Jump to content

Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film)/Archive 4

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

Carina's status

Karina openly said she is a slave. Do not change it to assistant. - Capriaf 16:35, August 7, 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Capriaf that "slave" is better. There's no indication that she's anything but a slave and calling her an "assistant" strikes me as unnecessary whitewashing. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
She is his assistant, as she has always been referred to. The only time she is called a slave is when she says "I will no longer be your slave", which does not mean she was actually his slave, just that she felt like one, which also lines up with how we note that she is not treated well. Also, a google of the term "the collector's slave" does not show any reliable sources using that term. Until you can prove that this is a term that should be used, beyond the very weak argument that she refers to not wanting to be a slave anymore (which, again, you don't have to be a slave to say), the article needs to go back to how it originally was and you need to stop edit warring. - Adamstom.97 (talk) 07:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

No reliable source says she is an assistant. She is literally a slave. She is abused. She says she is a slave. The Collector threatened to lock her up. Neither the Collector nor Karina say she is an assistant. She is treated very much like a slave. Cinemablend said she is a slave.[1] What you are doing is wrong. Give me one indication that she is an assistant. You're the one who is really edit warring because you are using an improper term. Karina calls him master. And the definition of Slave is: "a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them." The Collector has her as his legal property and she is forced to obey, because if she does not obey, she will be put in the cage. Slave is the appropriate term, Adamstom.97. - Capriaf 13:55 UTC, August 8, 2018.

A quick Google search suggests to me that both terms are used depending on the specific source you're looking at. I don't suppose anyone would find "servant" to be a reasonable compromise? DonIago (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Capriaf and Adamstom.97 Can you both please stop edit warring? Let's limit the dispute to the talk page so that the edit history doesn't get bloated over something this minor. Adam, you especially should know better since you just got a warning about edit warring a few days ago.
Back to the discussion, I'm not sure "servant" would work because if she really is his slave then this would have the same sort of whitewashing as "assistant" does.
If sources closely associated with the cast, crew, etc. use a particular term that would I think be compelling. Adam, you said that all the reliable sources you have found use the word "assistant." Can you direct us to these sources? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Servant would serve the same purpose as assistant. She is a slave because there is no indication that she is free to leave Knowhere. All signs point that she is under full control of The Collector. - Capriaf 18:15 UTC, August 8, 2018

You are making all that up based on your own personal interpretation of the scene, not what has been obvious to everyone else for the last four years. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Capriaf's interpretation is the same as mine and they have provided evidence (a quote from the film) while you have not. Rather than appeal to consensus, which can always change, please provide evidence for the claim that you've made. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 21:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I also agree with Capriaf’s interpretation. Slave is accurate and source and is appropriately weighted. Alternative views to the consensus on “slave” should provide citations. —AdamF in MO (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Capriaf: Discussion has only been open for two days. Please allow an appropriate amount of time (at least a week) to allow for more editors to join the discussion before editing the disputed content. Thank you.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Just a comment, but I will no longer be your slave is a well-known figurative expression, so it doesn't hold much weight. DonQuixote (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the whole phrase being "well-known" (Google seems to only show references to this moment), but it's true that the term "slave" is also used in an exaggerated or metaphorical way. However, Capriaf also pointed to other things that indicate she is stuck in that situation. Adamstom.97 has indicated that there were authoritative sources that he could point to that used the term "assistant" but so far has not shared those with us. I'm still waiting. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 23:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Well you can wait longer, because I did no such thing. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
You did when you said Also, a google of the term "the collector's slave" does not show any reliable sources using that term.
If you don't care to share these sources, then all you've got to back up your argument is that the consensus thus far has been for "assistant." This is problematic for a number of reasons. The first is that it goes against the treatment of consensus as outlined at WP:CONSENSUS, which states:
In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines.
In addition, appealing to a group of people's stance, irrespective of their reasons, is a textbook example of bandwagon fallacy.
Moreover, even if we could appeal to consensus in this way, the article on Ophelia Lovibond, who portrays this character uses the word "slave" and has done so for several years. Using "assistant" in one place and "slave" in another makes Wikipedia inconsistent on the matter. The merits of using one term or the other affect both articles so that if we decide that "assistant" is better, we can change it there.
Now, Adam, as the only person arguing against this change, you can either present actual evidence, or we can take the next steps in the dispute resolution process. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I still didn't say what you are claiming I said. I don't particularly care whether we use assistant or slave as long as we are doing it properly, and that just does not appear to be the case. The proponents of using slave are basing their choice on very weak OR which is why I have been against making the change. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok, well I looked through the Google search you recommended, "collector's slave" and found
"Silly love songs, gender, Guardians of the Galaxy and Avengers: Age of Ultron" by James Rovira "This act should have destroyed him, as it happened to the Collector's slave, Yarina [sic] (Ophelia Lovibond), in Knowhwere when she attempted to grab the stone to use it to gain her freedom." (p. 110)
Superheroines and the Epic Journey: Mythic Themes in Comics, Film and Television by Valerie Estelle Frankel "In the same way, the Collector's slave girl in Guardians of the Galaxy claims ultimate power and burns up." (p. 159)
Then, to be fair, I looked up "collector's assistant" and found:
Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Film Sequels, Series and Remakes by Holston & Winchester. On page 298, Carina is described repeatedly as assistant throughout any mention of her.
Moving from books to news reports, we have this piece from Cinemablend that refers to her as a slave. In fact, quite a few sources from Cinemablend use the term "slave" for Carina.
My cursory look at books and news reports, which are reliable sources, shows (that slave is more common, though (as DonIago said) assistant does appear sometimes as well. A number of sources even use both (along with aide). It seems to me that those who use "assistant" are either whitewashing the issue or not considering it as thoroughly as we are here.
Given this evidence, doesn't it seem like slave is the better term? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 00:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. The most concerning part of that comment for me is when you said "It seems to me that those who use "assistant" are either whitewashing the issue or not considering it as thoroughly as we are here". That has POV and OR all over it. The simple fact is that there has been no evidence provided that she is actually a slave, only speculation which has been strongly indicated to be based on a line that does not mean what a lot of editors here think it means. I am happy with not calling her an assistant if that is what others want, but I can only support the use of the term "slave" if it is definitely the truth and I am so far not convinced. Opinion pieces basing their wording on the same evidence that we have here only helps in justifying the bad assumptions that some editors have made. It does not support them as being appropriate for Wikipedia. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, we've provided several sources and lines of reasoning and, rather than find sources to back up your position, now you're just ignoring evidence. It sounds like we need an RfC. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
We don’t need an RFC. When you have multiple editors with sources on one side and a single person with no sources, the single person can be safely ignored. Adamstom.97, has no argument, they simply don’t like the consensus view. That’s too bad. —AdamF in MO (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
There is no consensus yet. The only evidence provided that she is a slave is based on un-encyclopaedic OR, which means she should not be called that until better proof is provided. In the meant time she needs to be referred to with a term that fits what is actually shown onscreen, such as assistant, aide, or servant. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
That goes both ways, you know. The only evidence provided that she is not a slave is based on un-encyclopedic OR, which means she should not be called an assistant, aide, or servant until better proof is provided. In the meantime, she needs to be referred to with a term that fits what is actually shown and described onscreen, which is "slave." — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 21:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

That would be a cute response if it wasn't blatantly wrong. The film does not obviously indicate that she is a slave. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the person making the extra-ordinary claim. In the absence of sources, generally speaking, saying that "someone is a slave" is the claim. No one needs to cite that the character isn't a slave unless contradicted by the primary source or secondary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
First of all relax, we aren’t looking for Russell’s teapot. The character refers to herself as a slave in the movie and there are multiple sources, including several publish books that refer to her as a slave, so this isn’t an extraordinary claim. It is a case of a single editor objecting. —-AdamF in MO (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The character does not explicitly confirm that she is a slave in the movie. That is why this discussion is taking place. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
”I will no longer be your slave.”, seems like a confirmation to me but it doesn’t seem like confirmation to you. That’s why we are having this discussion. —AdamF in MO (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.cinemablend.com/news/1738130/how-important-will-the-collector-be-to-avengers-infinity-war

Request for Comment on Carina's status

After evaluating arguments in light of WP:NPOV and WP:PRIMARY - "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." - and thus giving lower or no weight to arguments based on people's own interpretation of the movie or quote and higher weight to those based on secondary sourcing, there's a consensus to use slave. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What is the best term for Carina's relationship to the Collector in Guardians of the Galaxy?

  • One side prefers slave, since Carina is mistreated, seemingly unable to escape her situation, and at one point says "I will no longer be your slave."
  • The other side objects to this, preferring assistant or aide, arguing that the quote is insufficient evidence because she could have used the term in a hyperbolic fashion.

Sourcing is somewhat mixed on the matter, though there appears to be a slight bias towards slave. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Not slave as the film does not say that she is a slave. "Tormented assistant" or "mistreated servant" or something along those lines is accurate to the character's portrayal onscreen without making the OR jump from someone saying "I will no longer be your slave" (a common phrase that anyone can say) and them actually being a slave. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I propose we close this and apply the edit. Are there any further thoughts. —AdamF in MO (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

There have not been enough responses to form any sort of conclusive consensus on the matter. I suggest you advertise the issue at other talk pages such as MOS:FILM to get some more participants here. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Suggest away, but I’m not your errand boy. Do your own homework. —AdamF in MO (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Your the one that wants it to close bud. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Yup that’s what it says and after a week you are still the lone dissenter. —AdamF in MO (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
You don't seem to be understanding what is happening here. You want to close this RfC, but there have not been enough participants so far. Because of that, you can choose to wait until more editors participate, or if you really want to hurry into a close then you can be proactive and try bring it to others' attention. Either way will have no effect on me. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Not slave - assistant better, what I see in the Disney.wikia.com or at gamespot. I also see the Collector used the term “attendant”, could see “servant”. Abusive and threatening, yes. She says “master”, yes. But “slave” is too much a leap ... that makes a implication that she was bought — plausible he would but not shown that he did and slavery is not shown as existing so... Go with what is shown, not the emotional outburst. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Tormented assistant Slavery is indeed a reach. SassyCollins (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Not slave (weak) - I honestly don't really care either way, and am a little shocked that this escalated to the level of an RfC, but since the question was asked... When I did a quick Google search, as noted in the nomination, I found sources going either way on the issue, much as we seem to be doing. What I didn't see was any quotes from anyone directly involved in the making of the film that would be relevant to the question. A very cursory look at the sources provided above didn't clear up the issue to my satisfaction. In any event, I don't think we should be labeling someone as a slave without incontrovertible evidence that that's the intention, and right now I'm just not seeing it. DonIago (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Not slave (weak) - In the absence of sources, the quote from the movie is rather weak in that it's a well-known figurative/hyperbolic expression. In the presence of sources, as Don Iago has pointed out, it's rather weak there too. DonQuixote (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don’t really have strong feelings one way or the other but would subordinate satisfy both parties? A subordinate could be either a slave or an assistant, and it still conveys her lower status.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I suggested servant pre-RfC and got shot down. I imagine subordinate might have the same issue, but I guess we'll see. DonIago (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I don’t think “subordinate is an appropriate description of her. She refers to The Collector as her master and says that she is his slave. Yes, slave does have a colloquial usage but in master, in this context does not. “Assistants” don’t call their bosses “Master”. Her method in ending her relationship with the Collector is also an indication of how she felt about her status. —AdamF in MO (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
How she felt is still irrelevant, we shouldn't be calling her a slave unless we know for sure that she actually was. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
By that logic we shouldn’t call her an assistant unless we know for a fact she actually was. So that leaves us at an impass. —AdamF in MO (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
No one is saying that she must be called an assistant. We just need to agree whether we think the film calls her a slave or not, and if the answer is no then we need to decide on a word that accurately describes what is seen onscreen. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
We’ve already agreed the character calls herself a slave and The Collector “my master”. So that isn’t really an issue. The issue is always, what do the preponderance of the reliable sources say. —AdamF in MO (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that subordinate would also be problematic. Like servant, it sounds like whitewashing. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
And reading further up I find Sarek's argument even better than my own. Invoking language that may or may not be used outside the film in a plot summary that doesn't cite secondary sources (I see no reason, mind you, why it couldn't) is OR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
So you are saying that we know she is a slave and should not be trying to talk around that? If so, what makes you think she is a slave? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
She says she is a slave in the film itself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Beyond that she calls The Collector her master. —AdamF in MO (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
And it's pretty heavily implied that she works so she won't be tortured/murdered, not for a salary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced by the WP:SYNTH that is happening here, but at least you have a reason. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
What SYNTH? Do you want reliable secondary sources? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
She doesn't want to be treated like a slave and refers to him as "Master". That does not necessarily mean that she is his slave. Hence, SYNTH. Any secondary sources are working off of the same information as us and so are making the same leap in logic. Unless you have proof that they are not? - adamstom97 (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Referring to her as a slave when the reliable sources do the same (you do not seem to have located a reliable secondary source that says "She is not a slave and here's why") is not SYNTH. You are showing a gross misunderstanding of policy here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Stating that she is called a slave in the film is a textbook violation of SYNTH, which says "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". And using a secondary source that is basing its info on the film as a way to get around SYNTH sounds like WP:FRUIT to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Nothing in the film implies she is not a slave, so the film itself is uniform in its presentation of her as a slave. The fact that some secondary sources also call her other things like "servant" does not conflict with this, since "slave" is a subset of "servant". Do not talk about SYNTH again unless you have located a reliable source that argues that she is "a servant, not a slave". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Don't tell me what I can and can't do Hijiri. And the fact that she is never identified as a slave in the film is the reason we are even having this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
She self-identifies as a slave in the movie. You don’t like that. That is why we are having this discussion. —AdamF in MO (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with what I like or not. I do not care what we call her in the slightest as long as it is supported by the film, and someone saying "I will no longer be your slave" does not mean that they are actually a slave. If the consensus here is that the line is enough to call her that then I am fine with that, but until we get to that point I am going to continue to say that 1 + 1 is not equal to 11. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing in the film that implies she is a salaried attendant. She is not free to go, and had he decided he no longer needed her services he would have ... done something very disturbing, if a little unclear, to her -- he threatens her to that effect. This is not based solely on one possible interpretation of her last words; it is the only acceptable description based on what is presented in the film itself. ("servant" and so on are theoretically acceptable, but now that the issue has been raised and has become an issue of "she is a slave" vs. "she is not a slave", the latter claim being untenable, it is inappropriate to imply otherwise.) Your continually putting words in other people's mouths ("1+1=11"!?) is simply unacceptable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) While slave is often used metaphorically, what do you make of the evidence that she refers to the Collector as master? In the United States, at least, if someone refers to another as master there is a strong connotation of a slave/master relationship, so much so that it would come off as sarcastic except maybe in certain sports (e.g. karate) and religious situations (e.g. Jediism). In situations of employment, an assistant or aide wouldn't use the term master. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 02:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I never said that she is a "salaried attendant", only that the film does not explicitly call her a slave. The point of the RfC is to see if others agree that we shoulnd't call her a slave, and if so then to see what alternate suggestions there were. And I am not American so maybe there is a cultural difference there, but I would not think it too strange for a servant to refer to the person she serves as "Master", especially cause he is a weird space guy who collects living beings for his own amusement. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
If she is not paid ("salaried") and works because of a threat of violence, and has no means of escape, she is a slave. This would be OR based on a primary source if we didn't have secondary sources that say the same thing and if you had managed to locate a single secondary source that contradicted it. And I'm not American either; I grew up in Ireland absorbing a lot of Irish, British and American culture, I studied French for eight years and have lived in Japan for most of my adult life. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
BTW, by complete coincidence since coming back from a vacation in France last week I've been working my way through Star Trek: The Next Generation (season 3) on Netflix, and right now I'm up to The Most Toys. It's pretty standard to refer to the slaves employed (under threat of death) by Fajo in that work as such. It has no bearing on how we should address this, I just thought it was a funny coincidence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
That is a funny coincidence, actually. At this point, I've said all that I'm going to say so I'm just going to leave it be now. Looks like the RfC is almost over anyway as consensus is starting to form. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
”...only that the film does not explicitly call her a slave”. You keep saying this, it is demonstrably false. The movie does explicitly call her a slave. You just disagree on whether he self-identification is valid. —AdamF in MO (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll actually agree that the film doesn't call her a slave in a reasonably objective context (which is to say it only explicitly occurs when she herself claims to be one), but as far as I'm concerned at this point that's a footnote in the larger argument, and I'm not looking to stir the pot here. DonIago (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Does it actually have to be the word "slave"? Can't it be something like "servant", which can mean either assistant or slave and leave it up to the reader's interpretation? DonQuixote (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to "servant", per the parenthetical portion of my 02:42 comment above, but I would prefer "slave". It's more descriptive/specific ("servant" does not imply she works there under pain of torture, which while not explicitly stated in the film, is stated about as explicitly as the word "slave" would make it) and if we measured the plot summary in terms of characters or syllables as opposed to words (which we might as well; IAR takes precedence over FILMPLOT when dealing with hypotheticals to compare the relative merits of near-synonyms) would help counter the bloat that one often sees in these plot summaries. The majority of other contributors to this RFC seem to share my sentiment, to some degree. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Not slave (Summoned by bot) as the film does not say that she is a slave. "Tormented assistant" or "mistreated servant" or simply "servant". Slave implies ownership, not simply lowly status and the synth-y arguments are weak. A real slave is a legally owned, saleable commodity and cannot possibly say "I will no longer be your slave". Refering to someone as "Master" was traditionally standard among domestic servants, farm labourers and other sharply delineated social situations (an apprentice or employee to his 'boss') - and is common in invented sci-fi universes to suggest great power(s). Pincrete (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
What you're talking about is chattel slavery, a specific manifestation of de jure slavery. Slavery also includes situations in which someone is de facto forced to work against their will. Can you corroborate your claim about the usage of master in sci-fi settings? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Slave – While a legitimate argument has been made from both sides, it's clear from the links above that secondary sources have applied this label to the character. I'm not sure why this isn't enough. The appropriate move when the source material doesn't clearly define something is to look to secondary sources for help (or remove the potentially controversial piece altogether). --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Not slave, would support attendant, assistant, aide, servant, etc. This is her function regardless of whether or not she is a slave, which cannot be determined. (The Collector tells her, "I don't have to remind you what happened to the last attendant who disappointed me.") The master/slave business is synth. I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that in the comics Carina Walters was The Collector's daughter. Certainly the comics are different from the film, but an abusive father-daughter relationship could explain the master and slave lines, as could many other relationships (assistant, intern, etc.) with a vast power imbalance. Immediately previous to Carina saying "I'm here to fetch you for my master" she addresses Gamora as "Milady Gamora" so these are just honorifics. Korath twice addresses Ronan as "Master", does that mean he should be described as a slave? Yondu says he "slaved putting this deal together", does that mean Yondu is a slave? Of course not. The line "I will no longer be your slave!" is an emphatic and non-literal exclamation as Carina grasps the stone knowing, either through gaining tremendous power or through death, that she will no longer be The Collector's subordinate. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comedy film?

This film is currently in several comedy-related categories. I question whether this is appropriate, as while the film contains comedic elements I don't believe it's typically considered a comedy film. Can editors either provide sources claiming it to be such or weigh in on whether they believe these categories to be appropriate? Thanks! DonIago (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

A quick search on "comedy" reveals a source called 'Guardians of the Galaxy' trailer: Marvel unveils cosmic action comedy, so the categories would appear to meet WP:CATVER. However, I am not sure they comply with WP:CATDEF: a quick look at the external links reveal that Allmovie (a reliable source) considers it sci-fi action and space adventure while IMDB (not an RS) considers it action and adventure. Neither of them consider it a "comedy". Betty Logan (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
It probably does not belong, but I would not fuss about it unless you truly want to tackle this article's categories as a whole. Is it really an "alien abduction film"? Should it really be considered "set in 1988" just because of brief scenes? Or "set in Missouri" for the same reason? Oh, geez, and "films featuring Howard the Duck" because of the post-credits cameo? The problem with categories is that they're so abundant with so little accountability (compared to lists which can require sourcing). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I've seen the "set in" categories used pretty broadly in the past; I'd be reluctant to touch those without a higher-level consensus. I did see "alien abduction" and given that Peter's abduction from his parents is a reasonably strong theme in the films I don't really have an issue with it, though I feel like that's not necessarily the intended use of the category. As for the rest, I'm willing to pull the trigger if I have support to do so. Do I have that support? DonIago (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm completely fine with whittling down these categories. Most articles have too many unsuitable ones. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Erik; I've made what I believe to be appropriate changes, though I'm amenable to having them reverted by yourself or Betty if either of you feel I overreached. DonIago (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

About the based on section

Should the |based_on= parameter in {{Infobox film}} on the article credit creators (Arnold Drake, Gene Colan) of the original team? The film is not based on the original 1969 team but its rehashed 2008 version but that shouldn't discount the original work by Drake and Colan especially when you consider that MCU films are mostly based on later stories but original creators are credited in infoboxes. They are not credited in-film but that shouldn't be an issue as them being the original creators is unambiguous. Gotitbro (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The original creators are credited in the infobox because they're credited in the films. Besides, no member of the film's team is included in the 1969 team, whereas all of them are included in the 2008 film. El Millo (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Did this really need to be an RFC? DonIago (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Probably not, I see no evidence that WP:RFCBEFORE has been observed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
The film isn't based on the group created by Arnold Drake and Gene Colan. Why would we credit them? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Agree with the responses above, only film credits are listed in the infobox. What you are suggesting would open a can of worms when it comes to uncredited work and potential original research.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
It would be quite difficult if something is based on something that is based on something that is based on something. And who do we credit if the last something is biblical inspiration? :-). --Duke of Chaos (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
What am I supposed to say? Jesus? El Millo (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Robert Downey Jr’s thought on the Film

I’ve been trying to add the accurate info of what Downey thinks of the film, but every time I do, it keeps getting deleted.

Comic book writer Jim Starlin’s thoughts on the film were added into the page, so why can’t Downey’s? Thoughts that certain actors have on a film have also been added onto the film’s page, such as Nathan Lane’s thought on “Finding Nemo”, so why can’t Downey’s thoughts on this film be added?

What’s so different about what I’m trying to add?

If anything, this has started to become more ridiculous than anything else. Austin012599 (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

How are RDJ's views on the film relevant? He's not a professional critic, he's an actor who doesn't even appear in the film. DonIago (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Also I've removed Nathan Lane's review on Finding Nemo since I fail to see how that has any relevance either. But WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. DonIago (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes in theory but ... [1] it was a WP:GOODFAITH edit, but there are few problems.
First minor problem with the reference is that it is from a website Entertainment.ie but that article clearly says the quote came from The Toronto Sun[2] so the editor should have gone upstream and referenced The Toronto Sun directly. (Another issue is that some editors claim that the Critical response section must be professional critics only but there is no such rule, comments from the comics creators or from others in Marvel or the film industry could all potentially be notable.)
The quote itself isn't ideal either "the best Marvel movie ever" is quite a selective quote, and a little vague, saying he liked the film without saying anything in particular about why he liked it. The longer quote is "Galaxy in some ways is the best Marvel movie ever. And it's odd for someone with - on occasion - an ego the size of mine to actually say that." Not quite as strong praise as the shorter quote made it seem. From the article his praise seems to be because it had seemed so unlikely that the film with lesser known Marvel characters would succeed, or that there would be a successful Marvel sci-fi comedy! It would certainly be interesting to add something to the article to help readers looking back to see that continued success seemed unlikely and at the time people thought this film was quite a gamble for Marvel, and were pleasantly surprised. Unfortunately I dont think that particular quote from Downey conveys any big ideas like that and is not really worth including. -- 109.79.176.231 (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Seyfried

It says she declined the role of Gamora "due to the excessive hours of make-up required for the role, and her uncertainty over the film's commercial viability". The source reads, "While Seyfried previously explained that she was wary of the green-skinned role because it would require hours in the make-up chair, she has now revealed that she had doubts about the franchise as a whole." Since I added the independent.co.uk source, was there any error on my part? --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with how we parsed the info for use here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

[[Ronan the Accuser (Marvel Cinematic Universe)|Ronan the Accuser]]

[[Ronan the Accuser (Marvel Cinematic Universe)|Ronan the Accuser]]. This is an Unnecessary Pipe. A second has already been removed by @Danno uk:. Favre1fan93 has reverted me twice saying, this is the most appropriate linking for THIS version of the character. it will take readers to the MCU character's article, where they can see info on this character (once it is written)). @Favre1fan93: Please self revert until you have wriitten up that section. Dont send readers down the long route. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This links to the section on the character from this film. Why would we link to an article about the comic book character when this section exists? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I second that. We are linking to the characters from these appearances, and that section links to info about said character from here, which is more beneficial to readers than pointing them to the comics article. A full MCU character article can be written, but until then, this section should suffice. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The emphasis was once it is written - Favre1fan93 has now written up a line at Ronan the Accuser (Marvel Cinematic Universe). However I would still argue that Ronan the Accuser#Film is a more informative link and hence more beneficial. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
If you think that is the case then you could move some of that beneficial content to the correct location for readers looking for info on the film character. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Superhero film?

This is not listed as a superhero film in most streaming services, including Disney+. I think that the genre should be changed to science fiction. MarioFyreFlower (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

MCU films are by default superhero films. —El Millo (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_(film)/Archive_4&oldid=1078765637"