Talk:Marvel Entertainment

Archives (Index)

2012 2013 2015 2016 2017 2019 2020

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Split Productions

I initially hoped it wasn't going to be this get this complicated, but perhaps it is. Despite most productions switching over to Marvel Studios, some projects (e. g. Sony products) will still be using the Marvel Entertainment license for a while. So, I think we should separate now, before getting lost and confused. MegaSmike46 (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

There's no need to split as the size of the article is not unwieldily that the tables are overbearing on the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but thanks for the redirects just in case. MegaSmike46 (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This completely separate from Marvel Studios, that's not the split we are looking the question is rather should the Production section of this article be split into its own section? It would streamline this article better. But is it enough to varriant split since it will only reduce the size form 110k bytes to 87bytes DoctorHver (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, since Marvel Entertainment has been absorbed throughout Disney, we can probably just link readers to the List of television series based on Marvel Comics publications and List of films based on Marvel Comics publications for them to find the Entertainment productions, as those lists already have tables established. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Probably, but it seems to me that there is a whole lot of confusion going on in the filmography section of this article here (Marvel Entertainment) and Marvel Studios so I think we probably should remove both sections on each article and just link to those "main List of films/TV series based on Marvel Comics Publications" articles instead. I'm pretty sure that way things would be less confusing. Another way would be to construct the filmography here closer to those articles. With that said the inclusion of Marvel Television shows is questionable at best considering it has its own article and filmography over there. Especially if the basic idea of the Marvel Entertainment filmography was to only list films and television produced as results of third-party Licensing deals; Lionsgate, Sony, Universal, 20th Century Fox (pre-Disney sale). Then that doesn't work since Marvel Television was an in-house division that was folded into Marvel Studios in 2019. As for Marvel Entertainment going defunct, I think we would still need to include new Sony-produced films and TV as that licensing contract pre-dates Marvel Entertainment going defunct, and its still valid. If it wasn't Disney probably would have shut down Marvel Entertainment much sooner DoctorHver (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

No. That would make navigating these films a lot more confusing for readers. Marvel Entertainment films are all those that don't involve Marvel Studios. The Marvel Television series included on here are the ones that were made or started production before Marvel Television was absorbed under Marvel Studios, as the TV unit was part of the Ent unit beforehand. We're not going to single them out based on which studio made what. This list and the one at the Marvel Studios article should remain intact. If readers want more details, they can go to those lists or the individual articles. That is why they are linked where they are. There is no consensus to remove these filmography lists, nor should they be removed or split in a way that would only add navigation hurdles to confuse readers rather than help guide them. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@DoctorHver: Please don't just blindly revert without providing an explanation. Especially since I and another editor reverted your WP:BOLD edit against the established consensus, it it up to you to discuss this matter here at the talk page per WP:Bold, revert, discuss and not to revert it back to your preferred version during the discussion process, which is considered disruptive and could be veering close to WP:Edit warring and WP:3RR violations if you persist. I already issued you a formal warning on this, though I am WP:Assuming good faith and hope that anything further won't be necessary. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

First thing first seems wiki editor likes to screw editors even if someone else comes in and edits a completely different section of the article. So you could end up in content removal content/loss even if it's not intended. The biggest problem with wiki editor if you ask me (and I have had this problem with the wiki editor for a long time and I have always wondered why they haven't tried to fix it so you should always be able to publish your edits regardless of what someone else does if ) and if you are referring to user:Tcr25 he wasn't editing anything I was doing. The Spider-verse films were never going to be removed from the article. I was trying to move them to the Animation section and separate them from live-action films. That what I meant by letting the article flow similarly as List of films based on Marvel Comics publications if you read any of the edits summaries if they werent clear enough then I do applogy for that. There was never an idea to include any of the MCU stuff on here as it doesn't fit here for obvious reasons.

So I think the article at least in the film section would flow better if it was something like this:

• Live-action films
  • Feature films
  • short films
• Animated films
  • Theatrically released films
  • Direct-to-video and television films
  • Short films

Instead of the current version:

• Film
  • Feature films (the Animated Spiderverse films are included)
  • Animated (doesn't look odd to call the DTV film section animated if we are including the Spiderverse films with Live-action films? if the suggested format above not it then this section needs to be changed to DTV and TV films)
  • Short films (I suspect Spiderverse short films should probably be included here since they also came out of the Sony deal unless there is a source out there who says otherwise and that probably might or might not applies to the other short films as well )

Speaking of things that should or shouldn't be included This seemingly outdated hidden message seeems odd considering Amazing Spider-Man 2 is actually in the article:

"Please do not add The Amazing Spider-Man 2 here! Marvel's participation rights to the film were purchased out by Sony, thus they were not involved in the film as previously despite the Marvel logo being shown in the movie. More info is on the talk page. Thank you." (its next to the First Amazing Spider-Man film)

Ether the hidden comment is an outdated Anachronism from some old version of the article or Amazing Spider-Man 2 needs to be removed from the article.

As for Beyond the Spiderverse it seems to be in active production according to the source used on film based on List of films based on Marvel Comics publications but that source is two years old while more recent sources such as Digitalspy say the film is delayed indefinitely so which is it.

Finally, it's factually incorrect now to say Madame Web (film) is an upcoming film since it has now been out for three weeks, that was amongst the things I was trying to fix in the filmography as it is currently set up.

With that said the TV section probably could do with a similar overhaul and it obviously also needs to be challenged or questioned what has been included here in the filmography especially the eTV shows produced by Marvel Television as I have tried to explain previously and what has happened at a later date as studios becoming defunct or folding into other units doesn't invalidate what has happened earlier.

1. Marvel Entertainment set up Marvel Television to produce these ABC shows it seems. The copyright notice reads ABC Studios & Marvel Television, not ABC Studios % Marvel Entertainment. So it should be enough for these ABC-produced shows to be listed on List of programs produced by ABC Signature and Marvel Television so including them on Marvel Entertainment seems to be redundant. Alternate Example: Walt Disney Animation Studios (WDAS) controlled Disneytoon Studios but none of the Disneytoon Studios films are included on List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films They have their own sections in DisneyToon Studios even if DisneyToon Studio was only controlled by WDAS from 2003 to 2015 when Disney ToonStudio was closed.

2. The X-men shows are obviously more tricky as their license also comes through the original Fox film license and both are not copyrighted to Marvel only 20th Century Fox studios-related entities originally. (pre-Disney merger).

3. Animation section what a complete mess that is, hard to know for sure by reading through that list which one of the shows was indeed licensed products and which ones were produced "in-house" by Marvel Animation (2008 versions) and which were should probably only be listed there for the same reason as above and the final two shows shouldn't be included there at all based on what you say Marvel Television folded into Marvel Studio. But I would argue that these two should only be included at Marvel Television as the copyright says that.

4. Finally I do know various filmographies don't exactly follow the original copyright but if they did everything would be far easier to navigate as that would be the studios that originally owned these films or TV shows. Studio can produce something but still not own it we have some very good examples in MCU of this.for this reason D23 Disneys offical fan club doesn't include any of the X-men films in their official Disney filmography https://d23.com/list-of-disney-films/ DoctorHver (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for misappropriating some removals to you, although I will note that removing tables in one edit and adding them elsewhere in another edit can be seen as disruptive given the large number of content it takes away at first. I restored the last clean revision before your changes as they were major changes to the table's formatting that were not discussed, as per MOS:VAR, which I want to point to for why the current formatting style ought to remain, as that is what prior consensus has been in favor of and attempting to change it now to make it more divided seems rather fruitless. I have fixed the weird note and MW details, though I will note that the current order works just fine and just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it doesn't mean that we have to follow those other lists exactly. This is also not a list article, so it should be more condensed with less section headers. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)