Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series

Remove 20th TV

As I correctly warned here and here, Production Weekly is not a reliable source when it comes to questionable studio involvement. I agreed to keep 20th TV listed until Echo, so that we can settle the debate about PW's reliability once and for all. Now that Echo is out, it's clear that Production Weekly was lying about 20th TV involvement.

So, I propose removing 20th TV from the remaining Marvel Studios TV series like Daredevil: Born Again and Agatha: Darkhold Diaries to avoid more months of feeding readers with misinformation. Since Marvel Studios doesn't usually do co-productions unless it's for an IP they don't own like Spider-Man, we should only add studios if they're confirmed by Disney/Marvel or independently reported by the trades. At the very least it should be removed from the header and the infobox. If it's still necessary to keep it for some reason, then it can be added as a commentary in the Production section. cc; Trailblazer101, Favre1fan93

Thanks. — Starforce¹³ 03:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It's honestly not that big of a deal. The whole point of Wikipedia is going by what sources present, see WP:VNT. We uphold that as Production Weekly has been reliable on most of their listings, and this ultimately being incorrect does not discount that or prove they are somehow entirely unreliable. As I have said in the past on this matter, we can easily remove the 20th TV mentions for Echo now, though nothing has changed in regards to the remaining instances since the last time you brought this up, and I don't see other editors' stances changing just based on the Echo exclusion alone. There is not enough WP:DOUBT (this relates to articles, but the same philosophy can be applied to sourced content) here for the rest of the 20th TV mentions to be removed. Disney and Marvel are no strangers to co-productions (see Deadpool 3 for example). It's not like we were intentionally spreading disinformation/misinformation. We went by the reputable source until proven otherwise, which is how Wikipedia should work. I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK and stop WP:Beating a dead horse here, as this information will either be removed/hidden/whatever dependent on the outcome of the sources. Yet another discussion and then some is not going to change the past consensus without new solid evidence and new sourcing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we can easily comment out the 20th TV info at the relevant articles now, but still keep, hidden, the existing sources and such because as Trailblazer noted, WP:VNT would still apply. The fact it did not ultimately play a part in Echo's production adds more weight to the fact that the others likely are not going to have their involvement. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Jac Schaeffer's overall deal with Marvel Studios had also included a deal with 20th Television, with Deadline noting that this was signaling a closer collaboration between the studios. So there's a chance 20th TV is still involved in the projects she's attached to, like Agatha and Vision Quest. Aldwiki1 (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup, we thought those two may be linked for Schaeffer's deal, hence why that should remain at the Agatha article, though it can be hidden from the rest until we have further clarity. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I've hidden the 20th info at Phase Five (for all three remaining series), and the info on the Ironheart and Born Again pages. I can leave the Agatha one for now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Roger that. Thanks! Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Headings

Netflix shows is a bad description for the Defenders Saga shows.

While they aired originally on Netflix, Netflix did not create them, they merely provided a streaming vehicle. Wouldn't naming them by the studios that produced them make more sense?

I note the "young adult series" are not referred to as Hulu shows. 96.244.39.168 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Per prior consensus on this, the Netflix series heading is used as a general description of what these series have commonly been referred to as. Netflix owned those series and, as I noted at that article talk, they were Netflix's to renew or cancel. Netflix owned the rights to each of those series from Disney since 2013 until they all reverted back only a few years ago. While Marvel Television called them "Marvel Knights" and Disney+ calls them "The Defenders Saga", "Marvel's Netflix series" is the most accurate and consistent name to refer to them as they were Netflix's originally. That can't be ignored. As for the young adult series, that is what Marvel Television called the group of shows that was planned to encompass not only Runaways and Cloak & Dagger, but also the canceled New Warriors. We don't and won't go by networks as that would not be as accurate here, given the two Hulu series (Runaways and Helstrom) are not remotely connected. And we do organize them by the main studio that produced them: first by the original Marvel Television series and then the Marvel Studios series. Companies like ABC Studios were co-production partners for many of Marvel Television's series, though organizing by that studio would not really aid in organization as you have suggested. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

X-Men '97 Should be Included

On Disney+, X-Men'97 is listed as a part of the MCU Multiverse Saga. If other shows like What If & Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man can be called "MCU" shows without taking place in the main timeline, then so can X-Men'97. 47.219.220.57 (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This has already been discussed and so far there is no consensus to list X-Men '97 as an MCU show. Note that there are other projects which are part of the MCU multiverse but not officially part of the MCU franchise, such as the previous Spider-Man films. For now, consensus is to list the series as a related project at Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Five. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Except the previous Spider-Man films are not listed by Disney as being in the MCU Multiverse Saga, which X-Men '97 is. It's no different than other alternate universe shows like YFNSM & Marvel Zombies being a part of the Multiverse Saga. Check Disney+ 47.219.220.57 (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It is completely different than YFNSM and Zombies. It is not confirmed by the producers or within the series itself to exist within the MCU multiverse, only continuing the 90s animated universe. But because of how Disney+ handles it, as noted, consensus is to list it as a related series at the Phase Five article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Marvel Studios table - director column

I'd like to suggest the removal of the director column in Marvel Studios tables, and return to just the head writer/showrunner. It made sense for Phase Four, when series typically had a singular director, but now that Marvel has changed the focus on series from more "feature film" style back to regular "television series" style, the up-to-five directors for each series has made the tables far too clogged.

This was previously introduced at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series/Archive 4#Adding directors to Marvel Studios' table, then revisited at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series/Archive 5#Directors in table - revisit. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem with I think a full outright removal is the approach change has happened in the middle of Phase Five, so that doesn't make it a clean break to have say just Phase Four use it (where it still makes sense), and then remove going forward. I personally don't think it has become that unwieldy, as our max directors are 3, except for Born Again which is a special case because most of those have been retained. I still think Marvel is looking for a few directors overall on a project, not a new one each episode as is the case with say regular broadcast series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I say we just remove it from each Phase table. It's becoming unwieldy when the table spans past the screen width and introduces the need to scroll across it, as it does on my and other screen resolutions. Just as we've fixed/merged the non-standard issue of multiple seasons of the same show across multiple entries (What If...?), I'd say that including the director in a television table is a non-standard issue. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not think the directors column has become that excessive. Yes, it is not as favorable on other devices' viewing (such as an mobile), although that is more so a general issue. The directors overall have been given more creative and production control of these series than a showrunner and the head writers, the latter of which is still a fairly new change. Born Again and other series with director duos (Loki season 2 and Ms. Marvel) are the only ones with four or five (plus Wonder Man, it appears from that article), although, once they all release, the "Release" column would no longer be present and some of those series would have a more cleaner display without the extra column. I just don't think we should remove a whole column that has been in place for these series for a few years just because it doesn't stylistically favor some displays, because that just comes down to one's preference vs. us being consistent with the different Phases. I think a more developed/serious rationale would be in order for us to remove this relevant information outright, as I'm not currently convinced by the display issues negating more information from being readily present to our readers. There is no harm in scrolling to view more content. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason as to why the MCU television series tables need to include the director column, whereas there has been no other example of this in any other television series? We've just discussed the non-standard format of What If...? having its seasons separated, and now re-merged to match the standard of franchise tables; this falls under the same issue of not being a standard practice and being included without a serious rationale. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The director info (at least at the start) was definitely helpful info given the approach Marvel Studios was taking with their series, where it was largely a single director like their films. The template allows for the use of extra information cells, even though "standard" practice was generally for ratings info (for a single series), they are not locked into that info. I still feel the director info is definitely useful info to have pre creative overhaul, and currently as I said above I don't think it's worthwhile removing it now. I think we need to get some more series revealed and note their director approach to make a decision yet. In the scheme of things, it's all still relatively "new" with this new approach. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

At least for Phase Four the directors were just as important, if not more so, than the head writers. Now that we are moving to showrunners that is less and less the case, but I don't think we are at a point where we need to act on that since most series still only have a small number of directors. My suggestion, if we do think things are getting unweildy i.e. with Born Again, would be to stick to "lead director(s)" rather than listing all directors. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)