Jump to content

Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Laura Haddock talks playing Peter Quill's Mother, and her relationship with one character.

Here's the source. 71.188.21.140 (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

An interview is an interview, regardless of the site. I'll defend you restoring this edit. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The interview is from an unreliable source, we have no idea how much or if it any of it are actually Haddock's words. If true, a more reliable source will publish the information, we can afford to wait.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
So I guess her talking about the role in an interview on a site dedicated to her is something to wisk away as unreliable? Tragic, but she IS Meredith Quill how ever you slice it. It's been a 100% confirmed rumor, just like Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen's casting. 71.188.21.140 (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not tragic. It's us following WP:RS. Triiiple is absolutely right: given the unreliable nature of the site, and that it is solely dedicated to one person, it very well could have been fabricated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
it is tragic, simply because she's been "more-so-confirmed-then-a-flat-out-rumor" as Meredith Quill since the new broke. Her role will merely be a cameo, obviously, but it irks my soul that it's going to take til the film is released for her to be credited as Meredith Quill. Maddening. 71.188.30.244 (talk) 07:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Alexis Denisof as The Other?

Does anyone know if Alexis Denisof is returning to portray "The Other" from The Avengers? 98.110.8.213 (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No source that I can see (reliable or unreliable) has been released. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've been looking all over the internet myself as well, and nothing has come up. Here's to hoping he reprises his role as The Other 71.188.30.244 (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
MAY have found something. dunno.. but seems legit (as with all early press screenings go...) Source See: Page 3 of Comments. But until the film comes out I guess it'll stay unofficial 71.188.30.244 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
CBM is not a reliable source. Comments on articles, which can be considered "forums" are most certainly NOT reliable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I know that, obviously. I know what is reliable, and what is not. These (including LR) are the only two articles to mention "The Other" returning, with McNy noting that he is indeed played by Alexis Denisof. We'll have to wait until the film comes out to know, I guess. 71.188.30.244 (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Soundtrack Revealed: UPDATED (7/9/14)

Here's the source. I personally don't know where this would go, obviously in the 'music' section, but I'm not at liberty to edit the page because well, I'd probably not put it in the right context. 71.188.30.244 (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
MARVEL has just announced that there will be 3 albums released for the film's music. 71.188.25.146 (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Budget Reportedly $150 Million?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/10833784/Guardians-of-the-Galaxy-on-set-with-Marvels-rocknroll-heroes.html

This seems like a reliable source, and they state that the budget is reportedly 150 million, so I'll put that as a placeholder unless someone finds a conflicting source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.79.120 (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

While the source is reliable, it is an estimation on their part, not from any indication from Marvel. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 02:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
We should use this source. We do not defer to the studio to report the budget. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
@Erik: even though it appears to be an approximation on the source's part? I know we might not get anything official from Marvel, but the context around it from the source makes me believe that The Telegraph has crafted this number. That's just how I'm reading it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, looking into this further, that article might depend on The Motley Fool for the estimate. I guess it's not a "normal" estimate in the sense that it's a ballpark guess as opposed to actual journalism. Alright, we don't need to use this one, then. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It states Guardians cost $170 million to make at this link: http://www.thewrap.com/guardians-of-the-galaxy-tracking-for-60-million-opening/. Just look for where it says "This is a big bet for Disney, with a production budget of $170 million dollars." So, I guess we can add that as it's budget on the wiki page for Guardians. Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.188.167 (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup. That looks good. Will add if not done already. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Guardians of the Galaxy is 2 hours and 1 minute long

James Gunn has confirmed 2 me via comments on Facebook @ this link, https://www.facebook.com/alessio.pasquali.75/posts/264968863694788?comment_id=265418683649806&offset=0&total_comments=4, that Guardians of the Galaxy is indeed 2 hours and 1 minute long. Look at the second comment that he says to me when he says "Yes, the movie is a little over 2 hours long." That proves he confirmed it. Why don't any of you believe me? Even James Gunn said it was true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.188.167 (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

We have policies here. You have to look at WP:SELFSOURCE, first off. Second, saying "a little over two hours" is, in no way, confirmation that it is 121 minutes long. You're gonna need something more concrete than that. Also, as Favre1fan93 said, what's the rush? Corvoe (speak to me) 19:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, guess what, Corvoe, I have now official word from James Gunn and he says the movie is indeed two hours and one minute long. So, you must add this in to the Wikipedia page of Guardians of the Galaxy. Don't believe me? Hit up this link: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152526573299570&set=a.21586549569.27113.759774569&type=1&comment_id=10152527125414570&offset=0&total_comments=58. It's all the proof you need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.188.167 (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Still can't be used per WP:SELFSOURCE as has been noted. As stated to you, we have policies and they are here for a reason. This one, to prevent users attempting to add content as you have. Plus "you" are not a reliable source so that fails immediately right there. You can keep badgering Gunn all you want in your comments to confirm or deny, but it won't help you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Alessio Pasquali, No need to have such a temper-tantrum about your information not being put on the Wikipedia page. Your attitude is NOT needed, so you can go and take it somewhere else because it will not be tolerated on here. 71.188.30.244 (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, guys. James Gunn has again confirmed, on his Twitter page, that Guardians is indeed really 2 hours and 1 minute long at this link: https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesGunn/status/485172106418610176. Can we please add this into the page, now, that the movie is 121 minutes long and use the Twitter link as a source, and put an end to this debate? Please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.25.36 (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Good news, guys. The running time of Guardians is officially classified. Here's the link for proof: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/guardians-galaxy-film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.188.167 (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hitfix reliability

This link http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/will-john-c-reilly-join-the-marvel-universe-for-guardians-of-the-galaxy claims Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely worked on the script (which is credited only as "Written by. JAMES GUNN and NICOLE PERLMAN"). The person who writes this blog doesn't say where this information came from, and it appears nowhere else that I can find: not in Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline.com or any other reliable source. Whoever "Drew" of Hitfix is, it's clear he's not someone doing original reporting but simply re-reporting what original-reporting sites say — and from what I can see, adding a rumor or "something he heard". If Hitfix is the only place claiming Markus/McFeely worked on the script, and since he doesn't say where he got that supposed iformation, then this does not seem like it reaches the threshold of reliability. --209.122.114.237 (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Refs

Can someone explain to me why this page uses that odd ref format? Koala15 (talk) 04:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Odd as in how? This is a very common format for pages, especially ones that will become GAs or FAs. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I think he missed the "g" off "odd", and misspelled "good". Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2014

Quill's ship is named the Milano, not the Minora as stated in the article, as per Director James Gunn's twitter: https://twitter.com/JamesGunn/status/494193606794547200. Additionally, the prison is called the Kyln and Ronan's is the Dark Astor, both spelled that way in the comics and on screen in the movie.

68.195.11.127 (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Nowhere in the article does the word "Minora" appear, and the prison is said to be the Kyln three times. I can't find anyone that refers to Ronan's ship as the Dark Astor; Google shows chocolate and theatres. Please be more specific with where the issues are, and provide a source for the spelling of Astor. Sock (pka Corvoe) (be heard)(my stuff) 20:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2014

Add the following statement to the end of Vin Diesel/Groot's section under "Cast":

"Diesel also provides Groot's voice for several foreign-language releases of the film.Puchko, Kristy (July 30, 2014). "Listen To Vin Diesel Voice Groot In Five Other Languages". CinemaBlend. Retrieved July 31, 2014." 69.136.149.237 (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Thank you for the source! I made it the second sentence, after the "Diesel voiced and mo-capped" (paraphrasing) area. Sock (pka Corvoe) (be heard)(my stuff) 20:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2014

Sonicgum15 (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a "change X to Y" style question for your request. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2014

Put in the Marketing Area that on July 4, 2014, a special preview of the movie was shown in the Captain EO theater at Disneyland and Epcot. 209.134.127.183 (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Already there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2014

Under the reception heading, please change the following wording for readability (things to omit, things to add): In July 2014, pre-release tracking suggested that Guardians of the Galaxy could gross over $60 - $70 million or more during its opening weekend. [158] Box Office Mojo estimates that the film could gross over $82 million or more. 50.139.120.19 (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Will adjust. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2014

Under the cast section, link Denarian Saal (Peter Serafinowicz's character) to Supernova (Marvel Comics), his comic counterpart. 69.136.149.237 (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Sock (pka Corvoe) (be heard)(my stuff) 13:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The Other killed by Ronan

Under the plot section, the Other is killed by Ronan unprovoked during Ronan's audience with Thanos. 121.213.21.235 (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The Other is not necessarily dead (it certainly looks like it, but you never know with this stuff), and it's irrelevant to the plot as a whole anyway. If Ronan hadn't killed the Other, absolutely nothing about the film would have changed. Sock (pka Corvoe) (be heard)(my stuff) 13:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2014

Addition to the sequel information: Director James Gunn confirmed that in the sequel "there should be at least one more Guardian from the comics" during a Twitter Q&A: http://www.eonline.com/news/565485/guardians-of-the-galaxy-director-james-gunn-s-twitter-q-a-with-e

Done Thank you for the find! Sock (pka Corvoe) (be heard)(my stuff) 13:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2014

Please let's change this line:

In a separate interview for The Dark World in November, Feige added that a third, unknown Infinity Stone would be seen in the film,[112] later revealed in June 2014 to be the Power Stone.[113]

To this:

In a separate interview for The Dark World in November, Feige added that another, unknown Infinity Stone would be seen in the film,[112]

Basically removing the whole last part. Feige never said there were only three Gems, he said they had only officially revealed three Gems. Meaning the Scepter could very well still be the Mind Gem. As for the article proving the Orb from Guardians of the Galaxy was the Power Orb, that is simply untrue. The article expresses only the Opinion of it's writer, and his source is a line from the movie he most likely misunderstood. Please change it, it's causing a lot of arguments in certain, very nerdy, parts of the internet. Exodus111 (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The wording of "third, unknown" does no harm; it doesn't imply that the third one is the final one, just that this was...well, the third one. Also, how did the writer misunderstand the line? Even if it was misunderstod, Vulture is a reliable source, as is the International Business Times, which also referenced that line when discussing the stone's name. See WP:TRUTH. Sock (pka Corvoe) (be heard)(my stuff) 13:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Cosmo/Laika

Does Cosmo have any cited relationship to Laika? I am unfamiliar with the Guardians of the Galaxy franchise, but given the CCCP... kencf0618 (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

That's actually an interesting thought, but there is only one joking mention of Laika to be found (in a Den of Geek article). Cosmo is entirely different in almost every other way, believe it or not. He's telepathic and all. Sock (pka Corvoe) (be heard)(my stuff) 13:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding credits

Should comic creators who were credited in the film (near the bottom) be added anywhere in the article? We don't normally do this, but figured I'd ask just in case. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Makeup Info

I think this article [1] has some pretty good stuff in it if anyone wants to use it. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Convoluted formatting for quote

So long story short, in the Development section there's this quote that reads "...cosmic side of the universe." and for the sake of them liking the capitalized U in "universe", some editors are making that quote into "...cosmic side of the [Marvel Cinematic U]niverse.", which I find ridiculous, having that bracket enclose just one letter from a word. I proposed leaving it as "[Marvel Cinematic] universe", the U being lowercase not being that bad IMO, but I got reverted by a second editor, so I leave it to you to decide. --uKER (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

We can't change the quote how we like. Feige said "universe"; we want to clarify for readers that it is the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Feige, or the interviewer/transcriber, never intended it to be the capital "Universe". So we have to change that. It is more appropriate in my opinion to do it as [Marvel Cinematic U]niverse, versus [Marvel Cinematic Universe], because we still want to show that Feige said universe, not something else that we as editors have changed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
If you'd notice, my proposal is "[Marvel Cinematic] universe", which doesn't alter the quote. It just leaves the U lowercase instead of mangling readability for the technicality of having that U as uppercase. --uKER (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
But that is not correct, because it is Marvel Cinematic Universe, not Marvel Cinematic universe. And it does not really mange readability. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I find it unnecessarily convoluted, but if I'm the only one I guess I'll live with it. --uKER (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Brackets are used all the time when citing quotes, so I apologize that I'm failing to see this as an issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2014

Gamora reveals that she has betrayed Ronan, unwilling to let him use the orb's power to destroy entire planets such as Xandar.

Gamora reveals that she has betrayed Ronan, and will instead sell the orb, thereby giving herself a chance to finally escape Thanos and live an independent life.

184.153.154.25 (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

ie--at that point not even Gamora knows about the powerful stone the orb contains.

 Not done Though she didn't know of the Infinity Stone within the Orb, she does state in the film her knowledge of Ronan and Thanos' plan to destroy Xandar with it. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on August 12, 2014

It has been confirmed that the cocoon in the Collector's home is the regenerative form of Adam Warlock. In the post credits scene it shows in the background that the cocoon has been broken. This is of extreme importance given Warlock's role in the comic book infinity story arc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.225.14.75 (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Confirmed by who? Also, this if very trivial even with a source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: Music

The Music section currently ends with this sentence:

By August 2014, the soundtrack, titled Awesome Mix, hit number one on the Billboard 200, becoming the first soundtrack album in history to not feature any original songs.[132]

However, if you look at the citation, the album is actually the first soundtrack album in history to hit #1 on the charts while not featuring any original songs. There have been numerous other soundtrack albums with no original songs -- for example, the hit soundtrack album for "American Graffiti," which peaked at #10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/41_Original_Hits_from_the_Soundtrack_of_American_Graffiti). 68.173.32.194 (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Wording changed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Liège-Guillemins railway station

I think that part of the scenes in Xandar have been inspired by the Liège-Guillemins railway station. 92.147.133.120 (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Source? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible error?

In the box office section it says " IMAX accounted for 17% of the total gross with $1.9 million, which is the second biggest August pre-release in IMAX format behind Iron Man 3." Iron Man 3 was released in May, so I'm sure how it could have the biggest August pre-release. Mussobrennon (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I'll get on adjusting the wording for that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Critical Response

The critical response section seems long but I'm not criticizing. I enjoyed watching the review for families of the "Movie Moment Mom" for Fanango, Tara McNamara, she's great [2] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Not really. Pretty standard 3 paragraph section: review aggregators, then the majority views of the film, then the dissenters, to remain neutral. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Howard The Duck after credits scene

I don't see why certain people are so against using the characters real name and continue to remove my correction. There are numerous sources that confirm that it is Howard The Duck and not just a generic anthropomorphic duck there it should be recognised. Wikipedia is supposed to be a realiable fact page therefore the correct information should be noted

80.47.128.195 (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It is correctly noted by stating anthropomorphic duck, because in the 1-2 minute scene, is the name "Howard" or "Howard the Duck" ever spoken? No. So we can only go off of that. The same for Cosmo. We are not favoring one or the other. See other MCU film pages as well for post credit teases. None of the characters/items are directly stated, all are done through piping, because they are never explicitly named or stated as what they are. It would be an issue, I feel, if we wikilinked to 'anthropomorphic' and 'duck', but we are linking the whole phrase to Howard the Duck's page. And just because the credit is given right after the scene is not justification to state the name, because the character is in a "blink and you miss it" scene earlier in the film. I hope this gives you a better understanding. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


Cosmo is credited as a dog named "Fred" during the credits, so it can be stated that he is, indeed, Cosmo. Additionally, the Marvel Art of Guardians of the Galaxy book explicitly refers to the dog in the film as "Cosmo". As for Howard the Duck, James Gunn has identified him as such in interviews and on Twitter. I will endeavour to find sources for it. 80.193.1.164 (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

People without outside knowledge of these characters do not know who they are because they are not named within the film's plot, so piping them to the appropriate article is the correct coarse of action. However, I am not opposed to adding a note these piped links with references verifying the characters as similar situations have been handled in other MCU articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that a note would be a good addition. The piping is certainly appropriate for the reasons TriiipleThreat said, but a note is always a good touch. Sock (tock talk) 18:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
If the character is named in the credits, shouldn't we use that name here. The previous situations that Triiiple referred to concerned uncredited cameos, but Cosmo is credited, so I think that should be changed. In terms of Howard, yes his name is never spoken in the film, but immediately after his appearance his name is shown clearly and visibly onscreen. I think this is enough to use his name in the summary as well. If people don't understand who the characters are, then all they have to do is click on the link and read more. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Someone unfamiliar with the character would not be able to match the credit with the character because his name is never given within the film itself.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't they? The film cuts directly from a shot of an anthropomorphic duck to the words "Howard the Duck created by Steve Gerber and Val Mayerik". The connection is not explicitly stated in dialogue, but it's abundantly clear from the context of the final credit. —Flax5 11:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The summary currently says "In a post-credits scene, Tivan sits in his destroyed archive with two of his living exhibits: a canine cosmonaut and an anthropomorphic duck." If you changed that to "In a post-credits scene, Tivan sits in his destroyed archive with two of his living exhibits: Cosmo the Spacedog and Howard the Duck." then anyone who has seen the movie will know that the 'Spacedog' must refer to the dog featured prominently at the beginning of the scene, and the 'Duck' must refer to the anthropomorphic duck featured prominently at the end of the scene. Because of this, and the fact that the characters are clearly named through credits in the film, there is no reason to keep the page the way it is. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
As I stated, Howard was also in a "blink and you miss it" scene earlier in the film, so the credit also applies to that appearance. Just because it appears right after the scenes, does not mean we can infer all viewers will understand that to be the character that appeared. I would be fine with adding a note as on other pages, but I don't really see the need, since we link to the Howard the Duck page. If it was something like in Cap:TWS where we can't link the sceptor in Wikipedia to being Loki's, then the note is of good help. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:FILMPLOT, post-credits scenes and joke scenes are considered inappropriate for the plot, so what's the point of including it? --McDoobAU93 19:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

What you claim is mentioned is not. What it does say is this: "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail." Post-credit scenes are allowed and can be included. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
But it's a joke scene. How does the presence (or lack) of this scene help (or, by its absence, harm) the plot summary of the film? Is it critical to one's understanding of the film's story? --McDoobAU93 20:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
While it may be a joke scene, it was still chosen to be added after the credits rolled. So if it is not mentioned, it is leaving out a part of the film, and thus has not been fully covered in that section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Due to FILMPLOT's constraints (400-700 word summaries), we have to leave out lots of details of lots of films. What if an editor feels that the various Stan Lee sight gags in the MCU films merit inclusion? After all, it was chosen to be added to the film, and yet it's not mentioned in the vast majority of MCU plot summaries, since it obviously is a sight gag and not integral to the plot. By point of reference, the credits scene in Thor: The Dark World does drive the story arc, and thus should be included. Again, how is the reader's comprehension of the plot compromised by its absence? --McDoobAU93 20:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
All post-credit scenes on films should be mentioned regardless of specific significance, because it is separate from the rest of the film and therefore stands out to the audience (unlike Stan Lee who you will only recognise if you know who he is or have seen the other films), and because people coming and looking for information will want to know whether there is a post credits scene or not, and adding at the bottom of the plot "There is a post-credits scene" is not addressing the plot, it is addressing the structure of the film, so we say "In a post-credits scene ... " - adamstom97 (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
But again, we're getting into scope creep that FILMPLOT specifically wants us to avoid. Some readers may well want to see if there is such a scene, while others may call it an in-joke. This scene is the very type of minutiae that FILMPLOT describes and discourages. That said, it appears consensus is against me here, and I'm willing to leave it be as such, calling it a case of ignoring the rules if editors feel it's that important. --McDoobAU93 21:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a case of WP:IAR. You're interpreting FILMPLOT differently than the majority of editors I've personally seen, as I've never seen someone argue to exclude a post-credits scene. I'm not saying you're wrong, and I respect your interpretation, but I don't think an interpretation is synonymous with a rule, making it basically impossible to "ignore" a rule. Sock (tock talk) 23:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2014

Add Christopher Fairbank in the cast listing - he played the Broker (www.imdb.com/title/tt2015381)

ThomasAnderson (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done iMDb is not a reliable source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: I have added him, but with a source from the National Post. Sock (tock talk) 21:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Sock. I saw this before I saw the article edit, hence my answer. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

The movie is popular around the world, and in the USA. 

Headline-1: Box: ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ rules lackluster Labor Day

QUOTE: "The Marvel film topped the domestic charts for the third time and benefited from crowds hoping to stretch out the waning days of summer, grossing $16.3 million over the Friday, Saturday and Sunday period and pushing its U.S. total to $274.6 million. It will likely end the four-day holiday with $21.2 million in stateside ticket sales from 3,462 locations." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2014

Quill, Rocket, Groot, Gamora, AND Drax all worked togeher to escape the space prison. Please make the necessary changes. 72.161.217.235 (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Done Sock (tock talk) 16:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Corrected that for you. Here's a source if unsure ;) 2601:C:780:234:21A2:1F9A:CA7C:402F (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Worth a mention?

Poor subtitles in Chinese release leads to mixed reviews. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I think so, maybe just in the reception section? Like, "The film received less positive reviews in China, which was attributed to subtitles which were poorly translated", or something like that? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Corrected that for you. Here's a source if unsure ;) 2601:C:780:234:21A2:1F9A:CA7C:402F (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Worth a mention?

Poor subtitles in Chinese release leads to mixed reviews. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I think so, maybe just in the reception section? Like, "The film received less positive reviews in China, which was attributed to subtitles which were poorly translated", or something like that? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Box office

Should we note that it is the third highest grossing mcu film? source - adamstom97 (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

....Getting to it, with my weekly box office numbers update (waiting on final Intl numbers to come out tomorrow)! :) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Cool - adamstom97 (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Box office - overbloated

A. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Weekend-by-weekend analysis and country-by-country analysis is thus unnecessary, since all domestic/overseas weekend grosses and country-specific opening weekends/total grosses are available at Box Office Mojo in well presented tables. Noting a country or a specific weekend is only worth when there is something notable about it (for example, the film was number one on that weekend, broke a record in the specific country or the country is one of the highest-grossing territories for the film).

B. There are guidelines here suggesting we should approach the box office in a retrospective way. So stating "record" after "record" with a date tagged to each one is an undesirable historical approach to the matter. This is what box office websites do. They mention anything notable about a film that happened during the weekend or a specific day. But in retrospect some stuff are not important relative to others.

C. Rankings are done by chosing criteria: biggest film achievement among films in a specific year, biggest film achievement among films of a specific genre, biggest film achievement amongs films released by a specific studio, etc. This applies one criterion at a time. When you start applying 2 or more criteria at a time or when the sampling period is small, the record becomes less significant. e.g. biggest opening weekend during summer 2014 (summer is only four months which is a very small sampling period). D. Consistency: if it is decided that we should mention where the IMAX gross of the film ranks among Disney films, we should also do the same for its opening day, opening weekend, total gross etc. Why mention one and not mention the others?

1.Guardians of the Galaxy became the fourteenth movie of 2014 to gross over $300 million, which it did in 10 days. 2.By October 16, 2014, the film had grossed over $700 million, becoming the third Walt Disney Studios release of 2014 to do so, and the fourth Marvel Studios film to do so, behind The Avengers, Iron Man 3 and Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

These two are completely arbitrary. Why is reaching $300M and $700M so important that they need whole sentences to describe them. And if they are important, why is $400M, $500M and $600M not important. Particularly, why is notable that it reached $300M when THIRTEEN OTHER FILMS have done that too?

3.which was the biggest August pre-release in IMAX format, as well as the second best pre-release showing for a Disney or Marvel film, behind Iron Man 3. This is applying two criteria at once. If we agree that we should rank the IMAX gross among Disney films, why not rank its opening day among Disney films, its opening weekend among Disney films, its total gross among Disney films, its Labor Day gross among Disney films etc.? Sometimes we need to draw a line. I believe doing this for opening days and weekens is OK, but not anything else.

4.passing Transformers: Age of Extinction as the top grossing film of summer (May–August) 2014. This record is unnecessary to mention since the film is also the biggest film of the year (which implies it was first in the season in which it was released).

5.In the fifth weekend, Guardians of the Galaxy was number one once again,[202][203] becoming the first film of the summer to be the number one film in three weekends. Why add a whole sentence for each and every weekend in which the film was number one, instead of saying: "The film was in first place on its fourth, fifth and sixth weekends." Also, "the first film of the summer to be #1 in 3 weekends"? The smaller thhe sampling period, the more trivial the record becomes. If it was the first film in the last ten years to be #1 in 3 weekends, that would be notable. Why is a period of four months for this record notable? We could just say "The film was #1 for 3 consecutive weekends". Period. There are many that have done that in the past so even a ranking would be trivial (it is #45 [3])

6. Guardians of the Galaxy in its sixth weekend was number one for a fourth time,[205] becoming the first Marvel film to be the top film for four weeks, surpassing Captain America: The Winter Soldier and The Avengers, both of which were number one for three weeks, Instead of ranking it among all films that were #1 for 4 weekends, it is ranked among Marvel films. Not even superhero films as a whole. Why not rank its opening day among Marvel films as well. We should also rank its opening weekend among Marvel films. The list can go on forever. Ranking the "opening weekend" with all these criteria (studio, year of release, genre) may be justified, but "number of weekends in first place" shouldn't be combined with any other criteria because it is too trivial.

7.On September 12, 2014, the film passed $300 million for its domestic gross, becoming the first film of 2014 to do so. Are we really gonna celebrate the fact that it was the first film to earn $300M in 2014, when there are already about 50 other films that have achieved this in previous years? Mockingjay Part 1 will also earn $300M. It will be the second film of 2014 to earn $300M. Is this less important? Just because Guardians was released earlier during the year doesn't mean there's something special about it.

As for the overseas section, weekend-by-weekend analyses and the arbitrary mention of random countries is not a standardised approach. We should choose the biggest countries (the three biggest... the five biggest... I don't know... it has to be a reasonable amount) and talk about them. With a mere $2.3M, for example, Japan is totally insignificant, because that gross is not a record in any way. Same for Italy, its openign-weekend was not a record and it was very small ($3.4M). As I've already said, we can't keep mentioning specific information for the box office performance just beacuse were highlighted in the media. The media do that because at the time, there is nothing more notable to report. Wikipedia is not like that. It does not choose the most notable things that happened to a film each week and add them to the article. It looks back at the whole run of a film and decides what is notable and what isn't.

I may have left some of the above info in my updated version of the box office section, but I still think we should discuss them. Thank you.Spinc5 (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts:
1. Did it in 10 days, notable.
4. Top grossing film of the year does not imply top grossing film of the summer.
7. Yes, because it was.
All the info has provided an overview to the time the film was playing in theaters. Yes, it could maybe do without some of the "weekly number" (which as been cut down in the domestic) but gutting the section completely, and pulling random BOM rankings (ie greatest this, greatest that), is not the proper solution either. All information has been added that has been documented by reliable third party sources, that have deemed the information notable to the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
As it currently stands, the section no longer features weekly minutiae numbers, rather, any relevant info occurring during the week, including: initial opening number/records/info; most territorial releases; any records; any additional openings with relevant comparison data. All is acceptable per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Box office. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
1. There are films like Pirates of the Caribbean 4, Transofmers 3 and Harry Potter 7 - Part 2 that reached $300M in 5 days. So I don't see why 10 days is notable. You still haven't explained why you believe that $300M is so special whereas $400M or $500M is not.
4. Top-grossing film of the summer is a pointless record when there are other films outside the summer that have earned more. Also, if a film is the biggest of the year, it is also the biggest in the specific season in which it was released (in this case, the summer period).
7. I've included this one as "the only film of 2014 to have reached $300M". This is notable. The "first film of 2014 to have reached $300M" is not worth noting.
You say "All information has been added that has been documented by reliable third party sources, that have deemed the information notable to the film." Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something is true, or verifiable, doesn't mean it should be mentioned. Third-party sources don't deem information "notable for Wikipedia"; they deem it "worth-publishing" in order to gain readers. We're supposed to find which information is notable among the sea of info that one can find online. Also, the box office guidelines do not say that we should include all territorial releases but only the notable openings. Germany, Japan and Italy (three markets that have been mentioned) have nothing notable about them. Also there is nothing random about the rankings I chose. They compare the film to other films in the same year or the same franchise or they explain why the film succeeded, as the box office guidelines suggest we should do. I have also included audience demographics, which is suggested in the box office guidelines.Spinc5 (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm a little unclear on what specific details were excluded. Can a couple be outlined here? For something like Italy's gross, the thing is, these territories are much smaller than the US, but relatively speaking, a certain gross in a country may be significant, which was why it was worth noting. I think WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies if we listed every country with their gross; the goal of using reliable sources' highlighting is to choose relevant details. It generally helps to explain why certain countries are mentioned, but with reliable sources' coverage going through editorial judgment, there's usually a good reason why certain details are mentioned. There seems to be a good deal of content that we agree on here, anyway, so it would help to see what details are being disputed. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment I think Spinc has made some valid observations. Generally, when we provide information we should be able to tell the reader why it is significant. That's really the key idea behind determining what to include and what not to. If a film is the biggest film of the summer season then you can argue that is significant, but why is grossing "over $300 million" more significant than grossing more than $200 million, or $400 million. And why is ten days significant if Transformers did it in half that time? The idea is to give a global overview and then pick out other notable markets i.e. the home market; the biggest "foreign" market; the markets where it set significant records etc. Pertaining to concern "C" I also agree we should not apply arbitrary criteria to contrive new records either. To address Spinc's points individually:

  1. I agree these are somewhat arbitrary thresholds; however, you can probably argue the case that a studio having three $700 million+ in a single year is significant.
  2. n/a
  3. There is a WP:WEIGHT issue here. Are there any formal records for IMAX previews? For instance, Box Office Mojo which has a comprehensive collection of records doesn't track alltime preview records, let alone IMAX ones. In short this looks like one of those "manufactured" records that only the author of the article cares about. If other sources cover this too then obviously there is a stronger case for covering this angle.
  4. I think it is worth clarifying that the film became the top-grossing film of the summer; as someone else said, being the top-film of the year doesn't imply the top film of the summer. I also think being the top summer film is a noteworthy record: it's a well defined season (at least for the domestic market, not so much for the global one if you live in the Southern hemisphere) and highly competitive, and Box Office Mojo again maintains seasonal records.
  5. I think this is more verbose than it needs to be, but is probably still just about noteworthy. Where there any other films that held the #1 spot for three weekends over the summer? If not, you can say something along the lines of it reclaiming #1 in its fifth weekend to become the only film to hold the #1 position for a total of three weekends over the summer. If there are other films that did this then it probably isn't worth mentioning.
  6. I don't see the harm in mentioning the record for Marvel Studios itself. If a James Bond film held the series record for most weeks at #1 we would probably mention that.
  7. I agree that being the "first film in 2014 to gross $300 million" suffers from WP:RECENTISM somewhat. Readers ten years from now aren't going to be all that interested in which film was the first of the year to gross $300 million. However, being the only film to gross $300 million during the summer season in the domestic market probably is worth mentioning on balance.
The key thing to remember is that we are not box-office trackers. What we write here should still be relevant in five years time. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Note I am busy in real life and on wiki elsewhere, but am planning to continue commenting here. Please do not take my "non-answer" as an acceptance of any material changes discussed, and I will try to add some comments in the coming days. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

As a response to Erik, I would like to say that the opening weekend of Guardians in Japan broke no records (not in the MCU, not for 2014, basically nothing). In Italy and Germany (which are mentioned in the article), it's the same picture. But you know why they were mentioned in the article. It is simply because each of those markets was the only one to open on that specific weekend. On the weekend of August 29-31, Guardians opened only in Germany and Austria. On September 12-14, Guardians only opened in Japan. On October 24-26, the only opening for Guardians was in Italy. Box office websites had to report something so they came up with as many comparisons and rankings they possibly could for those markets (e.g. for Italy: 29% above Captain America: The First Avenger, 8% above X-Men: Days Of Future Past, and 13% below Captain America: The Winter Soldier) This is WP:RECENTISM and trivialism in its greatest form. South Korea opened to $4.8 million which is bigger than Italy or Japan. But it opened on the weekend of August 1-3, on which many other bigger markets opened (Russia, UK, Mexico, Brazil) so the box office websites already had more "impressive" numbers to talk about.

As a response to Betty Logan,

1. That may be an important record for the studio, but not for the film.

2. see no.1

3. The problem is, as you've said, that we don't have official records for IMAX. So what if it's the second-best Disney film? What if there are 20 other Warner Bros or Fox films that have made more? It would rank 20th all time, which is pretty insignificant. Unless we find its all-time rank, this record is meaningless.

4. Box Office Mojo has seasonal records but that doesn't justify including it in Wikipedia. Should we thus go back and find the biggest film for every season of every year (best winter film of 2014, best spring film of 2014, best holiday film of 2013, best autumn film of 2013 etc). The sampling period is only a few months and provides no insight into whether this movie made a respectable gross or not. Statistically, due to the variation in release schedules etc, I think looking at anything smaller than a year would make no sense. For example, Monsters vs Aliens was the biggest film of spring film of 2009. But for the year, it ranked 11th. Is this really a record worth mentioning? If we don't do it for all seasons, we shouldn't do it for any of them.

5. Even if it was the only film to achieve three #1 weekends during the year, it wouldn't be worth mentioning as a record, because about 50 other films have achieved this in other years in the past. We could just say, "it was in first place for three consecutive weekends".

6. If you believe that "number of #1 weekends among Marvel films" is important, then we should rank its midnight gross, its opening day, its opening weekend, its opening week, its total gross, its number of theatres in which it was released, its number of weekends in the Top 10 among Marvel films and the list doesn't stop there. Besides opening weekend and total gross, I don't see why the rest are significant.

7. Exactly: recentism. MEANINGLESS recentism.Spinc5 (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Break point

Alright. So I finally had some time to comment here. Please view the content in my sandbox that address many of the concerns. I believe this is an acceptable end result, given the info available to us, and what we can chose to include in the section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

What you removed: "fourteenth film to reach $300M", "second best pre-release IMAX showing for a Disney or Marvel film, behind Iron Man 3" but pretty much nothing from the overseas section. You also summarised the weekends on which it was #1 in one sentence. These 3 changes are accepted with relief and I hope further negotiation is possible.
What you haven't done:
1. You basically failed to address all my points on the overseas section.
2. You are still using the format: "on [particular date], it achieved [record/ranking]", which is a historical approach, instead of a retrospective: "it is the [mention ranking]" or "it set [mention record]".
3. Marvel films include those distributed by Fox and Sony. Use MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) for the rest.
4. You spend three lines of text to desribe where it ranks among films that have topped the weekend 4 times (among films of summer 2014, among Marvel films, among comic book films, among films of 2014). This is redundant and meaningless as it adds no real importance to the record. It's still only #45 among all films that have topped the weekend box office at least four times. You also keep saying "it is the first film to...". Using "first" is recentism.
5. The thing about Disney having three films over $700M is important for Disney, so if you want, mention it in the Disney article. It is needless in this article, because the box-office performance of a film rarely depends on how many other films of the same studio did well in a particuar year.
Overall, can you please explain specifically why you keep ignoring each of my remarks. This includes previous ones, not just those that I mentioned today. I'm tired of repeating myself over and over, while you just ignore me.Spinc5 (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

One Small Paragraph On Visual Effects Production ???

VFX is the very heart, the deep core of GotG, it is MPC's and Framestore's labour of love that created such an incredible universe yet I was astonished to see one small paragraph describing the effects, surely that is a mockery? Twobells (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:BE BOLD.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Echoing Triiiple's statement, we have a great article already cited in the article that you can add info from. If you want to see more here, start with that article and be bold and add it yourself. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

British-American Co-Production

GoTG is a British-American co-production not solely a US-centric film, also, the sets, visual effects, sound..well everything except some minor fx work was all done in the UK. Twobells (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for productions to take place all over the world. If the production company is based in the UK, then it would be a joint British-American production. But, since Disney and Marvel are American companies, the production is American, regardless of what sites are used for filming/effects/etc. --McDoobAU93 17:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the above assessment. Variety said the film was a Hollywood (in other words, American) production that filmed in the United Kingdom. To label the film as British-American is false equivalence, although I would be fine with listing the UK in the infobox. The opening sentence and the "Country" field are not meant to be connected. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Onel5969 thanked me for reverting Twobells's edit. I assume this makes three of us that oppose the British-American label, so let's keep the status quo and discuss here to see if minds can be changed or if a compromise can be reached. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Best wiki practice follows industry definitions, please see Marvel-created IMDB page: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2015381/ if you check all wiki film co-productions ie: Ridley Scott's Alien, it is finance, production, studio locations etc. If GotG was just employed specific filming locations in a country then no it would not be a co-production; however, the entire film was created in the UK along with 95% of the fx and mechanical production. All industry describes the film as a US-UK co-production, it is only this wikipedia article that does not. If you wish more wiki film examples please just ask and I'll link you up. Twobells (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Variety said that it was a Hollywood (American) production that shot in the United Kingdom. I Googled the film title and "co-production" and found nothing calling the film a co-production, nor any results using the film title plus "American" and "British". Can you provide reliable sources that do this mashing-up? For what it's worth, it is fully possible to detail the British elements within the lead section. It is too simplistic to say "British-American" upfront. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
As I said please see the Marvel-created IMDB entry, also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_(film) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove this is standard wiki practice.Twobells (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
British Film Institute says here that the film is an American production. I doubt that Marvel edited the countries for its IMDb page, either. It is film credits that are usually received and loaded, but many aspects of an IMDb page are user-submitted. In addition, 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) does not appear to be a good example. It should not use the label upfront at all. In fact, it explains the dispute a little later, "Though Space Odyssey was released in the United States over a month before its release in the United Kingdom, and Encyclopædia Britannica calls this an American film, other sources refer to it as an American, British, or American-British production." Lastly, it is not appropriate practice to mash up nationalities per WP:FILMLEAD, and these articles will need to be fixed. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I am a IMDB Pro member and the entry was created by Marvel, also, Marvel and MPC (which is British) are listed as JOINT production company's in the credits as well on the MPC website, check here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2015381/companycredits?ref_=tt_dt_co http://www.imdb.com/company/co0016492/?ref_=ttco_co_3 also full credits: http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/467051/Guardians-of-the-Galaxy/creditsTwobells (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hmm, very well. That sounds like it could be possible to list the United Kingdom below the United States in the "Country" field of the infobox. However, this is still database-form presentation. The lead section's opening sentence is not connected to the "Country" field, though it is probably matches more than not, especially in simpler cases. By that, I mean that the label "British-American" is still an exaggeration of equal responsibility. Per WP:FILMLEAD, we should not do multi-country mash-ups for this reason. So it is either "American" or nothing, where we can explain later in the lead section that it is the American companies using British facilities to produce the film. What do others think? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Erik - Yes, my "thank you" meant exactly that. I'm working on a 1931 film at the moment, and got sidetracked before I could add my .02 here. Definitely an American production. As has been discussed ad nauseam, imdb.com is not the most reliable of sources. Erik's and McDoobAU93's points are the most on target.Onel5969 (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Following admin guidance on WP:FILMLEAD I've updated the lede to read correctly, as the movie is American financed but a British production the article cites the two production companies leading with Marvel. Twobells (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Going back to the left margin. I just reverted the changes, there's no consensus reached here. Still haven't seen anything which makes me change my earlier opinion. I think the material about the operations in Britain should go into the production section. I'd also like input from other editors who have put in work on the article, such as Favre1fan93, Adamstom.97, and Sock. I think we should wait to hear from some other editors before making any changes on this issue.Onel5969 (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

A similar issue arose with The Lego Movie. Just because it's filmed in Britain, doesn't make it a British film. It's determined by the financing, all of it exclusively from Marvel, which is American. Rusted AutoParts 19:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Financing has never defined a film's origin, rather it is the production companies accreditation. Twobells (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree that the nationality of the film is based on where the production company (Marvel Studios) is based. So by Twobells' definition, the James Bond films (all quintessentially British) that were filmed in the United States (for example, "A View to a Kill") would be American co-productions, too? That introduces a lot of instability that is currently solved by focusing on the location of the production house. That, and IMDB not meeting WP:RS, as mentioned earlier. --McDoobAU93 19:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the Bond movies are co-productions and state that in their articles, example is 2006's Casino Royale Twobells (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment It's not for editors to determine nationalities simply based on the participation of certain companies. Per Template:Infobox_film#Country there is no universal standard; the BFI for example, don't just take into account which companies are involved but also what they contribute. They have a formula for determing nationalities. If the BFI believe that GOTG doesn't meet this criteria, then we can assume the British arm of Marvel didn't make a contribution great enough for the BFI to consider it a co-production. The Britsh based Screen International also concur with this point. In short, no British source seems to be of the opinion this is a British co-production; in fact I don't see anyone bar IMDB labelling GOTG as British. 2001: A Space Odyssey isn't a good comparison really, since many different sources attribute the nationality in different ways so there is a legitimate debate there. Betty Logan (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment You cannot remove production accreditation on a whim, MPC and Framestore both have production credits equal to Marvel's production credit which makes the movie a British-American film. Tbh, I am sick to death having to fight every inch of the way to get recognition for the British film industry with American editors being the worst for editing in factually incorrect information trying to suggest that successful movies are purely American, well guess what? they aren't, this entire discussion is yet another Avatar! Also, British arm of Marvel???? Twobells (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Betty Logan, we need explicit verification from reliable sources that states the film is British. Assuming the nationality of film based on anything else is synthesis at best or orginal research at worst. It seems that both policy and consensus in this case is against the inclusion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
All you need to do is check production accreditation that's how journalists do it, GoTg has three credits, Marvel, MPC and Framestore. Twobells (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
That's not how WP:V works. Please provide verification from a third-party reliable source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
All the cites are there. Also, people here are forgetting a basic tenet of wiki best practice: There should be no national mash-up in the lede, Wikipedia: FILM LEAD says if there is more than 1 country of production then the nation isn't listed in the first sentence, instead the countries who produced the film are in the info box. Twobells (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
So far all you have said is "MPC is British therefore GotG is British", which is a text book example of synthesis. Your second point is mute because you have yet to establish your first point.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
No, not at all, I am going by the production credits which are cited legitimately in 3rd party sources. Secondly, I am not saying that GotG is purely British, rather the film is a co-production and all co-productions that are produced internationally must not have the two countries listed (mash up) in the lede per Wikipedia, FILM LEAD, instead the countries concerned are listed in the info box. Also, using your criteria GotG cannot be described as 'American' just because Marvel is an American company. ;-) Twobells (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
What reliable 3rd party sources? I do not see any listed in this discussion or in the article that verify your claims?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The citations of course in the lede. Also, by stressing 'reliable' it seems you want to be the arbiter of what is reliable, sorry but that aint' going to happen, the cites are more than legitimate Twobells (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

None of the sources in the lead explicitly state that film is British purely or partially. Also we cannot use IMDb as a reliable source, see WP:IMDb/RS.---TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

With respect you are getting confused, I have never said that GotG is purely British, I have simply stated that the movie is an Anglo-American co-production which the cites state: Marvel, Marvel Enterprises and MPC, US, US and UK. Twobells (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I said "or partially". MPC receiving a production credit does not make it a British co-production.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Also MPC isn't on the same tier as Marvel Studios. The NYT source list Marvel Studios as the studio while only giving MPC a production credit. And according to their own website, MPC only did VFX work on the film, no producing work. MPC's mention in the lead and infobox should be removed per policy, consensus and WP:WEIGHT.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment To use another scifi film example: All the Star Wars films - including Episode VII - were filmed in the UK like GOTG, and yet they are all listed in Wikipedia as US productions, as they were all products of an American film company (in this case, Lucasfilm). GOTG should be listed the same way, as an American production. Richiekim (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Just because a film has used British VFX houses for its post-production does not mean it is a British film. The only production studio for this film is Marvel Studios, which is American, thus an American film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding a single word to the lead

I think that instead of describing the orb as coveted, some reference should be made to its nature. I believe that referring to it as a "powerful and coveted orb" does this by using a single word.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. That is just a simple sentence to refer to the plot, based on the pre release premise summaries. Adding power does not change the fact that it is still coveted by multiple parties in this film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
With only the adjective "coveted", the reader might think that the orb is expensive, like a jewel. Adding "powerful" helps the reader to understand why the orb is coveted.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
All we are saying is that lots of people want it, which is part of the plot. As I said, futher information can be found in the actual plot summary. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I think we need to say more than lots of people want it. The plot summary makes it clear how powerful the orb is: "Tivan opens the orb, revealing an Infinity Stone, an item of immeasurable power that destroys all but the most powerful beings who wield it." The "group agrees that... they must stop him from using the Infinity Stone to destroy the galaxy." Given that the orb has a stone within it that can "destroy the galaxy", I think calling it a "powerful, coveted orb" in the Lead is helpful.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you should take a look at some of the other lead plot summary summaries to see just how simple they are. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I took the time to look up a well-known sci-fi film, Star Wars (film), which gives three sentences to the plot summary. Empire Strikes Back has four sentences on the plot in the lede. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I looked at the leads for the first crop of Marvel movies, and the number of sentences in the lede devoted to the plot ranged from one to three sentences. Here is the breakdown:
I didn't say to count the number of sentences. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
You didn't say to count the number of sentences, but you did suggest that I look at other lead plot summaries to see how simple they are. The result shows that there are precedents in the Marvel Film Universe to have lead plot summaries of 2 sentences. But I am not proposing the addition of another sentence, I am just proposing a single word: "...powerful, coveted orb."OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Look, this is unnecessary, and consensus is clearly against you, so there is no point in continuing this discussion. It clearly isn't going anywhere. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion about a disputed point is normal on WP. I don't agree that 2 editors constitutes consensus. I would like to do an RfC to get input from other editors.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
If you wish to and feel it is necessary then you might as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

– Now that it's been months since the film was released, the trends have become apparent. By all evidence, Guardians of the Galaxy (film) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here and the thing the vast majority of readers are looking for. It received 1,890,566 views in the last 90 days, several times more than the other two topics combined (Guardians of the Galaxy (2008 team) received 279,899 hits while Guardians of the Galaxy (1969 team) received 107,249). The disambiguation page itself received 197,457, which is a lot of readers to be sending to a dead end. Both comic series are relatively obscure, a fact that was widely discussed in the sources[4][5][6] and was noted by Marvel's own studio chief;[7] it's even a running gag in the film. It's time to get our readers to the article they're looking for. Cúchullain t/c 20:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, of course it's getting hits now, but isn't this a textbook case of WP:RECENT? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Animated series

Should we still include this here, given that Gunn as stated it isn't actually part of the MCU and doesn't really tie in to this film beyond using the same characters? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against removing it. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I feel this info is better served over at Marvel Animation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Unless someone is against it, I would suggest just moving it over there. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Gonna be bold and do that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Splitting the article

I recently read through WP:SIZESPLIT for the first time after a debate involving The Grand Budapest Hotel, and I learned that the recommended kilobyte count for splitting an article is around 50-60 kb, with 100 kb having the comment of "Almost certainly should be divided". While SIZESPLIT is neither policy nor guideline, it is built on consensus. Seeing as this article currently sits around 185 kb (!), I think we need to seriously consider either removal of less important content, or a splitting of articles. This is likely an issue across MCU articles, but this is frankly above and beyond readable prose size. I admittedly don't know for sure where we could split it (production, maybe?), but some shrinking and at least a little bit of splitting needs to occur. Thoughts, everyone?

Pings (since {{ping}} isn't working): Favre1fan93, TriiipleThreat, Adamstom.97, Richiekim Sock (tock talk) 13:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Avengers is 184 kb so I think we are okay for the moment. There really isn't much we can split off that I can tell. Do note too, that the sequel section will be gutted once the sequel page exists, to be more in line with other MCU films that have sequels. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
SizeSplit refers to size of prose and as you can see "Prose size (text only): 48 kB (8337 words) "readable prose size"", the article is fine. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
We shouldn't split the page just for the sake of splitting it anyway. If there was clearly something that didn't belong here or that could belong elsewhere, that would be fine, but all of this info is the same as what we have out in other MCU film articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Darkwarriorblake, thank you for the correction. That was my bad, I totally misread SIZESPLIT. I haven't quite been on my game lately. Sock (tock talk) 19:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_(film)/Archive_2&oldid=1200949104"