Jump to content

Talk:Doctor Strange (2016 film)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2016


Please change "The film has grossed $87.7 million, and was met with generally positive reviews" to something like "..."and received positive reviews, with critics praising its unique and innovative visuals and ensemble cast but criticized a formulaic plot". This needs to be changed because the film is not really receiving "generally" positive reviews, it is on the overwhelming majority side. Also, something about the visuals needs to be included into this. When people read this, they need to know about the films groundbreaking innovative visuals. The film is receiving so much praise for it.. Lastly, this movie is way better received than "Ant-Man" or "Thor" yet they still have "...received positive reviews" as the description..

2601:40A:200:8DB0:F4BB:8174:4B15:8FDF (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, we can't add your opinion to the article, we can only summarise what the reliable sources tell us. As for a more specific summary of critical reviews, I mistakenly added something along the lines of what you suggested thinking that we did that, but it has been pointed out that this is a practice we do not follow for film articles. As a compromise, I would be happy to change it to just positive reviews for now, and to perhaps add a "particularly for its visuals" line since that is a quite overwhelming response from critics that probably should be covered more in the lead. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I can go along with adamstom97 if a large number of critics specifically point out the visuals. It's not my preference, but he makes a reasonable argument. Perhaps other editors would weigh in?
I think I might wait until the film is actually commercially released in the US and the majority of reviews come in before changing that other part of the wording. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Scrapped ideas and potential inclusion in sequel

Director on dismissing villain Nightmare and the Dream dimension and willing to put them in the sequel: [1]. Hula Hup (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Also this on scrapped origin story: [2]. Hula Hup (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I've added the nightmare stuff thanks, but if you've seen the movie you'll know that the origin thing is an incorrect rumour. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Reviews

Can everyone shy away from putting opinionated things such as "same problems as many other MCU movies like an underused love interest" etc, etc. I changed it to something else for now, but remember we're supposed to be objective. Broncosman12 (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It comes from the critical response section at the bottom, which we are summarising in the lead. Removing any negative thing about the movie that critics have said is you being opinionated and subjective. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes but saying "the same problems as other MCU movies" is also being opinionated and biased as well. Save it for the review section. Broncosman12 (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Article misspells REX Reed as RAX Reed. How could someone misspell one of the most famous living critics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.132.135 (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Writing credits

The writing credits in the infobox should match those in the actual film.

"Written by Jon Spaihts, Scott Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill"

"Based on the Marvel Comics by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko"

They don't always match those on the poster. --TVBuff90 (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

It's actually "Written by Jon Spaihts and Scott Derrickson & C. Robert Cargill" — Preceding unsigned comment added by VodkaCocktail (talk • contribs) 21:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The film itself doesn't obviously include the story and screenplay credits as opposed to the poster, which are basically sources in itself. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
If it was ultimately "Story" and "Screenplay" credits, the film would have used them. It is possible by the time the poster was released to the film's release, the WGA reevaluated the work by all involved, and decided they all contributed to the story and screenplay. I've adjusted the infobox and lead accordingly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm happy to go with the film's credits as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Landecker actually cut?

Was she actually cut, or is she the doctor in the beginning of the film that marvels at Strange's ability to guess song release years? I highly doubt she'd still receive the credit she has in the film if she wasn't ultimately in it. As a counter example, Hiddelston is not credited in Age of Ultron, despite him being cut from the final film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I know, it is a bit iffy (Landecker herself is a bit iffy on it). I'll reword the article a bit to try and clear it up. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Having just come from seeing the film, and then seeing this article about her not being in it, it just made me question the wording we had. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Strange's Alias

Dear Wikipedia, it seems we've run into a bit of a problem. Some of you might have read the comics or seen the movie, but Stephen Strange sometimes goes by the alias Doctor Strange, but for some reason, some people (Adamstom.97) keep preventing that from being typed on the page, even though, A, Doctor Strange is the name of the movie, B, he's called Doctor Strange in the movie and marketing, and C, in the Fantastic Four (2005) movie page, it's typed Julian McMahon as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom, which is the same as Stephen Strange / Doctor Strange. So, if it's not too much trouble, I was wondering if I could type it as Stephen Strange / Doctor Strange in the page, since it is somewhat his alias in the comics and in the movie? Spider-Man2017 (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is for the movie, not the comics. In the movie, he is only ever called "Doctor" when people are referring to him as "Dr. Stephen Strange". Therefore, that is how we should be listing him here. However, his title is not part of his name, so the "Dr." bit is left off in the cast list. It doesn't matter what happens in the comics, or at other articles here. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
In the film end credits Benedict Cumberbatch is credited as Dr. Stephen Strange. Escudero (talk) 08:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that just backs up what I was saying. As far as the MCU is concerned (so far) he is just Dr. Stephen Strange, so that is how we should refer to him (noting that we don't add titles in the cast list like that, so he should just be Stephen Strange). - adamstom97 (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Titles for characters (Mr., Mrs., Dr., Father, Sgt., etc.) are not part of character names, as that information can generally be noted in their description, which is the case here. As Escudero pointed out, Cumberbatch is credited as "Dr. Stephen Strange". Thus, simply listing him as "Stephen Strange" is correct for this film. If in future films he takes the hero name "Doctor Strange" (note "Doctor" not "Dr."), that will be added on that film that it happens. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
That's a bit ridiculous don't you think? Clearly he is known as "Doctor Strange". And there is a scene where the Ancient One calls Strange "Mr. Strange" and he says actually "Doctor". Technically, that is saying "Doctor Strange". Every other Marvel movie lists the alias of the comic character to the movie. It's dumb to suggest otherwise. Broncosman12 (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
This is the official Press Kit for Captain America: Civil War. See how are credited all the heroes (Steve Rogers / Captain America, Lieutenant James Rhodes / War Machine... even Brock Rumlow / Crossbones). However, see Doctor Strange Press Kit (as Dr. Stephen Strange). Maybe in Avengers: Infinity War will be credited as Stephen Strange / Doctor Strange, but not in Doctor Strange. --Escudero (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Then how do explain "Fantastic Four (2005) Julian McMahon as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom"? Spider-Man2017 (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

"Doctor Strange" isn't an alias. It's his name. - Chris McFeely (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Cinemascore

The critical response section currently includes a sentence that begins "On Cinemascore". This is a badly phrased sentence. Cinemascore is a company that polls audiences on the opening weekend of a film release. It would at least make sense to say "On the Cinemascore website" but it still wouldn't be good, the website is irrelevant and that makes it sound as if it is a user voted web poll like user ratings on IMDB, when Cinemascore is a professional company that runs credible surveys. Please take a look at other articles that mention Cinemascore for examples of more appropriate wording, for example Captain America: The First Avenger 

Audiences surveyed by Cinemascore gave the film an "A-" rating.[131]

I'd have fixed it already if the article wasn't locked and allowed flagged edits. -- 109.77.222.239 (talk) 04:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Still not fixed. Anyone? anyone? Bueller?
Admins please change the article to locked but allowing flagged editing so I can fix this? -- 109.77.166.2 (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Article was eventually unlocked and I was able to fix this nonsense that never should have been added in the first place. -- 109.77.225.14 (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Tony Todd almost voiced Dormammu

What a wasted opportunity. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Stingers

 In the mid-credits scene, Strange is paid a visit by Thor, who asks for his help in searching for Odin.

That isn't what happened. Thor doesn't ask for his help, he only explains that he is looking for Odin and needs Loki to find him. What happens is that Dr. Strange then offers to help, so that Thor and Loki will leave. IIRC Thor says offscreen he doesn't like tea, then you see him drinking a very large beer, very quickly, which Strange magically refills. Strange explains that he keeps a list of dangerous threats to Earth including Loki and asks why Thor needs him. Thor explains he needs Loki to find Odin. Strange asks if they find Odin will they then leave Earth and Thor says they will. Strange then says iirc "I'd better go with you". Thor doesn't ask Strange for help, Strange offers his help to Thor.
It would be better to be more brief and say Strange meets Thor (instead of "is paid a visit" which implies things you can't be sure about) and offers to help Thor find Odin. 1 -- 109.76.152.14 (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I realise the restrictions of WP:FILMPLOT mean that it may be necessary to remove the description of the mid-credits scene entirely, but if it is to stay it should at least be accurate. It is at least mentioned in the Casting section by explaining that Chris Hemsworth makes a cameo appearance as Thor. -- 109.76.152.14 (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Without having read this post, I edited the article's plot section to add a short statement that is almost exactly quoted from the above: "Strange offers to help, so that the Asgardians will leave quickly." But this addition was quickly reverted. Since the scene is described at all, and the scene itself contained a very pat resolution, it seems that the description should include the resolution. Can we get a consensus as to whether or not the plot description should include, in some wording, the information that Strange offers his help, and wants Loki out of New York? --DavidK93 (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Strange offering his help should certainly be there. It's crucial, and is the main point of the stinger, implying that he'll be in Ragnarok. Buh6173 (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Wording is less wrong but still not very good. There is a difference between "agrees to help" and what Strange actually says "I'd better go with you". Thor didn't ask for help, nor did Strange agree to help. The wording does not accurately represent what was shown on screen. Strange says he will join Thor on his quest, might be more accurate as it avoids the words offers or agrees and skips directly to the point.
The encyclopedia that anyone can edit sure does like locking articles and banning open editing. Flagged editing that requires approval is a much better answer than locking articles. -- 109.77.222.239 (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually Strange's exact words are "Allow me to help me to you." I concur "agrees to help" may not be accurate since Thor doesn't actually ask for it but "decides to help" is fine since it is not dependent on Thor's expressed consent.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

GA nom reminder

Since Derrickson confirmed the film has ended its theatrical run, this is just a reminder that we have until March 28, 2017 to nominate the article to become a good article, per the guidelines for the MCU films Good Topic. Definitely think this is doable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I was probably going to nominate this article for GA relatively soon, since it is no longer in theaters and in pretty good shape. Does anyone have any objections to it being nominated in the next couple of days, over waiting until the 28th? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there was much in the special features that we haven't already covered. So I say go ahead.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. When I watched through there, there was not much I noticed that we had not already covered, but I think Adam added some bits from the commentary which were good. Will get the nom set up shortly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I added a few bits from the commentary. I am happy with where the article is as well, and the only thing I see changing really is the awards table. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Doctor Strange (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 16:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the 2017 WikiCup. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Lead
    No concerns
    Plot
    "who has taught all at Kamar-Taj" All is somewhat ambiguous here - on a first read I thought it meant she taught all topics. I think every student (or similar) would be more direct and clarify that Kamar-Taj is a place of learning.
     Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    "mysteriously walked again" The tense on walked makes it unclear that it was not a one-time occurrence. I suggest mysteriously regained the use of his legs or something similar.
     Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    "Pangborn directs Strange to Kamar-Taj. There, Mordo, a sorcerer under the Ancient One, takes in Strange." These are two short sentences that read a little choppy. I suggest combining them as Pangborn directs Strange to Kamar-Taj, where he is taken in by the sorcerer Mordo, or similar.
     Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    "he secretly reads from the text Kaecilius stole pages from," suggest 'he secretly reads the text from which Kaecilius stole pages to avoid repetition of from and ending the phrase with a preposition.
     Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    "comparing him to Kaecilius, who wants eternal life." suggesting drawing a comparison to Kaecilius' desire for eternal life.
     Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    "Kaecilius uses the stolen pages to summon the powerful Dormammu of the Dark Dimension, where time is non-existent. This destroys the London Sanctum, and sends Strange from Kamar-Taj to the New York Sanctum." Some crucial details are missing to make this understandable to someone who hasn't seen the movie. It needs to be rewritten to convey that Kaecilius hopes to achieve eternal life by stopping time and how/why the London Sanctum was destroyed. I only watched it once, but I believe the sanctum was destroyed to let Dormammu through, not because Dormammu was summoned. It's also unclear that the sanctums are connected through portals, and that Strange was accidentally sent to the NYC sanctum through such a portal.
    Will think on this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    Let me know what you think of the changes I made here to help this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    It works for me. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    "from the Dormammu's power" The Dormammu? Probably an artifact from when this once said the dark dimension?
     Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    "wounds the Ancient One, and escapes " comma not needed
     Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    "creates an infinite time loop inside...same moment forever." infinite and forever aren't needed - They're both redundant and wrong, since the loop does end.
    I don't think these are necessarily wrong, given they are intended to be infinite and forever when Strange creates them. I'll see if I can make it any better though. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    "stating that Earth has, " comma not needed
     Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    Cast
    "Actor Wong was also pleased with the changes made to the character, and described him as "a drill sergeant to Kamar-Taj" rather than a manservant, who does not practice martial arts in the film, another racial stereotype." This second half of this line seems clumsy, but I have no alternate suggestion.
     Fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    Production
    "Dimension, before" comma not needed
     Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    "the directors Marvel was considering were believed to be..." Believed by whom?
    Believed by the report, from the given citation. Worded to avoid "X reported/reported by", which can be handled by the given source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    How do you feel about "By March, IGN believed the directors were..."?
    It wasn't just IGN.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    But IGN gave the report in the given citation. They cite their report to the Hollywood Reporter. This is why I think the article should say who believed it or be rewritten to avoid a weasel word. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    Right so just saying IGN is misleading, and they weren't the only ones to pick up THR's story. Honestly, I think the believed is understood and no cause for concern. Perphaps "by many" or "the media" but those are just as vague.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    I agree that "by many" or "by media" would not help. Since a different director list attributed to THR was given just two sentences before this one, what about "In March, The Hollywood Reporter" revised its list of directors under consideration to..."? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    That's just shifting from one publication to another. I thought the point was not to call out a single publication since several reported it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    I don't have an issue with naming the original source. My concern was the vague "believe", and (if I understood correctly) User:Favre1fan93's concern was repetitive wording. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    @TriiipleThreat:@Argento Surfer: could we make it "By March, it was reported that Marvel was considering Andrews, Levine, and Scott Derrickson for directors."? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    I absolutely loathe the phrase "it was reported/revealed". The report/reveal isn't what's notable. Everything on Wikipedia has been reported. It should be phrased to emphasize the important detail. I'm thinking we just lose the word believe and say "By March, Marvel was considering Andrews, Levine, and Scott Derrickson to direct the film".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    I'd be fine with that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    Me too. I have made the change. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    Music
    No concerns here
    Release
    "It was screened at the EW PopFest on October 28, 2016..." This should be presented chronologically.
    Moved. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    There are lots of quotes about how the trailers and clips were received, but the tie-in comic is only mentioned as being released. Reviews for the issues are not included on Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-in comics either. I think a brief mention of their reception should be included. This aggregator would provide a quick overview of critical reviews without overtaking the paragraph.
    As the only reputable review for both tie-in comics is from IGN for the first one, I don't think that is enough to include. If more reputable sites reviewed them, I'd be inclined to agree with your sentiment. But since many didn't, I think what we cover (release and contents) is sufficient. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    Good point. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    Reception
    No concerns.
    Future
    No concerns.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Taking a quick-but-not-exhaustive look around other MCU articles, the others have a "Sequel" section instead of a "Future" section. Based on the article prose I get the impression that while a sequel is very likely, it has not actually been confirmed. The Film MOS doesn't cover sequels - has this been discussed elsewhere? RocknRolla and The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day are two examples of film articles with a sequel section despite the lack of an actual sequel. Is there a good reason to use "Future", which carries a strong possibility of becoming dated, instead of just going with "Sequel"? I'm not worried about this particular article falling out of date, but there is the possibility that article could be used as a model when other editors create new film articles in the future.
    For the MCU articles, we tend to use "Future" when nothing has been officially confirmed, and change it over to "Sequel" once it has. For the editors who work regularly on these articles, if I am to speak for them too, we feel it provides a quick distinction when looking over the article to know what has and has not been confirmed to be getting more films within a specific character franchise (ie Iron Man films, Captain America films, etc.). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    That works for me. Thanks. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    Citations [45] and [229] are in all caps. No need to shout.
    Fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    no concerns
    C. It contains no original research:
    No concerns
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig matches were attributed quotes and common phrases like "Visual effects supervisor Stephane Ceretti". No concerns.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    No concerns
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    No concerns
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    No concerns
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    Frequent edits, but most are good ones and vandalism is quickly reverted.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    No concerns
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Infobox image has WP:ALTTEXT, other images have suitable captions.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Nice work User:Favre1fan93 and User:TriiipleThreat. I appreciate the quick responses to this review. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Doctor Strange (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

About my changes

  • "Beyond time" is a direct quote (spoken at least twice). Is there one for "non-existent"?
  • There is no "escape to Hong Kong". They go there to attack the Sanctum.
  • "Moment" is a poor word choice, indicating a very brief interval. The loop is significantly longer than that. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
We don't need direct quotes, in fact we generally don't use direct quotes in plot summaries. They still escape from the heroes to Hong Kong, regardless of what they end up doing there. And no, the interval is pretty brief. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
So it's okay to make up a description for the Dark Dimension rather than use what is given? Where is this policy described? Casablanca seems to break this "guideline", as do Citizen Kane, The Godfather, etc.
A deliberate attack at a time of their choosing is not an "escape".
Synonyms of "moment":
"a minute portion or point of time : instant" (Merriam Webster)
"a very brief period of time" (Oxford English Dictionary) Clarityfiend (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
We aren't making up a description, we are using the film's ("beyond time") but with wording that is appropriate for an encyclopaedia—we shouldn't be so poetic. They escape. And exactly, a "brief period of time". - adamstom97 (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
You are making something up: "beyond time" (whatever that means) is not the same as "non-existent".
Yes they escape, just not to Hong Kong. They regroup someplace, then saunter (not flee) to Hong Kong.
"Moment" is not generally used to describe several minutes in duration. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
If you're not going to budge from your "Strange" position, it's probably time for WP:third opinion. I'm turning in now. Back tomorrow. Same bat channel. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Gotcha. If time is non-existent in the Dark Dimension, what is Strange looping? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
There's no need to be childish, especially when you really haven't "gotcha". That is the whole point of the scene; there is no time in that dimension as we understand it, but Strange introduces it with the Time Stone and confuses/scares Dormammu until he agrees to leave. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
That is WP:original research, on top of your previous OR presumption.
Your version is so sloppy. E.g. "Strange and Mordo become disillusioned with the Ancient One after Kaecilius reveals that the Ancient One's long life is due to her drawing power from the Dark Dimension." Strange doesn't become disillusioned at this point because he hadn't even become "illusioned", i.e. he hadn't accepted the Ancient One's goals. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
No once again. Strange is the first one to take issue with the Ancient One, and then Mordo after him, so it should be both of them. Perhaps you should watch the film again before accusing others of making this stuff up. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Wrong again. Strange does not embrace the Ancient One's goals until he talks to her as she is dying (which is noted in the next sentence, hence out of order and misleading). Yet another mistake: "Strange holds them off with the help of the Cloak of Levitation until Mordo and the Ancient One arrive." The villains depart before Mordo and the Ancient One show up, so once again the wording is misleading, making it sound like their arrival tipped the balance. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I think either "moment" or "short period of time" are fine - they're effectively synonyms. I'm inclined to go with the shorter one because a) it's shorter and b) the summary is already nearing the upper word count boundary. I'm not sure what the issue is with the escape to Hong Kong - "...frees himself and leaves" is a longer version of "escapes", and Clarityfiend's version leaves out where he goes after doing so. I have no opinion on how to describe time in the dark dimension. I haven't seen the film since November and don't remember exactly how it was explained. I do think "non-existent" is more clear for users unfamiliar with the topic. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
It may be clearer, but it's just plain wrong. "Beyond time" is how they describe the Dark Dimension in the film (twice). AFAIK, they don't call it "non-existent". Clarityfiend (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
This is taking up way too much time. If you're satisfied with a substandard, inaccurate synopsis, so be it. I've got other fish to fry. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Dr. Strange (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant projected total

The information that "It was projected to earn $255 million for its total domestic gross" is irrelevant, as the source, http://pro.boxoffice.com, aren't box office analysts. Mentioning that they projected that total is unneeded. Additionally, considering the film made less money than they projected, adding their projection may cause doubt about the film's financial success. Disneyisatale (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

As stated, this info is not irrelevant. BoxOffice is a reputable source covering box office numbers for films (including projections), and including it provides context around the film as to what the industry felt it could have made. Having it does not induce doubt that the film was or was not a financial success. Some readers may choose to feel that way, but as it is used and wording, is not the purpose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I tend to agree with (talk) on this. I don't think it will create any doubt about the films financial success as those numbers are readily stated. The extra information is in no way superfluous or inflammatory. My main concern was y'all reverting each other's edits back and forth. It's a pretty insignificant, silly thing to get hung up on. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The thing about projections is that they are constantly in flux and there are multiple algorithms/sources. To pick a single one, reputable or not, to portray as the definitive projection seems problematic. I do not agree that the inclusion casts any "doubt about the film's financial success", but I do think that whether or not a film meets the projection is more a reflection on the projection and not the film. As such, I do take issue with the concept of leaving the projection "until it surpasses that amount". If we want to include projections, okay. If we want to include projections until the box office run is complete, fine. Removing projections if and only if it meets of surpasses that amount seems suspect. - DinoSlider (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Did someone suggest leaving the projection until it surpasses that amount? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I quoted from Favre1fan93's edit summary for a similar revert on a different film here. Hopefully I interpreted the statement correctly. - DinoSlider (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the diff. I think including the projection is fine regardless of how accurate/inaccurate it ends up being. If the issue is that it's one projection from one source, then add another source or two and convert the number into a range. It provides a basis for expectations for a film. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes Dino, you interpreted correctly. I'll explain my thinking a bit, in case it is not clear to anyone. Generally, before a film is released (at least with MCU films), we get various projection numbers for what it will make, sometimes a range (as Argento mentioned). To me, once a film has released and we start getting box office number, these numbers are only relevant to keep until the film reaches said projection, if at all. For example, Disneyisatale also took issue with the projection number at Spider-Man: Homecoming that it will gross $325m domestically (as of this comment, it is at around $314m). Should it achieve $325m, the projection sentence and info can be removed, because why do we need to see a projection estimate for something that ultimately came true? In the case for Doctor Strange, the film did not ultimately achieve the highest projection number, so in my eyes it is relevant to include the info as simply as it is. I also understand Argento's suggestion about potentially including a range. However, the other, lower-end projections for the film were all surpassed, hence why they weren't included per the reasoning I said earlier in this comment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
At $314 million, Spider-Man was at about 97% of the projection. At what threshold do we agree that it has met the criteria? Hypothetically, what if it finishes at $324 million? On the other side, would it be noteworthy again if it surpassed the projection by a large amount? If so, what amount would that be? Sorry for the intellectual exercise, but I prefer to eliminate as much gray area as possible ... even if it is just a rule of thumb. - DinoSlider (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
"because why do we need to see a projection estimate for something that ultimately came true?" - Because it provides context for the amount, whether it exceeded, met, or missed expectations. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
RE Dino: In my opinion, when approaching a projected number, I feel if the resulting gross surpasses or gets within 5-10 million of the projection, the projection isn't needed anymore. (unlike this article where the difference is ~20million) On the other side, if a film vastly outgrosses a projection and commentary speaking to that is available (ie in Deadline.com's weekly box office report articles), then I think a mention of the projection would be fine. "Vastly" I think ultimately depends on what the original projection numbers were.
RE Argento: I still think if a gross surpasses a projection, that projection isn't needed anymore. And if no projection data remains (and wishfully thinking the article had some to begin with), one could assume the final gross exceeded or met the expectations. In a case like this film, while the low end isn't needed in my opinion, it might be clearer if the sentence read: "It was projected to earn upwards of $255 million for its total domestic gross." For this film, it shows it met the majority of the other projections, just not the highest end. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you're expecting more of our regular readers than I do. If a projection wasn't mentioned in an article, it wouldn't occur to me that its omission implies anything. I think your wording is acceptable, and in some cases it might even be appropriate to remove the actual dollar amount of the projection in favor of something like "the total domestic gross far exceeded the projections". Argento Surfer (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I might have more wishful thinking about regular readers and editors. I know whatever is decided here, I can try to apply to MCU related films, because I tend to help craft the box office sections and I don't know how regularly other film articles include projection numbers, should they be available. I can add in that wording I suggested if others are agreeable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Doctor Strange (2016 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Doctor Strange (2016 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

"Tibetan sovereignty"?

Both of the cited sources are videos, and neither of the citations includes a time. Could someone tell me where in the 26-minute video this information is verified? How casting a Chinese character in a Nepalese-set film would relate to the Tibetan sovereignty issue is ... confusing, if not itself confused. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe it comes from the second video, which is used as a reference multiple times throughout the article, so giving one time would be inappropriate. But I would note that just because you find something confusing does not mean it is out of place here. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
which is used as a reference multiple times throughout the article, so giving one time would be inappropriate Technically, the way to deal with that would be to format the ref differently each time it is cited. Similarly to how multiple pages of the same book or article can be cited. I would note that just because you find something confusing does not mean it is out of place here. Umm... what? If you're going to note that then I should probably note that popular understandings of just about everything relating to China, Tibet, Buddhism, Central Asia... and pretty much everything in between is woefully inadequate, and the kind of entertainment sources cited in this article are generally not considered reliable for just about any of it, being written both by and for the people whose understanding is inadequate. That said, it's 21:57 and I have an early day tomorrow, so I'll check back in once I've actually checked the source. If Triiiplethreat's quote below is accurate, then ... yeah, it is a gross oversimplification and probably inaccurate. As far as I can tell, no one in China denies "that Tibet is a place" or "that [someone can be] Tibetan", so how a billion Chinese would be alienated by a fictional movie doing otherwise is ... yeah, weird and confusing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if a billion Chinese would be alienated by such an action, only that Cargil feels that they would be alienated, which is how the information in the article is presented. Infact, the article doesn't even go that far into detail. It only states that Cargil believes that the casting would involve the film in the Tibetan-sovereignty debate. Theres no need for expert sources because we are not debating Tibetan sovereignty, we are just stating the thoughts and opinions of the filmmakers that lead them to make their decisions.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if a billion Chinese would be alienated by such an action, only that Cargil feels that they would be alienated, which is how the information in the article is presented. Umm... citation needed? The article says he "explained" that this was the reason. Not "he expressed his personal opinion" or anything of the sort. Theres no need for expert sources because we are not debating Tibetan sovereignty, we are just stating the thoughts and opinions of the filmmakers that lead them to make their decisions. That's not how it works. We don't present factual claims in Wikipedia's voice about real-world issues unless they can be verified in reliable sources anywhere on Wikipedia, be they in articles on Tibetan sovereignty or in articles on MCU movies. That said, if it weren't for the word "explained" implying that Cargill had some kind of specialist knowledge of this that entitles him to "explain" it to the rest of us, there would probably be no problem. Maybe "opined"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I think to most of us and those reading the article that "explained" meant Cargil was explaining his thoughts on the matter, not explaining undebatable facts especially since the Tibetan-sovereignty issue is preceded by a subjective comparison to the Fu Manchu stereotype. But if changing this one small word, that passed the GA review, will settle things then so be it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, yeah, and he was wrong there too since the magic Asian who lives on a mountain and mentors the white hero is not the same as a sinister figure with a moustache who is obsessed with white women (and the former description comes from the director's commentary on the Blu-Ray, so it probably overrules the statement of one of the writers who was probably not involved in casting). But at least with stereotypes of East Asians in American media, Cargill is someone who works in American media and so has some authority to speak on the matter. "explaining" is something one who is in the know does for the benefit of those who are not. What you are talking about is "expressing an opinion", and that's not what the article says. It's theoretically possible to read it as you, but only if one is really searching for a justification to maintain the status quo; it's unreasonable to assume that most of our readers would come to the article with that bias and read it as you are. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
By the way: please never defend "one small word" with "it passed GA review" again. Unless the word was explicitly discussed by the reviewer, that is a complete non sequitur. And even if it had been, it would still be only one reviewer's opinion -- a reviewer who primarily edits articles in this topic area and so would be at best a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (even if it had been a consensus at all) that relates primarily to a topic completely unrelated to this area. By using the "It's a GA; it cannot be improved further and you should stop trying" argument, you are just inviting a GAR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Didn’t read, previous response was stricken.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Cargil was "explaining" how the casting was like the Kobayashi Maru. It seems pretty clear given the entire statement that it is all subjective. Changing "explained" to "opined" may loosen the connection to the previous sentence.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
(I didn't make the Star Trek reference this time! YAY!) Well, yeah, and he's wrong there, too, since the point of the training excercise is to show how one deals with death. The literal unwinnable scenario (not a training exercise) in this case could have been avoided outright, by removing the character entirely or just making the character Nepalese, unless I'm missing something (assuming we are ignoring the magical Asian mystic who lives on a hill, since Cargill apparently did, or at least got it confused with Fu Manchu, who is not Nepalese). But again, getting a Star Trek reference wrong is not important, which is why I'm honing in on the "Tibetan sovereignty" thing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
He was comparing the Kobayashi Maru as an impossible situation, not as a training exercise on how to deal with death. Also Fu Mancho’s nationality isn’t of consequence since the stereotype is applied across various Asian ethnic groups. The issue seems to be that you are having trouble resolving your own knowledge / POV with Cargil’s statements, instead of just accepting his words as his own. Again, it doesn’t matter if Cargil is correct in his assertions, only that those are his assertions.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Check around the 18:00 mark, Cargil says,”The Ancient One was a racist stereotype who comes from a region of the world that is in a very weird political place. He originates from Tibet, so if you acknowledge that Tibet is a place and that he‘s Tibetan, you risk alienating one billion people who think that that’s bullshit and risk the Chinese government going, ‘Hey, you know one of the biggest film-watching countries in the world? We’re not going to show your movie because you decided to get political.”—TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

What to refer Doctor Strange as?

The name of the movie is Doctor Strange. The character is mostly referred to by as Doctor Strange. He is credited as Dr. Stephen Strange. It makes no sense to me to not include Doctor in his listing in the cast section. Another editor claims that we don't include titles in cast sections; however, they have not cited any specific policies that say that, and I know of several articles that include titles in the cast section. JDDJS (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure he was "mostly referred to" as Doctor Strange? I recall lots of "Doctors", lots of "Stephens", some "Stranges", and a few jokes about the awkward name. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film doesn't have a specific rule, and it shouldn't. I suggest using what the credits use. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
The credits use Dr. Stephen Strange. Personally, I prefer doctor spelled out, but I won't at all complain with Dr. Stephen Strange. JDDJS (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
That gets my vote then. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Per MOS:DOCTOR we should avoid including titles. Noting someone is a medical doctor can be done in the description (as is done here). Plus, the character never takes the "hero name" "Doctor Strange", and only refers to himself by the medical title "Dr. Strange", so the aforementioned guideline applies still. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't apply hear at all. First of all, it's a MOS for biographies, not films or fictional characters. Second of all, it says " in a Wikipedia article only when the subject is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title". The character is without a doubt widely known by the name Doctor Strange rather than Stephen Strange. JDDJS (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Based on this, I would say Dr. Stephen Strange is fine, but not Dr. Christine Palmer or Dr. Nicodemus West.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
If that is the case, I would agree that we could use Dr. Stephen Strange. We just need to be wary that we are likely to get lots of other titles being added with this used as an excuse, so we will have to be on top of that. This will probably be helpful in a few cases anyway, such as when a character is only known as "Dr. X" and we have been referring to them as only X in an awkward way. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

For the rest of the doctors, I'm perfectly fine with not referring to them as doctors. JDDJS (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Listing and naming the title character's profession, name, and title prominently as the title character in lead cast list

@Hijiri88You say "We give him prominence in the lead cast list because he's the title character; that doesn't mean we specifically need to name him as the title character and list his profession in said cast list."

Well sure, granted, accepted, no argument - there are many things we don't need to do. I do however feel that:

"surgeon Stephen Strange"

is preferable (in several ways) to:

"the title character"..."former surgeon Stephen Strange"

Best wishes Captainllama (talk) 09:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Captainllama: Would you mind elaborating on some of those several ways so I can provide a proper rebuttal? I was going to respond by advocating for "Stephen Strange" in the cast list and "surgeon Stephen Strange" in the premise, but it doesn't make sense for me to present a compromise that I (and apparently also you) think is suboptimal when no justification has been provided for your preferred version. Personally I think your preferred version is problematic in that "In the film, Strange ..." reads like it belongs in Doctor Strange#In other media (i.e., a detailed discussion of the character, with this being the first mention of the film) and listing his profession where we do looks silly. Repeating "Stephen Strange" twice would be repetitive, so "stars Cumberbatch as the title character" is the best solution.
And, FWIW, it was the stable version before Comic-Con. BRD applies here, and the fact that I chose to accept a change that you and Adam agree on (removal of "former") doesn't mean the whole thing is up in the air.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Gladly! Happy to collaborate with any interested editor. Sorry for not being explicit before. Maybe a "proper rebuttal" won't be necessary! The crux is the brevity of the wording imparting the same information as a longer and less precise form. Secondly, the matter of his profession.
Taking 2nd first, he is, by profession, a surgeon -he just doesn't practise now. His career might end but his profession endures. "Former" is incorrect and can be cut away, so it's between:
"stars Benedict Cumberbatch as surgeon Stephen Strange along with [others]. In the film, Strange learns the mystic arts"
or
"stars Benedict Cumberbatch as the title character, along with [others]. In the film, former surgeon Stephen Strange learns the mystic arts"


Tautology. Saying the same thing twice - why? Why say "the title character" and "surgeon Stephen Strange" across two sentences when "surgeon Stephen Strange" does the same job in one? Furthermore "...stars Benedict Cumberbatch" suggests (correctly) he is the title character, so saying "as the title character" is doubly redundant, it duplicates both "surgeon Stephen Strange" and "stars Benedict Cumberbatch". Further yet more, the double tautology, paradoxically, introduces an element of doubt. By referring to the same entity in three different ways, there is an erroneous hint of an extra character. Consider, in this passage "...stars Benedict Cumberbatch as the title character, along with [others]. In the film, former surgeon Stephen Strange learns..." logically, "the title character" and "former surgeon Stephen Strange" are not necessarily the same person. In contrast, the wording "...stars Benedict Cumberbatch as surgeon Stephen Strange along with [others]. In the film, Strange learns..." permits, so far as I can see, no ambiguity.
So that is my rationale. Fewer words, clearer meaning, efficient provision of the information.
If I may address what you have said? Your initial edit summary said that writing a person's profession is normally done the first time they are introduced. Fair enough, but you didn't actually do that in your edit. I did. You also said "looks like we are using "surgeon" as a title, similar to "Doctor", which is even stranger". That's not remotely strange, it is a commonplace to encounter "factory worker Joe Bloggs", "TV presenter Kirsty Young" and so on.
I'm afraid I found your next edit summary densely worded but had trouble discerning a pertinent message in it beyond "there are things we don't have to do". That's why I came to talk, and I admit the title of this section was a friendly poke at what appeared to be verbosity, apologies for that, I am far from immune myself though in this case I clearly said less than was required. In your response you talk firstly of "advocating for "Stephen Strange" in the cast list and "surgeon Stephen Strange" in the premise" - I have nothing to say on that, my concern here was and is confined to the particular form of words in the lede.
You next say that you think my preferred version is "problematic in that "In the film, Strange ..." reads like it belongs in Doctor Strange#In other media (i.e., a detailed discussion of the character, with this being the first mention of the film)". I'm sorry? Why ever do you think it "reads like it belongs in Doctor Strange#In other media"?? Why would anyone think that? It seems you're saying it reads like that because it's "the first mention of the film". Huh?? By my count it's the fourth mention of this film in a paragraph dealing with this film, in the lede to the article specifically about this. film. How would a reader get to this point and suddenly lose track of what is meant by "the film"?? I don't get it, I must be missing something...?
"...and listing his profession where we do looks silly..." No it doesn't. See above. Ballerina Boris Johnson looks silly but for entirely different reasons. "...Repeating "Stephen Strange" twice would be repetitive, so "stars Cumberbatch as the title character" is the best solution". Repeating something twice means a total of three instances, there is only one instance of "Stephen Strange". His surname is repeated, once, in order to refer clearly to him. I suggest that better serves clarity than referring once to Benedict Cumberbatch, next to "the title character", and thirdly to Stephen Strange.
FWIW Comic-Con? Adam? I assume you weigh WIW as minimal, if I'm mistaken please put me right by stating it explicitly. BRD seems to be unfolding as it should. Thanks for reading, cheers Captainllama (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_Strange_(2016_film)/Archive_2&oldid=1049921868"