ KO 12:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2018

Delete all spoilers of the plot, the movie isn't even out yet in all countries 2A01:CB00:40A:C000:25FC:8A19:45DF:16AD (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia does not suppress spoilers -- see Wikipedia:Spoilers for more explanation. --RL0919 (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Handling spoilers in revisions

Maybe revisions that spoil the movie (and the reversions calling attention to the fact that an entire plot summary is in what they're reverting) should be deleted--Harmony944 (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No revisions have been (or should be) reverted because of spoilers. Spoilers are allowed on Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Spoilers for more explanation. Some plot summary additions were reverted earlier because of concerns that the content was not verifiable prior to the movie's wide release, but that was not a concern about spoilers. Deleting those revisions is not supported by our policy on revision deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The policy specifically only applies post release. You have no excuses--Harmony944 (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No such limitation is mentioned in any of the pages I linked to. --RL0919 (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Loki offers the Tesseract timeline

Thanos slaughters most of the Asgardians and defeats the Hulk. Loki offers the Tessaract to Thanos in exchange for Thor's life, but is killed when Thanos anticipates Loki's attempt to betray him.

• This order of events is wrong. Loki does appear to offer the Tesseract to save Thor, but this was actually a distraction for Hulk to attack. For those who actually watched the film, remember he said "We have the Hulk!" Thanos then beats Hulk and either he or his minions pick up the Tesseract that Loki dropped, eventually killing Loki. Loki never actually gave the Tesseract to Thanos. The above plot seems to suggest Thanos threatened Thor after Hulk's attack, but that was actually before Hulk's attack in the film. starship.paint ~ KO 23:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Revert request to "short plot" version

I request that the "Premise" section be reverted to the short version of the "Plot" section as it existed earlier this morning, which IMO is most consistent with relevant Wikipedia policy as previously discussed. After some editors expanded it out to near the previously rejected "long" plot (apparently copied from the Forbes contributor, who probably copied most of it from Reddit), someone else deleted it claiming "Movie isn't out yet"; but as previously discussed here it IS out in enough foreign markets to meet WP:V, even though it's not out yet in the U.S. I could do it myself, but I would prefer a consensus as to which "short" version should be posted; IMO the "long" version is not only too long, but also not sufficiently verifiable and a potential copyvio. --RBBrittain (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the plot must return, i ‘ve already seen the movie. Its out in the Netherlands on the 24th SRich (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Restored to short summary. I expect the plot summary will grow again, since over-inflation of plot summaries is a common problem for articles about popular movies. As for the people who keep going the other direction and removing the plot entirely, they really need to get over the idea that "not released in my country" is the same as "not yet released". --RL0919 (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The plot of the film is verifiable now so should remain. Too bad if you have to learn Dutch and fly out to the Netherlands, but I suggest editors acquaint themselves with WP:SOURCEACCESS. Betty Logan (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, for those who aren't aware, the film has now been released in Australia, Belgium, Egypt, Finland, France, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, South Korea, Sweden, and Tunisia. In many time zones it is already the 26th, which will see it released in Argentina, Bahrain, Brazil, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Kuwait, Oman, Poland, Qatar, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates. --RL0919 (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

And in about 22 hours (5 PM EDT) previews should begin in the eastern U.S. I've already seen multiple spoiler vids on YouTube from Australia alone. --RBBrittain (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems to have been copied from the Marvel Cinematic Universe Wikia, which presents an attribution problem, I think.  cjquines  03:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It also seems to be too detailed -- since when did the long plot template get removed? Per WP:PLOTSUM we should limit plot summaries to 700 words. I don't think Infinity War's plot is complex enough to warrant this much detail, considering we've written up a version that summarizes the plot without going over this limit. cjquines  (Talk) 03:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The long plot seems to be based from this edit on 19:30 April 25, which seems copied from this edit on the MCU wikia, which is earlier. If we're going to use the long version, it's potentially a derivative work from the wikia, which may be from Reddit, as noted above.  cjquines  (Talk) 03:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Neither of our versions seem to be lifted from marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com. I have run the copyvio detector on both versions and result of a copyvio is "unlikely": [8] and [9]. Betty Logan (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2018

change thanos to thaneos Lettucelouise (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Thanos appears to be the spelling that is supported by all sources, can you provide an alternative? — IVORK _Discuss 05:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Minor plot correction

The current plot summary states that Heimdall is killed by Corvus Glaive - this is inaccurate, as he is actually killed by Thanos, who stabs him using Corvus Glaive's weapon, which is the source of the confusion. 60.224.139.242 (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter who is holding the weapon—it doesn't change the fact that Heimdall dies and fully explaining it in prose just pads that section out with excess detail. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Plot removal

Please remove the plot. Could be become spoil.... Blackpanther95007 (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Removing the plot because of spoilers is a form of censorship and Wikipedia is not censored. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The power stone

Could we please stop fussing over the exact circumstances under which Thanos gets the Power Stone? It doesn't matter if he takes it from Loki, if Loki offers it, or if he wins it in Quill's dance battle for the fate of the universe. The most relevant details are that a) Thanos wants the stone, b) Thanos gets the stone, and c) Thor, Loki and Hulk are powerless to stop him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2018

MarvelManiac29 (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)change Hames Rhodes to James Rhodes in the plot of the film.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Waddie96 (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2018

This article needs to be edited as it contains spoilers for the movie as the plot is already written. Asbhamaan (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per WP:SPOILER. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2018

197.226.207.92 (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

There are spoilers at the end of the plot about the post credit scene.

 Not done as per WP:SPOILER.  cjquines  (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2018

There are a hell lot of stupid grammatical mistakes in the current plot description. Don't know how that ended up on wikipedia. I can't edit the exact plot content, so just want to suggest to the author/publisher to at-least sanitize what is presented here. 202.140.38.22 (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Page request...

Is there a list of all IMAX movies worldwide, on wikipedia? (not upscaled but full IMAX resolution)  Retrorick wikipedia  talk  07:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

95 million or 135 million

Avengers infinity war movie showing 95 million dollar, but in description showing 135 million dollar. Sunilhembram25 (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2018

the rundime for the movie mentioned is wrong its 160min not 149min Guile96 (talk) 05:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The source currently in the article gives a different figure. There is no evidence that it is wrong, only that it contradicts your source. Other sources will need to be provided to resolve the conflicting claims. Betty Logan (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:Citing IMDb which is the source for the graph. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

References

India: First day gross:

The figure given for the first day's take in India is $310 million when the total worldwide gross is only $135 million as at this hour (UTC 13:44) on 28 April 2018. Surely that should be Indian Rupees or what? Would someone kindly correct this figure so that it jives with the total. Thanks. Abul Bakhtiar (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Comic influences

This seems questionable. The source says the obvious influences are "Infinity Gauntlet", "Infinity" and "Secret Avengers", but it quotes Joe Russo as saying Certainly the Starlin book was our jumping-off point. This seems problematic as popular misconception of the "Infinity Gauntlet" story has it involving Thanos's quest for the gems, so it's entirely possible that during pre-release promotion for the film they were deliberately leading the public on in thinking that the storyline was influenced by the more famous comic book that few people have actually read, rather than the much less famous comic that even fewer people have actually read: the above quote could just as easily be taken as referring to Thanos Quest (also written by Starlin), and that would make more sense in light of what actually happens in the movie, which ends where the "Infinity Gauntlet" comic begins. It seems like we are quoting fan misinterpretation of a deliberately misleading quote given by the director. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

You raise a good point. Lets hear what others have to say. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sun rise, sunset

The Bustle cite is factually incorrect: Thanos isn't watching a sunset. He says specifically to Dr. Strange on Titan that he is going "to watch the sun rise on a grateful universe." Perhaps the best option would be for the plot synopsis to avoid what the sun is purportedly doing. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it has been changed already. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Why was the spoiler for the post-credit scene removed...

...in this diff? The comment from User:Adamstom.97 says: "Also removing badly/incorrectly formatted references." I was under the impression that if the references were formatted incorrectly, one corrected the formatting, instead of taking the lazy option of simply removing them. I added the references using the template reference tool provied by Wikipedia editing tool. Thanks, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 10:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason they were incorrect is that there should not be a whole lot of references in the plot summary. If there is something that really needs a third party reference then it should be discussed and included with consensus. But that isn't necessary here. The plot summary will work just fine with what can actually be seen onscreen, and then a note could be added to expand on that with a reliable source if required. You can feel free to do that, or I or someone else will sort it out in due time. But don't just dump a whole lot of unnecessary references in the plot summary and expect others to clean it up for you. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

So your edit summary was incorrect? It seems that there was no issue with the reference format, but their presence itself was the issue. Can you refer me to the guideline which says there should not be references in the plot summary of movies? Also, I felt the need to add references as another user had removed the spoiler because they believed it was original research and lacked secondary sources. I added secondary references to leave no doubt about the accuracy of the spoiler. I strongly believe that linking the post-credit scene to Captain Marvel is highly useful. I did feel free to re-instate the wikilink to Captain Marvel/Carol Danvers, but you removed that as well, and provided no reasons for that. I am getting the feeling that you are the owner of this article, and so I will cease my editing, and go back to my wiki-exile. Thanks, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 11:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, bye. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Well he's far from wrong, you and some other people who edit MCU articles regularly really seem to take ownership pretty often.★Trekker (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed the details of the insignia being Captain Marvel's and made it into a footnote. This is how post credit Easter Egg details have been handled in previous MCU films. - Richiekim (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

You’ll buy a ticket to “Avengers: Infinity War” because it’s April

[10] some box office analysis --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2018

i want to say that the blue and red star insignia in the post-credits scene is of CAPTAIN MARVEL 82.14.212.189 (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Already included in the footnote. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2018

In the Release section, change "It was released in most countries worldwide, including the United States, on April 27, 2018, with a few debuts beginning as early as April 25,[108] and was be shown in IMAX and 3D on select screens." to "It was released in most countries worldwide, including the United States, on April 27, 2018, with a few debuts beginning as early as April 25,[108] and was shown in IMAX and 3D on select screens."

The "be" between "was" and "shown" isn't needed. Somecdnguy4 (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Marvel Recreated ‘Aa Dekhe Zara’ For Avengers: Infinity War

Add This Link In Reference Marvel Recreated ‘Aa Dekhe Zara’ For Avengers: Infinity War 2405:204:A507:8AC5:C8BD:670B:F931:F8B (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@2405:204:A507:8AC5:C8BD:670B:F931:F8B: Sorry, but no. You need to make a clear request for a content addition to the article, not just a link with a request that its contents be included in some fashion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't actually read the article provided in the link, but if it is the same Aa Dekhe Zara as this one, it seems to be a pretty specious claim. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: It's talking about a song used in the Hindi trailer for the film, which is believable, but entirely trivial. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

My experiences working on other film articles—Skyfall in particular—have taught me that there are very few reliable sources related to the Indian film industry. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the same is true of classical Japanese literature if one only relies on English-language sources. That caveat always needs to be added. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Reception section

This section really should be expanded a lot, there is not a single mention of Thanos reception, the character has been built up for years and there have been tons of critics who have talked about the characters portrayal. And there should be some stuff about the other actors and characters as well.★Trekker (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure who crafted the reception section as it now, but you are more than welcome to WP:BEBOLD and pull info from the reviews already to expand on this stuff. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I really don't like how we build the section off RT but cite individual reviews as though that was where we got the information. Chang's review, for example, is "mixed", but we present a positive-sounding quote from it as evidence that he was down on the film, because this is what RT clumsily did. We really should b quoting the things that various critics liked and didn't like, rather than presenting it as a "fresh" versus "rotten" dichotomy, and not quoting passages that out of context, frankly, are gibberish. No sane human being could, for example, make sense of the Gleiberman quote we currently give or justify our implying it is a "thumbs up" where the Chang quote is a "thumbs down"; when I go to a theme park I like to try as many rides as possible, not wait in line for certain rides three times over. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with either of you regarding how the section is currently presented. I personally and spending my time focusing on other aspects to improve and maintain so I am not giving this section much thought at the time being. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should have sub-headers for the reception section, to split off the agregators form the text reviews? Or something like that.★Trekker (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

See, my problem is actually the "stealth" aggregator citations: the stuff attributed to the text reviews is clearly taken from the no-context quotations of said reviews given on RottenTomatoes. With a film like this where virtually all the reviews are mixed in their assessments of various aspects of the film but none of them are written in the naive hope that they would actually influence others to watch or not watch the film, I think it would make a lot more sense to break it down into paragraphs on, say, reception of the character of Thanos (Brolin's performance, CG animation, differences from how the character was portrayed in the previous films, comparison to source material), reception of how the other characters were portayed, reception of the story/plot, reaction to the "ending" (and the fact that it was clearly not an ending but a "To be continued in Part II" even if it's no longer officially being called Part II), reaction to the humour/action, reaction to the fridging of Gamora and the implied off-screen deaths of the the entire supporting casts of Thor: Ragnarok and Guardians of the Galaxy, critics pointing out how out-of-character it is for Disney/Marvel to make a deliberate move that would likely send their target audience (children) home in tears, etc. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

Good to see we are being unbiased here... adamstom97 (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC) @Adamstom.97: Why are you here? Did you just come here to insult me for thinking this article has a problem and proposing a creative solution to the problem that you don't agree with because you almost never agree with anything I do or say? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC) Nope, I'm here to point out that we are writing an encyclopaedia article not Hijiri's blog. Proposing a solution to a problem is fine, just remember that this isn't the place to push your own opinions. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC) Everything I wrote above comes from reviews of the film I've read/seen, and none of it is (exclusively) my own opinion. The fact that most of it is neutral "some critics said this, others disagreed" would make it impossible for it to be just my opinion. I have not stated my personal opinion on the film anywhere on-wiki, unlike you. I will now, if you like: I liked it, better than Age of Ultron and Spider-Man: Homecoming, but not as good as The Avengers, Guardians 2, Thor: Ragnarok or Black Panther. As for what critics thought about specific aspects of the film, which I listed above, I agree with some and not others; the only one that I really agree with, very much annoyed me, and I find it odd that more critics didn't notice it, is the bit about Valkyrie being presumably killed off-screen. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC) But this is an article talk page -- why are you forcing me to defend a personal opinion I didn't even express? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC) I didn't force you to do anything. A few of the things you listed I had not come across as common criticisms myself, and the parenthetical about the target audience was pretty pointed. It just didn't come across as objective when I saw it. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) To say these films are targeted at children is just to cite an objective fact. I'm coming up on my thirtieth birthday and I still love them, but that doesn't change it. They make most of their money of merchandising targeted exclusively at children, and probably a goodly portion of their box office revenue comes from parents taking their children to them, which is why they generally aim for a PG-13 rating in the US. That the film's ending probably sent a significant portion of said target audience home in tears is something I've seen in multiple (spoiler sections of) reviews of the film, notably those of RedLetterMedia and ScreenJunkies, and pointing out that the film probably made kids cry would not be as meaningful to someone who didn't understand that the film was targeted primarily at kids (something the article doesn't presently point out explicitly). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC) That's your opinion. I for one would not take children to many of these films given the mature-nature of a lot of their content, and I doubt I am the only one that feels that way. Anyway, this is a stupid conversation that I really don't want to have. I'm sorry I misinterpreted your original comments and got this whole thing started. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Just so you all I was already planning on fleshing this section out some more on Monday.—-00:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Plot synopsis error

The plot references stark and parker defeating maw twice Declanhx (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Children of Thanos

@DisneyMetalhead: The source for Ebony Maw only mentions him as being a child of Thanos. This phrase is not mentioned in any of the sources for the other characters. The only semi-official source I could find is from Ryan Penagos' twitter. However, The Nerdist calls this a "metaphorical title" and IGN says its symbolic.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually this article from Marvel does call them the Children of Thanos, but does not mention the Black Order. Same goes for Penagos' tweet. Seems the term "Children of Thanos" is replacing "Black Order" in the film. Any suggestions on how to address this? The article reads as if these are separate distinctions.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Marvel only seems to be calling them the "Children of Thanos" in their material. However, the Russos have used the term "Black Order" so I think both are okay to include (until the film comes out and we see what is actually used or not). So currently, having "portray children of Thanos and members of his Black Order" seems okay and clear to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Still not sure about using “and” because they do not seem to be separate distinctions. Sources seem to indicate the Children of Thanos ‘’is’’ the Black Order. Furthermore “Children” should be capitalized per sources because this is a group name, not Thanos’ actual offspring.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I see what you meant now. Though once the film's out, we might find it is better to categorize them as simply the "Black Order" or simply the "Children of Thanos". Or both terms could be used interchangeably. We'll see. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

In a slightly related note, is Noary voicing his character too? I might’ve read the Russo’s quote wrong but perhaps it’s a David Prowse situation where he did the voice onset then another actor dubbed him over. Rusted AutoParts 03:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The Russo brothers said yes but the role is largely silent.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: Regarding the mo-cap bits for these characters, I definitely understand what you mean by "portray" can cover both voicing and mo-cap, but I think it should be mentioned in some form, because just by the listing, I don't think it is easily known these characters are CGI ones. So maybe it simplifies down to something like Terry Notary, Tom Vaughan-Lawlor, and Carrie Coon voice members of the Black Order — the "Children of Thanos": Cull Obsidian, Ebony Maw, and Proxima Midnight, respectively; the trio also performed motion-capture for their characters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I changed the wording to take clarify the Black Order/Children of Thanos situation and remove some of the implied redundancy: Thanos' henchmen, known collectively in the comics as the Black Order, appear in the film as the "Children of Thanos": Terry Notary as Cull Obsidian, Tom Vaughan-Lawlor as Ebony Maw, and Carrie Coon as Proxima Midnight. The trio performed motion-capture for their characters in addition to voicing them.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that works for me! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I think this is nitpicking, and overthinking things. The characters have been re-worked for the film as the children of Thanos. Thanos raised Nebula and Gamora as siblings and his children/assasins. The same can be said for Proxima Midnight, Black Dwarf/Cull Obsidian, Ebony Maw, and Corvus Glaive. Though they may not (...or may) be his biological children, stating that they are all his children is at this point accurate. Just because an article capitalizes the 'c' in 'children' doesn't make the statement a title. The Russos have stated that the Black Order in these films will be reworked to be his children. That is all they say. It's as simple as they are his children/assassins known as the Black Order.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Capitalizing the 'c' does make it a title and it's done more than once in separate official accounts so it's not a typo. Several sources also state that the name Black Order won't be used in the film. The Nerdist actually addresses your comments directly, "While the movie will refer to them as the Children of Thanos–a metaphorical title, not to be confused with his actual adopted daughters Nebula and Gamora." Again like Favre suggested we can adjust this as needed once the film is released.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, it is definitely a title of some sort. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: The Nerdist isn't the most reliable source, and unless they quoted someone involved with the production, I would say their speculation is not solid at all. Capitalizing the 'c' in 'children' absolutely makes it as a title as it becomes a proper noun. The directors have called them the Black Order throughout production and stated it as simple as the fact that the team has been reworked to be Thanos' children. That's it. Once the film's released I'm sure it will be more clear.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

As stated before The Nerdist isn’t alone. The phrase “Children of Thanos” is used frequently in both official and unofficial sources. Also the directors saying the term Black Order as part of casual conversation isn’t an indication of anything. The same thing happened with Black Wifow in Iron Man 2, where the name was used repeatedly in marketing materials but never uttered on screen. We are less than a week away. We shall find out for sure then.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This talk page is very long and when I saved a comment I had just made, while loading back up I was shown a heading that was related to an edit I recently made to the article. We can call them what sources call them throughout the majority of the article, of course, but the plot summary at least should not use any in-universe terms that are not used in the film proper, as long as the plot summary does not include citations of secondary sources. Gamora and Nebula were explicitly called children of Thanos in both this film and the last two films they appeared in, and they both have the exact opposite reaction to their "father" to the DBZ movie henchmen in this film, so simply viewing the films themselves would not support calling them Thanos's children. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The Infinity Gauntlet

How does this article not include a single mention of The Infinity Gauntlet or Jim Starlin? Seems like a massive oversight... Argento Surfer (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You're right. Its in the first line of the production article but not here. We must of overlooked it when we summarized that content here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer and TriiipleThreat: Per my own comment further down, this seems to be a specious fan interpretation of a deliberately ambiguous pre-release quote from the director. Starlin also wrote Thanos Quest, at rougly the same time, in a manner that could justify Russo referring to both of them collectively as a single work, and the plot of this film (as opposed to the still-under-wraps sequel) has more in common with TQ than IG. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I understood it to mean the Infinity Gauntlet storyline, not just the Infinity Gauntlet miniseries. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

That's probably the best reading, but it's not what our current wikilink (or the "1991" date) says, and the problem with primary sources is that it's technically OR to assume it means one thing rather than the other. The current live version is not OR as it takes the comicbook.com source (Outlaw, not Russo) at face value: the problem with that is that it's pre-release fan speculation. In the long term what we really need is a reliable source by someone who has seen the film, has read the comics, and is not being deliberately coy about their contents. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Its also OR include to Thanos Quest in that meaning without a reliable source. The only thing in common with Thanos Quest is that he actively collecting the stones at the start of the movie, but the events of Thanos Quest are far different. There are scenes in the movie ripped straight from Infinity Gauntlet.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Its also OR include to Thanos Quest in that meaning without a reliable source. "also"? What did you think I was talking about? The only thing in common with Thanos Quest is that he actively collecting the stones at the start of the movie, but the events of Thanos Quest are far different. Yes, but the events of the Infinity Gauntlet miniseries are completely different except that slightly more of the same characters are involved. It's also wrong to say "at the start of the movie" -- he spends the whole movie collecting them, and only gets the final one something like five minutes before the end credits. There are scenes in the movie ripped straight from Infinity Gauntlet. Visual allusions like Cap standing up to Thanos don't count; the closest similarity is the murder of half the universe with the completed Gauntlet, but that happens at the start of the comic, and the end of the film. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the accuracy of the claim might depend on the edition of Infinity Gauntlet you're looking at. The Omnibus hardcover included Thanos Quest.

How would you feel about replacing "draws inspiration from Jim Starlin's 1991 "The Infinity Gauntlet" comic " with "draws inspiration from Jim Starlin's 1990-1991 "Infinity Gauntlet" storyline"? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

That wording would be better, but my concern is that the wording of the source (Russo, not Outlaw) implies the 1991 miniseries specifically: the "book" in Certainly the Starlin book was our jumping-off point is difficult to read as referring to the Omnibus hardcover, and near impossible to read as referring to an abstract storyline spanning multiple series. I think until some secondary sources that say things like "The film shows the influence of X" start showing up (if they haven't already?), the better compromises would be (a) to go vague like saying Joe Russo stated in an interview that the story was influenced by writer Jim Starlin and and Jonathan Hickman's 2013 "Infinity" comic or (b) to give a direct quote. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you think this is sufficiently reliable? It's dated after the film's release and says "Infinity War is heavily based on The Infinity Gauntlet" Argento Surfer (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Marvel’s “Avengers: Infinity War” just made history

Marvel’s “Avengers: Infinity War” just made history [11] possible source --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)