Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Number of Phase 3 films

In the production announcement for Black Panther released by Marvel.com, there's an interesting part that says the Phase 3 of films is composed by 9 movies across 4 years, from Captain America: Civil War (2016) to Captain Marvel (2019). It's stated like this, quote: "Black Panther joins Marvel Studios’ slate of releases in its Phase 3 commitment to introduce film audiences to new heroes and continue the adventures of fan favorites over the course of four years and nine films", end quote. All of this means the 4th Avengers movie is the beginning of Phase 4. It also makes sense why that movie is no longer a Part 2 maybe because it's odd to put two Avengers movies in one Phase. Here's the link to the article of Black Panther: https://news.marvel.com/movies/58647/marvel-studios-begins-production-black-panther-2/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayden360 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. The source doesn't provide enough info to change anything right now, but it is something to keep an eye out for. - DinoSlider (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

That raises an interesting question, actually. The press release doesn't specify WHICH films it is talking about, which makes me wonder if we have found any sources that state that Spider-Man: Homecoming is actually a part of phase 3? Civil War, Doctor Strange, Guardians Vol. 2, Thor: Ragnarok, Black Panther, Infinity War, Ant-Man and the Wasp, and Captain Marvel have been referred to as being a part of phase 3 at either Marvel's Phase 3 announcement event or in press releases, or both. That's eight films. The ninth would presumably be Avengers 4, given that it was originally announced as part of Phase 3 and now is sort of up in the air. I'm getting the feeling that SM:H is not a part of Phase 3, but instead a movie that happens to take place in the MCU during Phase 3. Marvel did not provide us with a press release to mark the start of filming SM:H (unless I missed it), and they did not release the trailers, Sony did. This makes me think that even though it is set in the MCU, Sony is not specifically adhering to Marvel Studio's plan, which means it's not a part of any phase. Obviously this is speculation, but one can assume that Marvel will soon be releasing information about the start of production on Infinity War and Avengers 4. When they do, if they confirm that Avengers 4 is part of phase 3, we may have to reexamine how we refer to SM:H and any sequels it has, or any other MCU-set Sony-distributed films. -RM (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, Feige has said that they would have announced Homecoming at the Phase 3 announcement if the deal with Sony had been made by then, and the film is listed in that Black Panther press release as one of Marvel Studios' upcoming "epic big-screen adventures". But I agree that we should keep an eye out for more information on what is going on here, especially since it is likely that the Sony films are a separate thing that Marvel has happened to keep in continuity anyway (remember, Sony still makes the Spider-Man films, Marvel Studios is just helping out). - adamstom97 (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

All good things to consider. Hopefully it will be more clear next week with the Infinity War press release, and not add more confusion/doubt. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Budget

So there's two different reported budgets on this page. The infobox states it to be $2.53 billion while the Box office performance section of the page states it to be $2.505 billion. This boils down to the fact that there has been no set way of adding all the budgets together since there are films that have "gross" budgets and "net" budgets. For instance, the Box office performance section of this page reports that the budget of Guardians of the Galaxy is $170 million (cited from Box Office Mojo), while the film article reports that it has a $232.3 million gross budget and a $195.9 million net budget (cited from different sources). Similarly, the Box office performance section of this article states that the budget of Avengers: Age of Ultron is $250 million (also cited from BOM) while the film article states that the film's gross budget is $316 million and its net budget is $267.4 million (also cited from different sources). The articles of Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World also report gross and net budgets. With all these different budgets, should the "gross" budgets be added together to determine the cumulative budget of the MCU or should it be the "net" budgets added together? There should be a consensus since all these differing gross and net budgets can cause quite a bit of confusion when trying to determine the overall budget of the MCU. JaciFan (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts would be to do this: for all films that have reported gross and net budgets, include both values here (bringing along the sources for such). Then the total cell in the Box office performance section would get two budget totals, a gross and a net, with gross being all the gross values, plus singular values, and net being all net values, plus the films with only singular values. If other think including two values is the incorrect way to go, then we should use solely the gross values, and sum that together to get our total for this article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

What about the marvel x-men ?

Why does this list not include the xmen? They are marvel and this is a marvel universe topic! Thanks Sundog Sundog73 (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Read the FAQ at the top of the talk page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Also the fantastic 4 have been left out ! Sundog Sundog73 (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Producers in lead

The lead includes this sentence: "Avi Arad served as a producer on the two 2008 releases, and Gale Anne Hurd also produced The Incredible Hulk. Amy Pascal is set to produce Spider-Man: Homecoming. "

This is good information in a History section, but why is it in the lead? --Frmorrison (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Because the producer field is a component of both the infobox, film table(s) and the prose for each film, much like each film's writer and director. So it should be summarized in the lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"don't see a problem"

[1]

@TriiipleThreat: Could you elaborate? If it's just a difference of your opinion from mine, then surely my opinion that there is a problem one way but not the other should outweigh your opinion that either way is fine. If you don't think that either way is fine and think that your version is better in some way, could you explain?

I really don't think having a photo of Reed but not Gunn or the Russos in the "Future" section is a good idea. All four are going to be involved in both past and future projects, and actually the GOTG3 section is considerably much closer-linked to Gunn than the AMATW section is to Reed.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with having a photo in the future section. The photos are for recurring filmmakers and we can't possibly have them each located next to their first entry or all the photos would be stacked to the top of the page. This way there is an even distribution. If you really have a problem with including photos in this section, then we should remove it completely because Antman & the Wasp hasn't started filming yet and Reed's position isn't set in stone.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

But I'm not saying we should locate them all next to their first entry. Currently the article includes five director photos, all associated with two or more films as director, and of those all but Reed are attached to their most recent released film. The Russos and Gunn are both associated with future films. If the concern is about balance and weight, then having Reed where he is is at least as bad as moving him back up to Ant-Man.

Anyway, what about moving either the Russos or Gunn (or both) further down? The "Phase Three" section has considerably less text than the "Future" section at the moment, so putting two of the three (or all three) photos in the latter section would be more balanced.

And yeah -- scrolling down through a list of all of the MCU films and having seven photos packed into the top third of the page and Peyton Reed being the only one beyond that point and vastly separated from the others is kinda weird. (The fact that almost half the page is taken up by refs that wouldn't be expected to be accompanied by photos is not really relevant.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The difference is Gunn has released more than one film, Reed hasn't. Gunn is a recurring filmmaker, Reed is a future recurring filmmaker. So in this sense, I think it's more appropriate and it's better than having three images in a row.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

"Steve Rogers / Captain America" (the character) didn't appear in the Thor films

Technically, that was Chris Evans playing Loki taking the appearance of Captain America. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with this, so perhaps Evans should be given credit in small-print below Tom Hiddleston for Thor: The Dark World, as Loki.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Venom

Is the new Venom part of the MCU? 82.38.157.176 (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe#Venom. You don't need to start multiple threads about the same topic.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

User:TriiipleThreat do not delete other users' comments as you did here^--50.232.205.246 (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Also users can talk about whatever it is they have questions/propositions for.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect. I did not delete anyone's edit as seen here and there should not be multiple threads on the same subject per WP:TPYES and WP:FORUMSHOP.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Recurring characters

The chart created is clearly named "Recurring cast and characters". With that in mind there will be appearances by many of the Avengers in the opening scenes of Spider-Man: Homecoming (during his point-of-view version of Civil War climax battle), as well as still photograph cameo appearance of Bruce Banner as a 'scientist' image in his classroom. Along with this, Ant-Man can be seen in Doctor Strange in the scene which Strange is rapidly jumping/traveling through dimensions, and flies past the micro-verse/quantum realm - showing Scott Lang in the microverse (referencing the climatic final scenes of Ant-Man). These appearances should be referenced there. If we're being completely accurate those characters are "Recurring characters" within that chart.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that those characters appear in the films, though I don't know the correct formatting to use. Anyone else?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we ping other editors that have been involved in conversations on this talk page. That way everyone can have a voice on it.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The section is for physical appearances only, not pictures or references to characters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Favre1fan93. WP:FILMCAST seems appropriate here and actual performances seems like the best rule of thumb for this case. Adding every photo and reference seems to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - DinoSlider (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

References, maybe not, but are photos not an example of a "physical appearance"? I think they should be included, since they're complementary to a voiceover cameo which would be *indisputably* included. Kimpire (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I prefer "actual performances" (my wording above). Aside from the disputable Lou Ferigno grunting, the voice work listed are AI or CGI characters which are much more than cameos. - DinoSlider (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

My use of "physical appearance" was meant to mean "actual performance" as Dino has defined. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, we only want to add new performances, not just a frame from a previous film being used as a photo or something like that. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

All of your comments really doesn't answer the question. My original, statement was that since the chart is labled "Recurring cast and Characters" the chart should included all of the appearances. If you really want to selectively pick and choose which appearances you include and which you ignore, you have to retitle the chart. References should definitely not be included. Adamstom97 -- the scenes in Spider-Man: Homecoming are clearly new scenes showing a previous film's climax from another point of view. That's not using "a frame from a previous film"..... Regardless if we include each of the characters in each of their appearances, with different note labels explaining the appearances this chart would be much more completed and inclusive.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

In the heading "Recurring cast and characters", cast comes first because we want to put the most weight on the real-world side. In this case, it is more of a table of performances of characters than just a listing of characters. If we have sources stating that the actors filmed new stuff specifically for this film, or perhaps if previously unseen footage was used of them, then that could be added in. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

While I see both arguments' sides to this conversation, I don't know which is the more accurate one. I have seen similar charts include all appearances before and it's made sense to me. I don't see a problem with listing each of these actors and characters wherever they appear regardless of what kind of an appearance it is. I do however think that including references (like namedrops) or indirect references is counterproductive.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Sony's Marvel Universe

I think, that would be better to put Spider-Man: Homecoming and its sequel into Sony's Marvel Universe section. Spider-Man: Homecoming never was confirmed to be a part of Phase III, and Pascal said about world build around Peter Parker. Mike210381 (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is an MTV interview from 2015 where Kevin Feige answers the question of whether other films could be added into phase three by saying, "Well, we've slotted in a Spider-Man film since we made that announcement." I'd call that a pretty firm confirmation that he considers it part of phase three. - DinoSlider (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Marvel has more recently referred to Phase 3 as having nine films here: Presumably those films are Civil War, Doctor Strange, Guardians Vol. 2, Ragnarok, Black Panther, Infinity War, Ant-Man and the Wasp, Captain Marvel, and Avengers 4. Feige also made a comment a few days ago here at the 12:59 mark, where he says that Avengers 4 is the 21st film of the MCU, meaning Homecoming is NOT being counted. To me, it sounds like the Spider-Man (and connected) movies, like Homecoming and its sequels, Venom, Silver and Black,etc. all exist in the MCU and may be released during a "phase," but they are not part of any particular phase. There's no explicit confirmation of that, but given the circumstance, it seems like Sony is doing their own thing, just sort of playing by Marvel's rules in some aspects. -RM (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Unless Marvel Studios states this users: Rmaynardjr and Mike210381, you would be violating WP:CRYSTAL as the studio hasn't clarified this yet. Also, what would make the most sense is that the whole Sony's Marvel Universe concept was smoke and mirrors to hide what the future of the MCU is. By knowing that Venom is being made it possibly gives away the fact that Spider-Man will get his symbiote suit in the future. Had there been any distinctive differences between the MCU and Spider-Man, Marvel Studios would have said so by now. Spider-Man: Homecoming is in the MCU, agreed with User:DinoSlider. Don't make it complicated.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing that Homecoming takes place in the MCU. And obviously, we don't want to violate WP:Crystal. But I literally just provided a source that confirms Homecoming is not part of Phase 3, and Feige clearly counts is as distinct from the "rest" of the MCU films, for some reason or another. I get the sense that really anything made by Sony is considered "adjunct," including Homecoming. That part is unsourced, but everything else is sourced. -RM (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually the users would be violating it only if it was clarified that this is not the case. You can not just assume that SMH is in the MCU Phase 3 without any evidence, rather we have evidence that suggests it is not being counted. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's not definitely clear that Homecoming is in phase III. It is set in MCU and phase III, but it's looks like it's not part of any phase. And it's hard to say anything about its future sequel(s). @Adamstom.97, Favre1fan93, TriiipleThreat, and Richiekim: what's your opinion?

Here's what I honestly think happened: They made the deal to get Spider-Man to appear in the MCU, but Sony is not subscribing to Marvel's plans. Marvel can make phases, but Spider-Man isn't a part of that. Homecoming and the future Sony movies take place in the MCU but they're not being counted in Feige's film count or as part of a phase because Marvel doesn't get a say in how many of them are being made, when they're being made, etc. That's all guesswork, but the above sources lend support to everything I just said being true. I don't know if Homecoming is part of what they're calling the Sony Marvel Universe, but it seems as if all of Sony's stuff is sort of, to use Pascal's wording, "adjunct" to the rest of the MCU. Perhaps we could list them as such. -RM (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

An unreleased childrens book or rather "Juvenile Fiction" is entitled Phase Three: Spider-Man: Homecoming. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Pascal actually danced around with her language and seemed to bend over backwards to avoid using the term MCU: Those movies will all take place in the world that we are now creating for Peter Parker. They’ll be adjuncts to it. They may be different locations, but it will still all be in the same world. And they will be connected to each other as well. I didn't hear the reporter's question, but I assume "those movies" refers to Venom and Silver & Black but not Homecoming. - DinoSlider (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Feige was asked whether there will be additional films added to the Phase Three slate. He called out Spider-Man: Homecoming by name and stated that they added it to the release slate, and that nothing is out of the question. You cannot assume or devise a conclusion based on assumptions and calling out a self-realized theory by stating that A+B=C. That's WP:CRYSTAL by definition. What is obviously going on is the fact that Pascal announced things before Feige was ready to. That's all that this shows. We cannot nor should we list Spider-Man: Homecoming separate from Phase Three when Feige explicitly stated that it is now a part of Phase Three. Whether his count is off or not, by name he called it out. Now, should he change his statement in a future discussion regarding this puzzling set of movies, THEN can it be changed. The end.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Where has he explicitly stated that? The only reliable source is the book I have given, which doesn't even have a cover yet. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

References

I just watched the interview with Feige where he talks about slotting SMH into the film slate. First off, he doesn't call out SMH by name (it wasn't titled yet, but all he says is "a Spider-Man film"). Second, he does not explicitly state "Phase 3." In fact, the question pertained to the number of films Marvel is producing on an annual basis, and whether Feige thought it would be possible to add films to the slate. That's not really an explicit confirmation of SMH being in Phase 3. And I'll once again refer back to the numbers. Feige says Avengers 4 is number 21, and a press release says Phase 3 has only 9 films. SMH was not announced as part of the phase 3 lineup in 2014, but neither was Ant-Man and the Wasp. AMW (can we use that abbreviation?) was announced after the fact in a press release that explicitly adds it to the Phase 3 lineup. When SMH was announced, all that was said was it takes place in the MCU. If SMH was a part of Phase 3, I feel like it would have been made more explicitly obvious by this point. -RM (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I feel that it is likely given all this evidence that Homecoming is not part of Phase 3, but that does not necessarily make it part of Sony's MU either. The Venom announcement said that film will begin Sony's MU. Perhaps we should refer to Homecoming as part of the MCU but outside any of the phases. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The interview was a full year before the title was announced, so he couldn't have used the name, but here is the transcript of the questions and answer: Josh Horowitz: So you obviously announced a few months ago the slate into 2019, Phase Three. A lot of people are asking - I mean it's two or three films for most of those years between now and then - could other films be added in there? Could you slot in a Hulk film? Could you slot in another Iron Man film? Or is that ... Kevin Feige: Well, we've slotted in a Spider-Man film since we made that announcement. At the time, there was a long, heated debate over whether or not the new Spider-Man film would be part of phase three. Right or wrong, this was the quote that ended the debate. Lately, the phases seem to mean more to the fans than the producers. In fact, they have started talking like they will be retiring the term after Avengers 4, so this is probably much ado about nothing anyway. - DinoSlider (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Users: Emir of Wikipedia and RM your argument is a case of grabbing at straws and speculation. The fact that some press release got the numbers wrong really isn't a good source. The interview which you paraphrased, and now DinoSlider has completely quoted very plainly states that the (at that point in time) unnamed Spider-Man film was worked into the Phase Three slot. That's as detailed an answer as we have gotten. Meanwhile, you are creating a case for which there is no solid information about. You're stating, as is Adamstom.97, that the film is released during Phase Three but is not a part of that phase....? This is not Inception nor does it need to be. Avengers: Infinity War follows the events of all films previous, and concludes Phase Three (and the events of Spider-Man: Homecoming). Feige has stated that after the release of Avengers 4 the phases will probably no longer be a thing. To use your own words against you, I feel like it would have been made more explicitly obvious by this point if Spider-Man was not a part of Phase Three in which the hypothetical would become a ghost story perhaps, anyone? Let's not disect things for which there is no argument. "SMH" will remain where it is unless stated otherwise by a reliable source. Once again to quote the user, 50.232.205.246, 'you have none'. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Some press release got the numbers wrong? Sure, it's possible. Feige got the numbers wrong in his interview with AlloCiné a few days ago? Unlikely, but not impossible. How about another press release with the exact same wording? See this: "Phase 3's goal—over the course of four years and nine films—is to..." At the very least, this has got to raise some eyebrows. The interview with Feige from 2015 is the oldest of all of these sources, and he DOES NOT state in that interview "SMH is a part of phase 3." The context of the question has nothing in particular to do with Phase 3 (the interviewer says phase 3, but the question and answer do not revolve around it). The question is about how many films Marvel can produce in a year and whether more can be added. Just because a film is added to the release slate doesn't mean it's automatically added to a "phase."

Look, we can talk in circles all day here, but I think the larger point is this: The press releases and Feige's comments from a couple of days ago seem to indicate the Homecoming is not part of any phase. I've just provided this discussion with 3 reasons to doubt SMH as a part of phase 3. Can you provide us with any reasons (other than the aforementioned interview) that it is? Is there any additional source we have to confirm SMH is considered part of Phase 3? Because I'm happy to include it in the Phase 3 list IF it belongs there. -RM (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

That source you provide and oddly mis-quote ("See this:") clearly says "Phase 3’s goal—over the course of four years and 10 films—is to...". It does not say 'nine films'... -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that's my bad. This is an identical press release from Disney instead of Marvel with "nine films" in tact. I swapped it for the Marvel link for consistency's sake, not assuming there would be any difference. -RM (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Rmaynardjr, you obviously are trying to supply sources that contradict the fact that Spider-Man: Homecoming is a part of the MCU Phase Three. Because Feige has stated that it is a part of the Phase Three in the quotes used above, and the reference you quoted actually states 10 films - this conversation should be over for now. At least until Marvel says otherwise. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, obviously. That's sort of how argument works... you provide sources that back up your argument, and you refute other sources. Also, I recognized the error. However, there is an identical version of the press release from Disney that says nine films. Look, this isn't a personal vendetta against anyone. I provided 3 sources that should make anyone doubt that SMH is part of phase 3. Marvel and Feige have implied this year that it's not! Your single source laying claim to phase 3 status is older, and sort of unspecific. He doesn't say "it's part of phase 3." Horowitz says "Could other films be added?" and Feige says, "Well, we've slotted in a Spider-Man film since we made that announcement." He doesn't say Phase 3. Horowitz says Phase 3 in regards to the 2014 announcement, but Feige doesn't say that. All I'm asking is for SOMETHING else. Any other source that says SMH is part of Phase 3. Prove me wrong, please. Shut me up. Humiliate my even thinking that it's not part of Phase 3. Please do that. I'm sort of getting tired of the argument just like you all are. But I'm not backing down. -RM (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

You just proved yourself wrong. Horowitz asks if there are any other Phase Three films. Feige says "Well, we've slotted in Spider-Man...". That's a direct response to the question regarding Phase Three. Feige didn't go on to say "well, now look this isn't a part of Phase Three - it's actually in Phase purgatory and a part of some conceptual Pink Floyd other worldly film series that is essentially non-existent...." Seriously. That stops your argument right there. There is no discussion on here. Simply stated - that three sources didn't count the film, isn't good enough to qualify a change. You're asking for something else, but that will not happen until/if Feige states that it is. It is not a part of the fan boy-titled "Sony's Marvel Universe", it's a part of the officially named Marvel Cinematic Universe. That's it. You can Not Back Down all you like, but the article isn't going to change until there's an official statement from the studio, or someone that is integrated in the process of how these films are made. You, unfortunately, are not qualified to make that call. (A+B≠C herein; {i.e.: crystal balling}). Sorry, User: Rmaynardjr. Noone's saying they don't appreciate your input. Your argument/move request is just unofficial and not going to happen at this time.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

How do you explain the lack of including it in the count, then? Also, your source doesn't stop my argument. Decisions are reversed and minds are changed all the time. 3 more recent sources say something contrary to what Feige said over 2 years ago. Did you ever consider that maybe your source is just outdated? And that your inability to produce a corroborating source is worth noting? Look, I'll be honest, I don't care enough to keep arguing. You're sort of talking down to me, and I'm not interested in that. I'm curious whether the article will change in a couple of years, though, when we get a DVD box set for Phase 3 that doesn't include SMH. Just curious. -RM (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you hit on a really key point. Since it is Sony's film, Disney will not be able to sell it in a box set with the other films. At least not without some really unprecedented contracts. Of course that is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, but worth considering since it is all just marketing anyway. - DinoSlider (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

RM what I got from the statement above is that we can't assume things simply because numbers are different. Someone in the production has to come out and say that it's a part of the Sony Spider-Man section of the MCU. The point being that hey it's the same branch of the same tree. We can't dissect something to the point of creating scenarios that may or may not be true. As far as a box set goes - that too hasn't been announced yet. I would imagine however that if there is (probably will be) Sony would want their cash-grab just as much as Marvel Studios does - and that they would sort something out to make it available therein. The issue here is this argument - though a positive in nature is just about something that can't be backed up yet. One - we have the Head of Marvel Studios answering a question in sentence form, while two - your references only list a number of films coming out. Though it could be an official filmcount, there's no source to back that up as Feige's statement before is directly from him. I guess this is a matter of the waiting game. I'm still curious to see what Feige has to say about Pascal blurting out all the Sony films coming out, when Feige likes to keep things quiet until Phases are over with.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Feige merely said that it was slotted in, as in they made space to put the movie. He never explicitly said that it was in the phase. The discrepancy in the press release however could mean something. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Haha, I love it when pretentious over-excited fanboys are proven wrong. Feige has now clarified that though Pascal stated this, the only Sony-owned character in the MCU right now is Spider-Man. That can be read here : here. So Users: RM and Emir of Wikipedia, this attention to the minutia of a report miscounting the films in development can end now. Halle-fricken-lujah.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

How have we been proven wrong? It doesn't say that is is in Phase 3, but merely the MCU. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

What proves it wrong is that the "Sony's Marvel Universe" is NOT a part of the MCU at this point. Myth/fan-theories all debunked. Moving on.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Um, no. Nothing has changed. Marvel Studios has no plans to integrate the other Sony films into the MCU, but Sony considers them to be "adjunct" to their MCU Spider-Man films. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

But, what that interview with Feige does say is, "Homecoming 2 - we won't call it that, whatever it is - which is exciting because it'll be the first MCU movie after untitled Avengers in 2019", if anybody finds that helpful for this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Break

Feige just stated that the unofficially named Sony's Marvel Universe is not a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Whatever the case may be, being "adjunct" as you pointed out User:Adamstom.97 really means nothing when the head of the company says it's not a part of the franchise. Too bad, cuz that means Sony's spin-offs will be less than good. Hopefully something is worked out before the production begins. Regardless - it's probably innacurate to include them on this page at this time.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

You do however have a good point in stating that the sequel to Spider-Man: Homecoming is the first MCU movie following the untitled Avengers film. That officially puts to rest this nit-picking of a misquoted film count. It also backs up what 50.232.205.246 said in stating that only MCU films should be on this page at this time. That may change once the two studios have something worked out, or once Feige decides its a good time to announce the future of the MCU (as it could possibly still be smoke and mirrors to detract fans from knowing what's coming). At this time though, those spin-offs are not a part of the MCU. He just said it. Doesn't get more official than that.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Considering Feiges recent comments, I agree with your original assessment: "it's probably innacurate to include them on this page at this time." It does make sense that Pascal would want to associate her films in whatever way she can to the MCU considering what a behemoth the MCU is.--TriiipleThreat (talk)

So we shouldn't list not official tie-in comics too. Mike210381 (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused, everyone is acting as if we have some new information here, but nothing has changed. Sony is not working with Marvel to integrate these other films into the MCU, but they do consider them to be "adjunct" to their MCU Spider-Man films (whether Marvel likes it or not). That has not changed, as far as we have been told. These MCU pages are also a more appropriate place for this information than Spider-Man in film, given that article is for appearances by Spider-Man only, and we have no confirmed appearance by Spider-Man in either of the films. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The information has changed. The producers have now clarified her bizarre statement in the interview, in which she was either making it up on the spot - or revealing plans prior to when Feige was ready to announce further plans. Pascal has now stated that the spin-off movies are adjunct to the Marvel comics universe, and not the MCU. Feige has also stated that the only Sony-owned character planned to be in the MCU at this time is Spider-Man. Whether in the future something happens where the studios can collaborate on the spin-off movies, remains to be seen, but at this time these movies should not be listed on this page. It's misleading and inaccurate. Where you can read Pascal's clarification/damage control on her previous statement, is here.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, no. Here is what she actually said today, and nothing about it contradicts what she said the other day. The other day, she said that these SMU films would be "adjunct" to the new Spider-Man films (adjunct means "a thing added to something else as a supplementary rather than an essential part"). This is because Marvel is not involved with those films, and so they are not going to be integrated with the MCU. They are going to be off in their own corner, like the Netflix shows, for example. However, almost everybody on the internet got confused and thought Marvel and Sony had made a new deal to include these other films in the MCU (which is ridiculous, nobody ever said anything like that and Feige has been clear that Marvel is only working on the Spider-Man films). So, she had to say something to shut that down, and today said, "Here's what we're doing: all these characters are a part of the Marvel comic book universe. In that universe, they are all related to each other. Kevin [Feige] makes characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. These characters are separate, except for Spidey, who belongs in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which is why he's there." That statement confirms that (a) all these characters are from Marvel Comics, (b) Feige is only working on characters that are in the MCU, and (c) Sony's characters are not in the MCU, except for Spider-Man. Nowhere does she say that Sony isn't going to be tangentially sticking these other films on the side of the Spider-Man films, so she has not actually contradicted her statement from the other day at all. So, once again, the SMU movies are not part of the MCU like the Spider-Man films, but as far as we know, Sony intends for them to be tangentially, very loosely connected—nothing has changed from the other day. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you, @Adamstom.97:. They aren't in MCU, but they'll be still somehow conetcted with. So they should be listed on that page. Mike210381 (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The article is pretty clear that these films are not a part of the MCU. They are not "off in their own corner" of the MCU, they are outside of it altogether. The Netflix series, by comparison, are all the way in per countless reliable sources. Sony's film's may perhaps reference things in the MCU but that doesn't make it a part of it. Inclusion in the MCU is an arbitrary ruling based on the sole discretion of the filmmakers with the ability to yes or no. So far they have given us a definitive "no". In fact, Feige says that a Venom crossover is as likely as a Superman crossover. Per WP:RF, these films do not belong on this page to avoid any confusion that they are somehow a part of it. They belong in there own space or perhaps List of films based on Marvel Comics or Venom (comics) but definitely not here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems we have the Sony's Marvel Universe situation figured out for the time being. Back to the original question (I think, lot of text here that I skimmed): Homecoming is definitely an MCU film per recent Feige quotes. From here, speaking on announcing films coming after Avengers 4, he says, But other than [announcing Homecoming 2 release date] we’re going to keep it very close to the vest because this is really about focusing on the unprecedented conclusion to a 22-movie overarching narrative. (bolding mine) 22 films includes Homecoming. If it didn't, he would have said 21. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is doubting that Spiderman Homecoming is in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, as this is clearly proven. What is up for discussion is whether it is officially a part of phase 3, and whether it is also a part of the Sony Marvel Universe. The only clear evidence for it being inside phase 3 is the unpublished novel and the press release that differed on the Disney website to the Marvel website. The relationship between SMH and SMU is what is ambiguous. Just because Sony characters like Venom won't be in the MCU, it doesn't mean that Sony characters like Spiderman can't be in the SMU. Due to the fact that the MCU links with SMH, the SMU is adjunct ([https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/adjunct A thing added to something else). I do admit and accept that this is ambiguous, but the fact that Pascal mentioned Holland being in the SMU shows that some link was being though of. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

How is Feige speaking this week not "clear evidence" to you? -Crabipedia (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Feige stated that the sequel to Spider-Man: Homecoming will be the first post-Phase Three film. What else do you want? Your conspiracy fan-theory of Homecoming not being in Phase Three.....even though part 2 is the first post-Phase Three film is going nowhere. That's as clear as things could ever get. User:Emir of Wikipedia and User:RM are just spitting into the wind at this point in the discussion. Nothing gets more official than the Head of Marvel Studios stating all he has this week. Further more he has stated that "The only Sony-owned character in the MCU right now is Spider-Man"... now again I believe he is creating smoke and mirrors surrounding the Spider-Man spinoffs because of his intentions to only reveal what will happen post-Phase Three after Avengers: Infinty War has been released. I added the Spider-Man spin-offs to the Other potential projects section of this page as at this point - there is potential that there may be greater MCU ties than either studio is willing to acknowledge at this point. This can be seen in the most recent interview with Feige and Pascal here as both producers state that the only place for Spider-Man and his stories is the MCU; and when asked if Venom and Silver & Black is in the MCU they dance around the question and say that basically "we'll see" with a knowing smile to the interviewer. OBVIOUSLY the Sony spin-offs were announced against Feige's control, Pascal blabbed earlier about them being in the same universe, and now Feige has realed it in and they have decided to play coy with any questions regarding the topic. Until the studios state where their place is in the MCU, they can be acknowledged as potential projects on this page. Anyway - they will likely be revealed to be full-fledged MCU films, in the near future. It's obvious.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that given the most recent interview, it appears as though the Sony films will not be standalone and will indeed actually have connections to films in the future. Until that's stated or announced they can't be listed as MCU films, however a short paragraph describing the spin-offs' potential to be a part of the MCU is not a bad idea. The producers take a 'never say never' approach in that interview you included. The edits you made to the page, DisneyMetal were reversed by User:Favre1fan93 without discussion, nor reason. The inclusion of Captain Britain and the update on Blade would also be good to have in the "Potential other projects" section. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Sony spinoffs should not be added until we get new confirmation they are indeed in the MCU - we don't deal with potential speculation. Captain Britain info was from an unreliable source, but regardless, it was about the character appearing, not a solo film. Additionally, the new Blade info is nothing new or different than what we have already, so also does not need to be added. Hence the article the restore with my edit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The latest news [2]. you're not going to see them in the Marvel Universe, it's in the same reality. What is seems like to me is that the Sony spinoffs are clearly not in the MCU, but it still has not been confirmed if SMH is technically in phase 3 or that it is not part of the SMU. However the source of this is Fandom Wikia who claims to have spoken to both Feige and Pascal, but the author appears to have been a journalist since 1998. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

LOL-ing at Emir of Wikipedia's unceasing dissection of this page. Dude: Kevin Feige stated that the sequel to Spider-Man: Homecoming is the first post-Phase Three film. That states that everything before Phase Three ends, is in Phase Three. Spider-Man: Homecoming is Phase Three man. Seriously it's becoming too funny.

On a secondary note Pascal and Feige in the newest interview have agreed that spin-off films take place in the same "reality". Sounds like they're trying to keep a larger announcement secret. That new interview can be read here.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The interview points back the Fandom source that I mentioned above. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The images on this page

So, I've noticed that User:DinoSlider has reverted several edits that I would have assumed were productive by User: 50.232.205.246 --- The latter of the two solved a discussion that took place here a while ago, about the page not having enough space for each of the films' directors to be positioned next to their respective films, and that the page would be selective. Well the user had an idea that wasn't at all brilliant, but obvious and that was to shrink the images. By doing so each of the MCU directors could have their image on the page (similar to what I have done over at the DCEU page). My question is - for what reason would we choose to exclude some, when we could effectively and constructively include each of them? I think they should each be included in this article.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason to highlight every director as the article shouldn't be inundated with images. As it is now, directors that work on multiple films or otherwise large involvement (ie Feige) are included, and that is a good ratio at this time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

According to MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, "too many can be distracting" so it is often important to determine a rule of thumb to keep the number of images reasonable. The anonymous user doubled the number of images, which seemed excessive and worthy of further discussion before proceeding. - DinoSlider (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

phase one sub-title

A new collector's edition box set for phase one and two are available for pre-order in amazon

phase one

phase two

and 1 thing to be noticed is the fact that Marvel has dropped the sub-title "Avengers Assembled" for phase one. So I suggest we should drop the subtitle on this page as phase two and presumably three will not have sub-title as well. 36.73.149.213 (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• I totally agree with this. It is not an official title from Marvel, and is actually a marketing slogan. Never is the Phase referenced as "Avengers Assembled" by the production teams, anywhere.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Other potential projects

Additionally, there have been various projects officially confirmed to be in development, including the Power Pack, Blade, and some feature film from Lawrence Fishburne. However, editors who consistently revert edits on this page would rather list cancelled films Runaways, and Inhumans (which are both now MCU television series) in the section... where's the reasoning to this? Information regarding other potential projects should be listed in this section. Not films that have since been cancelled and released as a television series.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you have the following: reliable sources for Power Pack (none exits, all are rumors) or Blade (nothing more to add currently beyond what is here); concrete info on the Fishburne project (many actors/directors say they are working on things with Marvel. It does not mean it amounts to anything); and finally, a definitive source saying that since TV series of some properties exists, they will not still be a film? That is why these changes have been reverted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the Runaways and Inhumans material should be moved to a different section ("Cancelled projects" perhaps?). They were potential projects, but are not now. Putting the information in a subsection under "Future" seems inappropriate. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Favre's comment still stands: how do you know that the TV series mean that these projects can now no longer happen? - adamstom97 (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, if the TV shows are happening, then the properties aren't "potential" projects anymore, are they? They're current projects in a different medium. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

This list is about films, so "potential projects" means "potential film project". As far as we know, these films can still be made. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

So, playing Devil's advocate - how long will you leave these as potential film projects if Feige (or another authority) do not mention them again? Argento Surfer (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we should ever be saying that these are no longer potential projects unless we are told otherwise. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

But, as of right now, how does this project have any more "potential" than a Random Marvel Superhero X film? The film was cancelled entirely. They're not working on it anymore. Nothing even suggests they are. Kimpire (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

How do you know it was "cancelled entirely"? That is the big question here. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Forget the word "cancelled" - what about a section for "shelved" projects? Or something else? "Future - Potential Projects" doesn't seem like the best description for Runaways and Inhumans? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Isn't "shelved" just an informal way of saying "cancelled"? - adamstom97 (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Well...if it is, then what do you make of "Pearce revealing in September 2013 that the Runaways film had been shelved in favor of The Avengers"? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the plans for the film were shelved then, but Feige has since said that it is still discussed as a potential project. The only development since then is the TV show, and I haven't seen anything that says TV show = no film ever. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

So, shelved = cancelled, except when it doesn't? Feige's quote was that Runaways came up in their "television and future film discussions". I think television is the operative adjective there. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

No, shelved = cancelled, but things can be uncancelled. And if someone says television and film, we don't get to decide that they just meant television. That doesn't make sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

To recap, it was a potential film project. It was shelved/cancelled. The screenwriter said that he was considering revising it as a tv series. Feige says they talk about it in their television and film discussions. A television show now exists. But you think it's nonsense to use hindsight and choose which discussion category it fell into? I can tell you mind is made up on that.

Still - there are three editors here who feel this section heading (under "future") is inappropriate. How would you feel about making "potential projects" a level 2 heading and then making each potential project a level 3 subsection? That was readers can decide for themselves how potential each project is without lumping all of them together? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It is nonsense because you are making it up. Unless we have a reliable source telling us something, we don't add it.

That proposal would just give undue weight to things that we don't even know will happen. It is better to not have them on the same level as actual films until we get some sort of confirmation that development is moving forward on them. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression that you believe the current setup is the absolute best possible option. Is that correct? If so, then I will start an RfC and solicit additional opinions. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't know what the best option is / haven't put any thought into that, I have just been respinding to the other ideas and proposals here. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate any suggestions you may have on this matter. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The material has been removed. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

... by the user who disagreed with its continued inclusion in the first place. It's been restored, which is the WP:STATUSQUO. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on potential projects

Currently, the "Future" section includes a subsection for "potential projects". Two of the projects listed (Runaways & Inhumans) have been developed as television shows. There is disagreement about how the material should be presented, which can be reviewed in the section directly above. These are the proposed ideas:

• Option 1 - Delete the material completely, proposed by User:DisneyMetalhead. This was opposed because they were potential projects, and omitting the material makes the article incomplete.
• Option 2 - Leave them as-is since no reliable source has said the television programs mean the films are cancelled, proposed by User:Favre1fan93. Opposed because their development into television series means they are not potential MCU projects, they are actual MCU projects.
• Option 3 - Move those two entries to a new section titled "Canceled projects", "Shelved projects", "Repurposed projects", or another accurate description, proposed by User:Argento Surfer. Opposed because no reliable source has confirmed they are actually cancelled. (Runaways was described as "shelved" before being mentioned as something that comes up in "television and film discussions"
• Option 4 - Move "Potential projects" to a level two heading, and give each potential project a level three heading, proposed by User:Argento Surfer. Opposed because this would put the potential films on the same level as actual films.

Pinging editors who have participated in this discussion, plus other active page editors. @Adamstom.97:, @Kimpire: @DinoSlider: @SassyCollins: @SlashFox14: @TriiipleThreat: @Richiekim: @Disneyisatale: @Eagc7: Argento Surfer (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 3 - This was my initial preference, and remains so. I am flexible on the actual section title. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 - Marvel Studios isn't going to turn around and making an official installment in the MCU (aka these TV shows), non-canon just so that they can make a film based on the same comic book characters. They may in the future advance the TV series into a film...but as is the projects that were originally intended are no longer a part of the film series. It's that simple.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Option 3 - Though I think Option 1 is the most accurate, I recognize that Wikipedia's rules of sourcing prevent us from doing so. Naming the section "Repurposed projects" solves that problem because there are dozens of sources out there that point out how they intended to make a movie but are now making a television show. Worst comes to worst we can mention in that section that technically the movies haven't been permanently acknowledged to be canceled. Kimpire (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 - It's not worth it to keep them. Listing previously planned projects that now appear to have been re-purposed into something else that actually exists doesn't convey much useful information (and that information can be included in the pages of the TV shows themselves) and makes the list as a whole much more confusing. Just take it out. Option 3, preferably with the title "Repurposed projects" would be my second choice. Dbrote (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Option 3 - I actually would be in support of creating the heading "Repurposed projects" as a subsection of "Other potential projects" and moving the Runaways and Inhumans content there. I would also still be in support of my original Option 2, but giving these two paragraphs a large c/e, given most of this development info is now listed at the respective TV series articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Option 4 - I am actually fine with any except for Option 1. Whether or not they are actively developing the projects is not the point to me. Historically speaking, these are reliably sourced as having been in development. There is an official announcement when a project gets green lit from development to pre-production, but almost never when a development project gets shelved. As a result, it seems appropriate to have what we perceive to be both active and inactive projects together. - DinoSlider (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Option 4 - I think it should be its own section "Other Projects" instead of being a subsection of "Future". It would structure the page neatly into three levels: Phase One/Two/Three sections for released movies, Future for movies that are filming or officially scheduled for production, and Other Projects for the ideas that have been discussed as possibilities but haven't made it to the next level of being scheduled for production. →This way we can sidestep the whole issue of the fates of certain projects. We can simply leave them as they are since we are no longer calling them a future or potential project. Just Other Projects - ideas that Marvel Studios is or at one time was considering, but never simply haven't progressed to the next stage. I don't think headings are necessary for each other project, just have the paragraphs. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Option 3 - I would prefer something like "Projects of uncertain status" if that is what they actually are. I've never bought the "No reliable sources say they are cancelled -- we should assume they are not cancelled and write the article to give the reader that impression" argument. Old sources are inherently unreliable for claims like "The film is currently in development", so essentially both options would be equally unsourced. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• I could potentially support Option 3 as long as we do not make a claim that is not sourced. We cannot say that the films are cancelled because the television series exist - there is a logical leap there that is clearly WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. But if we moved them to a section that noes the television series exist and that there has been no news on further film developments since, then I could get behind that. If no satisfactory heading can be devised, then I would default back to Option 2 since the current status of the article is perfectly fine. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Option 2 - If we don't have a source stating that a project has been shelved or transferred to a different medium, then we shouldn't say that's the case. However, there must come a time where "potential projects" of the past, if not mentioned for several years in that context, should be referred to as shelved. Option 3 I think is okay in that regard. I don't think the information should be deleted or given the same level of visual importance of actual films in the MCU. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Okay many of the editors here are stating that 'reliable sources have stated these "films" as in development'. The issue with that is that they are old/outdated sources. New sources (i.e.: the actual productions) are now released. If we went based off of your argument then every page would be bloated, and the Batman film series should list all original spin-off ideas/developments, and it's cancelled sequel as "potential projects"..... yeah, no that's ludicrous to even think of doing such a thing, Users: DinoSlider, *AnonWikiEditor, and Hijiri88. They're no longer 'potential'. The re-purposed argument is superfluous as they are listed on the Marvel Cinematic Universe main page, with information regarding their development originally intended as films and then re-purposed for television on their respective pages.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Batman in film, which is GA class, does have detailed sections on proposed films and spinoffs that failed to materialize. However, it's structured chronologically and follows the direct line of development from a proposed sequel to Batman & Robin (film) and the reboot Batman Begins. That's not a structure this article could mimic and remain coherent. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

That's not really what I was saying though. I'm not suggesting they be called potential projects. I was suggesting that the section be named just "Other Projects" (not Other Potential Projects) to avoid the issue of designating their fates. Just have it as a section of other ideas for films that Marvel Studios has discussed that haven't made it to the next level of being scheduled for production. Some may eventually move up to the "Future" section (and ultimately a "Phase X" section) if they get scheduled for production while others will remain in the "Other Projects" section as other ideas Marvel had for MCU films at some point during the MCU's continual development. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

What about "Other considered projects"? I think the extra adjective is important, considering all the "other projects" outside of films in the MCU. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Consensus

I'm counting a majority support for Option 3. Does anyone oppose me closing the RfC and moving the Inhumans/Runaways material to a new level 2 section titled "Repurposed projects", without any subsections? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I am in fact thrilled with this idea. Kimpire (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

 Moved - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Sony's Marvel Universe

This section by this point should be included. It was stated jointly by Amy Pascal and Kevin Feige that though the films are not intended to have crossovers, they take place "in the same reality" as the MCU. They further stated that Holland may appear in the films. As this came officially from both of them in an interview...why are they not included on the page?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. The connection is thin to non-existent, and we don't have any more solid confirmation it actually exists in the same universe. That is why I have gone ahead and removed the in info here since Draft:Sony's Marvel Universe exists. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

... the statement from Head of Marvel Studios declaring that though at this point there are no plans to have crossovers, the films are in "the same reality" --- isn't definitive enough for you?...that is incredible. Doesn't get more official than that.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is Sony's Marvel Universe still a draft? Argento Surfer (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe for notability reasons. Given that there is only one film in production (and another in serious development) for this supposed shared universe, it doesn't seem pertinent for its own article yet when it very well may not ever fully come to fruition. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't pushed to move it from the draft space yet since one film happening isn't enough to justify an article about the whole universe. Maybe it will be time once S&B begins filming, but even then we will have to judge the situation as it is. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

composer

what do think about adding composer to the columns (director, screenwriter...) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. okinawa (talk • contribs) 16:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the development of a film as the director, screenwriter and producer do. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Other potential projects Hulk 2 & 3

Shouldn't potential solo Mark Ruffalo Hulk films be mentioned in the "Other potential projects" section? LegerPrime (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Only with a good source with an official statement. Universal has the distribution rights to Hulk solo films. See The Incredible Hulk (film)#Future. The first Hulk MCU film was before Disney bought Marvel. Disney and Universal would have to make a deal. If a Hulk sequel is considered then there may be no official talk about it before a deal is finalized. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Female-team film

Several months ago, the female stars of the MCU approached Kevin Feige stating that they wanted a female team up movie. He stated that he liked the idea. Now he has gone on record stating "Of course you can make a whole movie about that!" which can be read here. Perhaps some information regarding this potential film should be listed in the potential projects section?--206.81.136.61 (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

That is interesting. I would say that including it in the paragraph wouldn't be a bad thing. The studio is obviously getting something ready. From the head of Marvel Studios and primary producer, that's definitely more constructive than that ridiculous inclusion of "re-purposed projects"... seriously that shouldn't even be included. Information like that belongs on the respective TV series' pages.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing about this project is concrete at the moment, beyond wishful thinking. WP:CRYSTAL applies. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Feige stating that "Of course you can make a whole movie about that!" as provided by 206.81.136.61 who further states it's all about timing with the studio pretty solidly confirms the project's development.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That’s not a confirmation that anything has been set into motion.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Black Widow

Shouldn't we mention Neil Marshall's desire to direct a solo Black Widow movie? --LegerPrime (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

His desire is inconsequential unless Marvel is actually looking for him to direct it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

If we do, mention my desire to direct it too. ;) Kimpire (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, a lot of articles about certain movies mention that directors with established careers wanted to direct said movies. --LegerPrime (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Black Widow Film

News of the "Black Widow" solo movie is exciting, but it's a bit premature to be having a separate section (and table addition) for the film. The film only just had a writer hired and the film hasn't been green-lit yet. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The content location has been restored, per this very reason. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

In this article Tessa Thompson states that Marvel Studios is doing a Black Widow film. Likewise, the Russo Brothers express their excitement for the movie, here. Those are pretty solid confirmations that this movie is happening.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Great. It still isn't officially confirmed by Marvel. "They're doing a Black Widow film" can mean many things, not specifically that it is a confirmed project. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The Tessa Thompson quote is not accurate. If you watch the video, she actually says, "I think they're doing a Black Widow movie." - DinoSlider (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I would argue that the Russos, as directors of Avengers 3 and 4 would definitely know where the franchise is headed as a whole. The fact that they acknowledge it definitely implies that the film is being made.--206.81.136.61 (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Favre1fan93 - I don't understand how confirmation from two of the MCU's current biggest creative minds isn't confirmation enough. They're excited for the movie and go into detail about it. The film has a screenwriter. That is definitely confirmation from all angles of the idea.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

And the project is noted in the "Potential projects" section. That's all we can call it at this time, with the info we have already. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, with how much coverage the story has received and multiple parties involved with the franchise stating that they are looking forward to the movie - it should be moved out of potential films and into upcoming movies.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

We don't move things based on your opinion. We move it when things have been officially set in motion for release, and not based on other actors/filmmakers interest in a POTENTIAL film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Everett K. Ross

Should Everett K. Ross be included in recurring cast and characters, as he has been in Civil War and Black Panther? SassyCollins (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

He does not meet the criteria. See the FAQ at the top of this page. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)