Marvel Cinematic Universe has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Recurring cast and characters
Anyone else feel like this table has gotten a bit ridiculous, especially now that crossovers between film and TV are going to be very common moving forward and those will be covered at each of the Phase Articles as well? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yup. Was just feeling this. Especially with the addition of Barton's children in Hawkeye. Yes they've appeared in films and will now in a TV series, but do they need to be in this table? Maybe for criteria, an actors has to appear in a billing block for a film, in the main cast for a TV series, or were one of the "prominent" characters for a short or digital series? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- That sounds better, did you want to mock up what that would mean for the table? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Agree table should be limited to actors appearing in the billing block for a film or the main cast for a TV series.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. This table should be reserved for actors in the film billing and main cast in series. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and removed the Barton children. Not sure about the rest of the cast. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Agree table should be limited to actors appearing in the billing block for a film or the main cast for a TV series.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- That sounds better, did you want to mock up what that would mean for the table? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
On another bit regarding the cast table, I was wondering if we should move the actors that are in the films and What If from the "Outside media" tab to "Television series" given now that the series may as well just be listed together with the rest of the series, especially since it is in Phase Four and the series' cast are listed normally on that article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Trailblazer101: I think that makes sense. I was also wondering if we should be even more restrictive in the table and only include characters that appear in at least three columns (i.e. characters from a film, TV series, and one other piece of MCU media) rather than having a massive table with every character that jumps between the films and Disney+ shows. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. I'd just be much easier for navigation, and we can include notes for their specific type of appearances, A for an animated series such as What If, O for One-Shots?, S for shorts such as the One-Shots, Peter's To-Do List, Team Thor? D for digital series like WHIH and DailyBugle? and L for live attractions? That's my thought process for what that could look like. Not sure much of the digital series or shorts cast will last with the three column films, series, and one other media piece, but I am willing to support it as not everything needs inclusion here and this does seem to be the best approach for it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we should use "media type" as the defining criteria for who shows up in the table. I think the goal should be to provide the most relevant information to the readers that will help them understand the article (and MCU). So, to me it feels wrong to list barely notable characters here just because they happen to show up in different types of media - but leave out key players like Tony Stark and Steve Rogers. It just feels as if we're servicing trivia, not providing useful information. My proposal is to change this to someone who has appeared in billing blocks for multiple Marvel Studios franchises (films or Disney+ series). Notability and relevance are significant pillars of Wikipedia; and I just think people like Tony Stark are more notable recurring players in MCU, than say, Felix Blake. — Starforce13 19:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Alternatively, we could remove this table and instead have a prose overview of the ways that cast members have crossed over across the whole franchise (Sam Jackson's initial deal, The Avengers, Gregg and Atwell in the One-Shots and TV shows, crossovers between films and Disney+ shows, etc.). That way we don't have another big unwieldy table here when we already have so many other tables, and we can focus on the notable recurring cast members rather than just adding people to the list based on criteria that very soon will not be all that noteworthy (as crossovers between film and TV become more common). - adamstom97 (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I would be down with getting rid of the table and mentioning the notable ones in prose. With Feige in charge of basically all things Marvel, the crossovers are only going to increase and the table will get out of control soon. — Starforce13 21:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not too sure about that. It all feels
too radical andsudden shift to me, as we commonly use a table to display the recurring casts across media franchises and in all the other Phase articles, etc. I think a rundown of the more prominent recurring cast and deals of them would be a noteworthy inclusion atop the cast list, but I still feel the listing should remain, just be condensed. Adam's 3-column proposal sounds good to me on the surface, but as I've looked through the cast more, I think it requires a proper execution. We know film and TV crossovers are becoming increasingly common, but they are still notable as they are across different mediums and there are different companies that made them, with the Marvel TV shows still requiring some inclusion here. I think it is best to move the What If actors with the TV ones, and change the "Television series" header to "Television" for this table as some content like the GotG Holiday Special and I Am Groot aren't necessarily shows but are on TV, albeit streaming. The shorts (One-Shots, Team Thor, and Peter's To-Do List) and the digital series I feel could be combined in a "Tie-in media" header with notes specifying which they appear in. Same note style can be used to specify actors in TV specials (GotG), television shorts (Groot), and animation (What If). As for the live attractions, I think those can remain as we have them in "Outside media" but change that header to "Live attractions". The note for "Outside media" can also go then. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)- Trailblazer101, we could keep the table for now, but what do you think of my previous proposal of changing the criteria so that we only count characters if they've also appeared in billing blocks of a Marvel Studios franchise (films or Disney+ series)? This will help narrow down the table and avoid giving WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to less known characters over notable key players. Yes, I know, Marvel Television shows are technically MCU, but I feel like including characters who aren't major players in a proper-MCU-canon Marvel Studios project dilutes the quality of the table.— Starforce13 21:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- As for the billing, I feel it would intentionally negate the inclusion of not only the Marvel TV actors, but any actors' appearances in films, television, and other media. See J. Jonah Jameson, whose in FFH and TheDailyBugle.net. That's a fairly notable casting, yet as of now, he has not been in any billing, so should that be enough reason to remove him entirely? My thought process is standard billing applies for most of these, but some that aren't in the billing and do appear across different MCU media should be included. It's not really undue weight as they are notable to different parts of the MCU, and I feel any attempts to intentionally exclude or mitigate the Marvel TV content really isn't beneficial to readers and wouldn't be that professional or organized on our parts. That is one thing I don't believe should be done. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think
too radical
is a bit over the top, especially in this case where the table is just getting messy and the only solutions to that so far would render it almost meaningless. I'm just trying to suggest a better alternative because I agree it doesn't make much sense to be so restrictive that barely anyone is included, but at the same time the current format is just not working. We already have big tables that show crossovers between films, crossovers between TV shows, and crossovers between films and TV shows, so the whole point of this section is to show recurring cast members over the franchise as a whole and at the moment I don't think we are doing a very good job of showing that. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)- We could still make this table useful and include common cast members across the films in the billing just in that section, like we do on the Phase Four article, while also condensing it. I just feel a complete removal would be overkill in this display, which is much easier than having to explain the cast crossovers. To me, the media type still holds value. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- If we are to keep the table, we have to come up with a clear way to determine who stays and who goes. Which is the current threshold for inclusion in this table? Is there any? —El Millo (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- My interpretation is that actors who are in the billing of films or shows that appear in multiple forms of media in the MCU are included. As my current proposal above brings up a condensing option and based on points from others, I feel we could extend this to include film actors that received billing who frequently recur throughout the films but aren't in any other media, as we do on the Phase Four article. I don't think restricting this list to just actors based on billing in films AND shows would be useful as we still have some actors in the films like Simmons and Everhart, Rockewell, and Sadler, etc. who headline digital series or other media, which are still somewhat notable. I do apologize for my improper word use beforehand, but I do maintain my view that a complete removal of the table would not necessarily help readers and would instead complicate things even more with a prose overview. We don't need to go too in-depth with this as it should be a easy-to-look at visual tool. I think the qualifier could be any actors who appear in films, television, or other media (like tie-in and attractions) of the MCU are included, as are prominent actors and actors who recur in the films and are on the billing of them. I feel finding a compromise and revising this table would be more suited than abandoning it. I hope this is more clear. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think main billing in a film and TV show is restrictive enough as we already have a bunch of those from WandaVision and that is just the first Disney+ series. It is just going to grow too much too quickly. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- But most of those actors billed in WandaVision haven't appeared in films. The same issue can be brought up with a listing for just billed actors without the media type splitting, so I'm really not sure how we want to go about this. I still think splitting by "Films", "Television", "Tie-in media", and "Attractions" would be best. I'm just not sure if we need to include main actors from only the films in this, but as the franchise becomes more focused on Marvel Studios' output, it's tough to figure out what's best. Actors like Downey have only been in the films, so they don't seem warranted for inclusion here unless we were to change it somehow to be across company works, and even then, I'm not sure how that would work. Maybe we could have it be actors that have starred in at least 2 or 3 MCU films and/or episodes and another MCU media (TV, shorts, etc.) and then condense everything? Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think main billing in a film and TV show is restrictive enough as we already have a bunch of those from WandaVision and that is just the first Disney+ series. It is just going to grow too much too quickly. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- My interpretation is that actors who are in the billing of films or shows that appear in multiple forms of media in the MCU are included. As my current proposal above brings up a condensing option and based on points from others, I feel we could extend this to include film actors that received billing who frequently recur throughout the films but aren't in any other media, as we do on the Phase Four article. I don't think restricting this list to just actors based on billing in films AND shows would be useful as we still have some actors in the films like Simmons and Everhart, Rockewell, and Sadler, etc. who headline digital series or other media, which are still somewhat notable. I do apologize for my improper word use beforehand, but I do maintain my view that a complete removal of the table would not necessarily help readers and would instead complicate things even more with a prose overview. We don't need to go too in-depth with this as it should be a easy-to-look at visual tool. I think the qualifier could be any actors who appear in films, television, or other media (like tie-in and attractions) of the MCU are included, as are prominent actors and actors who recur in the films and are on the billing of them. I feel finding a compromise and revising this table would be more suited than abandoning it. I hope this is more clear. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- If we are to keep the table, we have to come up with a clear way to determine who stays and who goes. Which is the current threshold for inclusion in this table? Is there any? —El Millo (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- We could still make this table useful and include common cast members across the films in the billing just in that section, like we do on the Phase Four article, while also condensing it. I just feel a complete removal would be overkill in this display, which is much easier than having to explain the cast crossovers. To me, the media type still holds value. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think
- As for the billing, I feel it would intentionally negate the inclusion of not only the Marvel TV actors, but any actors' appearances in films, television, and other media. See J. Jonah Jameson, whose in FFH and TheDailyBugle.net. That's a fairly notable casting, yet as of now, he has not been in any billing, so should that be enough reason to remove him entirely? My thought process is standard billing applies for most of these, but some that aren't in the billing and do appear across different MCU media should be included. It's not really undue weight as they are notable to different parts of the MCU, and I feel any attempts to intentionally exclude or mitigate the Marvel TV content really isn't beneficial to readers and wouldn't be that professional or organized on our parts. That is one thing I don't believe should be done. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Trailblazer101, we could keep the table for now, but what do you think of my previous proposal of changing the criteria so that we only count characters if they've also appeared in billing blocks of a Marvel Studios franchise (films or Disney+ series)? This will help narrow down the table and avoid giving WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to less known characters over notable key players. Yes, I know, Marvel Television shows are technically MCU, but I feel like including characters who aren't major players in a proper-MCU-canon Marvel Studios project dilutes the quality of the table.— Starforce13 21:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not too sure about that. It all feels
- Yes, I would be down with getting rid of the table and mentioning the notable ones in prose. With Feige in charge of basically all things Marvel, the crossovers are only going to increase and the table will get out of control soon. — Starforce13 21:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I've had another think about this and this is what I know for sure:
- We should not be including an "Outside Media" column in the table, this is for recurring MCU cast and characters and the article hasn't even got to outside media yet anyway.
- We should be consistent with how we are treating What If since we call it "Outside Media" here at the moment but not at the Phase Four article where it has its own "Animation" column. It is also inconsistent that we are treating What If different because it shows alternate events, but not Loki which is also set in an alternate timeline from the main MCU.
- Film actors appearing in TV shows is no longer noteworthy, there is already a full table at the Phase Four article showing all the ways that this is going to happen over the next two years. This article does not need to just repeat all of that.
- TV actors appearing in films is soon to be less noteworthy as well, as can also be seen at the Phase Four article.
- AoS actors appearing in both that series and Slingshot is also not really noteworthy enough to make it as prominent as it is here since that was a direct spin-off made on the set of that series and was released as essentially a bonus episode.
This all reaffirms for me that we need to rethink what the point of this section even is and whether it needs to exist, or if it does then whether it needs to have a table. We already have full tables for all the films, series, and One-Shots, plus tables for each phase as well as one for all four phases. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, I understand these points more clear now. What If should have its own "Animation" section as we do on the Phase Four article. The rest of the Outside media content isn't really useful. I'm not sure if we should remove the Avengers: Damage Control and the other live attractions actors, but will agree to it given most of them are in other content. My view on this is we should prioritize on recurring cast and characters across the universe, so that would be major actors really who are billed. I'm really not sure how the billing criteria should go, as if we go too far with it, it could seriously restrict lots of actors or overdue them like we have already. AS the film/TV crossovers are getting more common, I guess those can be saved for the specific Phase articles and the like. Notable actors should be included, but again, I'm not sure what criteria would warrant such an inclusion. I'm still iffy on the shorts and digital series and feel they may be helpful but really only for actors like Holland and Hemsworth, and given they aren't a major focus of this article, could also be removed. That would leave it to just the Films, Television (assuming others are up to this change given the GotG HS is a special and not a series; this could also be done on the section at the Phase Four article and in other templates where this occurs), and Animation. Maybe we could split them up by The Infinity Saga and "Upcoming/Future"? Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- The main focus of these articles is the films and Marvel Studios Disney+ series. The outside media, digital and shorts are hardly notable to non-hardcore fans and they're nothing more than marketing campaigns. So, I think we should remove them and focus on films and TV series. What if is obviously a television series. Just because the content covers potential alternate realities is not a reason to treat it as alternate media. With multiverse starting, we're going to have lots of projects featuring other realities. And then we can narrow it down to multiple-franchise main billing. I know someone asked about that criteria excluding the Daily Bugle guy, but honestly, he doesn't play a major role in MCU. I don't see why he deserves to get attention over key recurring players like Iron Man. He isn't even notable to non-hardcore fans because he's just a guy on TV screens.— Starforce13 02:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Reviewing all of this again, I'm totally onboard removing the Outside media, digital series and shorts. I don't wanna jump the gun on the multiverse for this. I think it might be best to not organize them by any headers like "Films" and just have a rundown of the common characters throughout the franchise (in text or in a table; if a table, we'd have to find some grouping. I feel as the MCU expands, this will always need to be relooked at and what we have right now really isn't working, as evident by this discussion. So, yeah, I feel we could remove the table and give an overivew of recurring characters in the franchise unless we are able to construct a new table format grouping. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. What if we changed the table to show:
- Character
- Actor
- First appearance
- Last appearance
- Number of appearances
- We could also include something to show if they've appeared in a film or tv series because I think that's still useful. Then the criteria could go back to being in multiple franchises. — Starforce13 04:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wait. Isn't the idea of the table to show how the MCU is interconnected between different media? Even though it would still be a "Recurring cast and characters" table, it wouldn't fulfill that purpose. —El Millo (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Then could we change the title to something like "Crossover cast and characters" (or something on that line)? This way, it's clear that the focus is the interconnectedness and not character significance in the series. — Starforce13 05:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm leaning closer and closer to Starforce's proposal here. I think it could very well work in adequetly displaying the common thread characters of the franchise. Maybe we could specify with symbols or something if they are only film characters or are also in shows, shorts, etc.? Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Any chance we could see a small mock up Starforce? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm leaning closer and closer to Starforce's proposal here. I think it could very well work in adequetly displaying the common thread characters of the franchise. Maybe we could specify with symbols or something if they are only film characters or are also in shows, shorts, etc.? Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Then could we change the title to something like "Crossover cast and characters" (or something on that line)? This way, it's clear that the focus is the interconnectedness and not character significance in the series. — Starforce13 05:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wait. Isn't the idea of the table to show how the MCU is interconnected between different media? Even though it would still be a "Recurring cast and characters" table, it wouldn't fulfill that purpose. —El Millo (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. What if we changed the table to show:
- Reviewing all of this again, I'm totally onboard removing the Outside media, digital series and shorts. I don't wanna jump the gun on the multiverse for this. I think it might be best to not organize them by any headers like "Films" and just have a rundown of the common characters throughout the franchise (in text or in a table; if a table, we'd have to find some grouping. I feel as the MCU expands, this will always need to be relooked at and what we have right now really isn't working, as evident by this discussion. So, yeah, I feel we could remove the table and give an overivew of recurring characters in the franchise unless we are able to construct a new table format grouping. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- The main focus of these articles is the films and Marvel Studios Disney+ series. The outside media, digital and shorts are hardly notable to non-hardcore fans and they're nothing more than marketing campaigns. So, I think we should remove them and focus on films and TV series. What if is obviously a television series. Just because the content covers potential alternate realities is not a reason to treat it as alternate media. With multiverse starting, we're going to have lots of projects featuring other realities. And then we can narrow it down to multiple-franchise main billing. I know someone asked about that criteria excluding the Daily Bugle guy, but honestly, he doesn't play a major role in MCU. I don't see why he deserves to get attention over key recurring players like Iron Man. He isn't even notable to non-hardcore fans because he's just a guy on TV screens.— Starforce13 02:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- On a related note, unless I'm mising something shouldn't the table include Natascha Romanoff? 2A02:A03F:8C5A:9B00:2555:A332:740B:E4A (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97, Favre1fan93, Facu-el Millo, TriiipleThreat, and Starforce13: Going back to this off of Starforce's format, I think it would be best if we orient this "Recurring cast and characters" table to showcase what it states, the recurring cast members and characters across the MCU. As the exact type of media format is becoming less important, we should go off of the total number of appearances from main characters. I feel a reasonable criteria would be including characters who have appeared in at least three forms of MCU media (whether they be films, television series, animation, short films, and digital series), and are in the billing block of at least three films and/or the main/starring and/or guest of at least two series. I think the goal here would be to present all of the most seen actors and their characters across the MCU under this criteria and to omit anything not actually relevant (such as the games, theme parks, Team Thor, Peter's To-Do List, and The Daily Bugle, as they wouldn't fall under this criteria) Most of the Marvel TV actors also wouldn't apply, but some might. The Animation section can be used for the What If actors, and any others if animation is used more. Not sure if the "Guest" indicator would be used for those or not, but it probably should as we do so on the Phase Four page. A simpler criteria could be the actor/character has to appear in at least three MCU projects, if we don't want to get all technical about it, but that could get overflowed, so the billing criteria would probably be best, not sure if it would be how it is as I'm suggesting, it may need to be refined. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Let's try to get things clear. For starters, @Trailblazer101: it may be helpful if you listed like four or five characters you think would be included in this model and four or five characters that wouldn't be included. Try to make the reasons for which they either apply or not apply as diverse as possible. At least for me, that way it's easier to understand the model and to see if it would be a good model or not, based on what applies and what doesn't. —El Millo (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- I was thinking characters such as Tony Stark, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Star-Lord, and Captain Marvel would be included as they have appeared in multiple films in the billing and some of which are in television series/special, such as Hawkeye and Star-Lord. Thaddeus Ross could also be included, as could MJ, Ned, and other characters who appear along those lines of starring or prominently appearing in at least three MCU properties. Characters such as Betty Ross, William Ginter Riva, Daisy Johnson, Samuel Sterns, and Yelena Belova wouldn't be included as they have/will appear in at least or less than two MCU properties. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Let's try to get things clear. For starters, @Trailblazer101: it may be helpful if you listed like four or five characters you think would be included in this model and four or five characters that wouldn't be included. Try to make the reasons for which they either apply or not apply as diverse as possible. At least for me, that way it's easier to understand the model and to see if it would be a good model or not, based on what applies and what doesn't. —El Millo (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Favre1fan93, Trailblazer101, Facu-el Millo, and Adamstom.97: Here's a mockup of what I have in mind: draft. My updated criteria is: character/actor:
- has appeared in at least 3 projects (films, series)
- has been credited in the main billing block / posters for at least two different franchises
- This eliminates a lot of minor (less notable) characters and gives priority to key players who have appeared in multiple franchises instead of focusing on media type which tends to favor minor characters (because they're more likely to be available for smaller gigs like voice roles, one-shots and web series). Number of appearances includes mid-credits scenes. Each show counts as one appearance regardless of the number of episodes. My count is probably not accurate. There could also be some people I forgot to include. — Starforce13 14:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, that is a more smooth and clear visual template for the characters listing. I'm honestly totally fine with it to focus more on number of appearances than which media they appear in, as this should be simple and easy to understand. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the criteria, but I'm not super sold on the last three columns (first/last appearance, and number of appearances). Could we keep the column headings we have now, and just put numbers under that as a way to state info? So for Coulson, he'd under "Films" he'd have 3, under "Television series" 1, and under "One-Shot" 2. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree on that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- What are the numbers for? —El Millo (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- The number of appearances in that medium. Or we could list each property as abbreviations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- So instead of putting the name of the character in the first column and the actor in the rest, we'd put a number? I don't think that's helpful. The exact number of appearances seems trivial and, apart from that, I don't think it would look good. —El Millo (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Starforce had included appearances in their table mock-up, so I gave an alternate suggestion if that was desired. I agree, I'm not really a fan of tracking appearance numbers or first/last ones, at least in this table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Favre1fan93:, I like your suggestion as well. I struggled trying to choose what to include in the additional columns and I also had a version that showed the number of films, number of shows. UPDATE: If counts are hard to keep track of, we could use highlighting to show which media format they've appeared in. I've incorporated your idea in this new version. — Starforce13 23:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Starforce had included appearances in their table mock-up, so I gave an alternate suggestion if that was desired. I agree, I'm not really a fan of tracking appearance numbers or first/last ones, at least in this table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- So instead of putting the name of the character in the first column and the actor in the rest, we'd put a number? I don't think that's helpful. The exact number of appearances seems trivial and, apart from that, I don't think it would look good. —El Millo (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- The number of appearances in that medium. Or we could list each property as abbreviations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the criteria, but I'm not super sold on the last three columns (first/last appearance, and number of appearances). Could we keep the column headings we have now, and just put numbers under that as a way to state info? So for Coulson, he'd under "Films" he'd have 3, under "Television series" 1, and under "One-Shot" 2. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, that is a more smooth and clear visual template for the characters listing. I'm honestly totally fine with it to focus more on number of appearances than which media they appear in, as this should be simple and easy to understand. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Favre1fan93, Trailblazer101, Facu-el Millo, and Adamstom.97: Here's a mockup of what I have in mind: draft. My updated criteria is: character/actor:
I agree with Facu. We should essentially keep the same formatting for the table now, just removing/adding people based on new criteria. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. Keeping track of the count is hard and even some of the ones I included are off. But, yeah, the key thing is changing the criteria to keep the table under control. And when the table gets too large again, all we have to do is increase # of franchises and/or number of projects needed to be eligible. — Starforce13 00:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly. —El Millo (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yup. So, should we move forward with this criteria? Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Do we have a mockup of what it will actually look like to confirm? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yup. So, should we move forward with this criteria? Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly. —El Millo (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Marvel TV is officially non-canon.
During his opening statement on the investor's day, Feige said that the MCU consisted of 23 films, which would now be expanded into the TV shows as well. It clearly means that Marvel TV is officially non-canon. Could someone explain why they are still on this page? Anubhab030119 (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know precisely what Feige said on that occasion but see e.g. Guidebook to The Marvel Cinematic Universe - Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Season One (2016) #1 and Guidebook to The Marvel Cinematic Universe - Marvel's Agent Carter Season One (2016) at the official Marvel site. Even if they are officially declared non-canon now instead of just hinting at it, those two shows were in the same universe when they were produced. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Marvel Studios has always talked about the universe in terms of their output, which does not negate the Marvel Television content. Will that change in the future, especially with Marvel Studios exploring the multiverse? Probably. But at this moment, all of the Marvel TV shows are part of the MCU, no matter how fringe their connections may be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay thanks for the answer guys. Hope to soon find some clarification either way from Marvel Studios. Anubhab030119 (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
AS OF NOW, Marvel TV is still canon, Anubhab030119, so FOR NOW you are not correct (though for some shows you very well might be). Feige has previously acknowledged that the shows are canon to the MCU, and what he now means is that they are creating shows that (one) are made by Marvel Studios and (two) interconnect with the shows and movies. The Marvel Television shows connected with the films, but the films never connected with them. In that same mindset, the shows have been marketed as being connected to the MCU previously. However, we do not know Marvel Studios plans and they could use characters for other purposes in the MCU. Here's the deal with continuity in the MCU and how we know if shows are or are not canon. Right now, every show thought to be canon is canon. Many rumors point to Charlie Cox aka Matt Murdock being in the upcoming Spider-Man film this December, and if this is true along with other rumors that other Marvel Netflix characters will be returning to the MCU starting in this film, then all these films can be considered canon. If this ends up being the case for ALL of the Netflix shows, then Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, The Defenders and The Punisher all remain canon. Cloak & Dagger has a few small but important connections with the Netflix shows, so if any of the Netflix shows were to be considered canon, they would take Cloak & Dagger, and Runaways which connects to Cloak & Dagger, with it. If Runaways was considered non-canon but Cloak & Dagger was not, than Runaways and the Netflix shows would remain canon, but Runaways wouldn't. If Cloak & Dagger was proved non-canon but Runaways wasn't, then Cloak & Dagger AND Runaways would both be considered non-canon, however the Netflix shows can exist without Cloak & Dagger and Runaways, but Cloak & Dagger and Runaways not without the Netflix shows. See what I'm getting at here? Alright. As you can see, the Netflix and MCU young adult shows are very closely connected and depend on each other very much, but what about the other shows? If Helstrom or any of it's characters are used in a way that contradicts the show's events in the MCU, then the show will be considered non-canon. If Inhumans (which I believe will be the one show that will end up being non-canon by the end of this year) or any of its characters (the Inhuman Royal Family) are used in a contradicting way in the MCU going forward, then they will be considered non-canon.
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Agent Carter remain in a pretty safe zone for now. Agent Carter is the one show that has little risk of becoming non-canon as it was already confirmed continuity in the 2019 film Avengers: Endgame with the Edwin Jarvis cameo. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. has a bit more risk. If Hive, Gravitron, or the Shrike were used in a contradicting way in the MCU films, then the show can be considered non-canon. Same goes with Quake. However, if rumors about Quake in future MCU content are true, then we might have confirmation that the show is canon to the MCU.
I think that the Inhuman Royal Family will be rebooted; likely in the show Ms. Marvel which comes out this fall; which would make Inhumans not canon. We could very well see Netflix/young-adult confirmation or decanonization by the end of 2021 so that debate should be settled, and possibly Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. by the end of 2022, with Helstrom a possibility in the next few years (it looks like Agent Carter will always remain safe), and by 2023 this debate can be ended. But for now, all the shows ARE canon, but they are all subject to change anytime soon. I hope this answers all your questions about this Anubhab030119. I know it's alot and I'm sorry, but it's the best way to get a good explanation out. IronMan287 (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)IronMan287IronMan287 (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
IronMan287 that's an very impressive answer brother. Thanks a lot for taking so much time to provide such a detailed explanation. I too hope that this debate ends sooner rather than later. Cheers. Anubhab030119 (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Marvel's Avengers
Why Marvel's The Avengers, not The Avengers? If you including title to one of them then why you don't add it to all of them? İh2055 (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is the only one officially titled as such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Then why titles are removed from tv series? Marvel's Daredevil or simply Daredevil, same goes to The Avengers but Daredevil is without title on the list İh2055 (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- All of Marvel TV's series have "Marvel's" in the title, so listing that for all of them is overkill. But there is only one movie with it in the title so that stands out as needing to be noted. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Then why titles are removed from tv series? Marvel's Daredevil or simply Daredevil, same goes to The Avengers but Daredevil is without title on the list İh2055 (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, to expand upon it, it's also likely because there are multiple unrelated/non-Marvel films called the Avengers as well, and so they may not want to, at a glance, have someone confusing between those the Avengers and the Marvel the Avengers. They don't have that confusion with Daredevil or Punisher because they are not only Marvel, but the MCU has them as TV shows while when they weren't MCU produced they were only films. I do agree that the "Marvel's" part of it isn't actually/shouldn't be part of the title (as it's like saying "DC's Superman" or "Universal's Godzilla", etc. where it's not actually part of the title, just a notation, for lack of a better term, to inform that this is the Studio making this movie, like which "the Avengers" is it, it's specifically the Marvel one, if that makes any sense), but I do understand why they have it the way they do. 45.51.166.54 (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Subsection on 'phases'?
MCU films are famously categorised into phases, typically ended by an Avengers movie, where they are grouped by relative chronoligical appearance and plot importance shouldn't the four (and future) phases be described in a subsection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VN28 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- What about them do you think needs to be described? We already introduce the idea, show the Phases here, and have individual articles for each one. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
How to deal with Multiverse characters
Now that the multiverse has started with the introduction of Evan Peters' Quicksilver in WandaVision, I think we need to have a plan in place on how we're going to handle characters from other universes. For example, once it's confirmed in WandaVision that this is Peter from X-Men films and not MCU's Pietro, do we still call it a "recast" or reprising their role from another universe? Likewise, what happens when they introduce different versions of other MCU characters which may or may not be played by the same actor? How do we handle that in the list of recurring characters?
I think we will probably need to add a column to the recurring characters table to show other universes the character appears in. Or we could add another table for characters reprising their roles from other universes.
Obviously, we're not going to make any changes right now, until it's actually confirmed, but we might as well be ready because it's coming and it will get even messier with Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and the next Spider-Man. — Starforce13 18:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think for this table we could just add an indicator to note it and then let other places explain the details, though it is still too early for that since we don't know how this version of the character is connected to the X-Men films' version. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it's necessary, mainly because Pietro Maximoff in WandaVision is just a citizen in Westview and not really quicksilver of the X-Men Universe. When there will be actual multiverse characters, I think we should add these characters. Byc63 (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
DailyBugle
Should The Daily Bugle YouTube videos be added to the Digital Series section? StarWarsFan2247 (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Please see #Semi-Protected Edit Request on 16 January 2021 above. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Question: Where is Blade and Deadpool 3
These 2 were confirmed but they are not here at Future section in Feature films in a different phase (unannounced phase). Why are they excluded? Kohcohf (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- See #Deadpool 3 above. Same applies to Blade. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Semi-Protected Edit Request on February 18, 2021
I have a few edits to the timeline section I think I should make. I've been researching the MCU for a while with a good number of fans who have interests similar to mine, and we have done some deep digging into the timeline of the MCU. You can check out our work on this page: https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Timeline and the linked decade or year pages found on that page, in which we have detailed explanations throughout the reference sections.
I would not like to change anything it says, but instead add on our discovered and sensible timeline of the MCU films; providing evidence as needed. This does include lots of similarities with the released timeline however, though the beginning is the only thing that really differs/ I'll include the edits that I want to make that are different than what Marvel Studios has already established using my already discovered evidence; also the fact that Marvel films often take place around their release dates, with exception of flashback films, Iron Man-Thor, Iron Man 3, GOTG Vol. 2, Black Panther and all films Avengers: Endgame and beyond:
- Captain America: The First Avenger (1943-1945)
- Captain Marvel (1995)
- Iron Man (May-November 2009)
- Iron Man 2 (May 2010)
- The Incredible Hulk (May-Early June, 2010)
- Thor (Late May-Early June, 2010) - note: Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk and Thor's big battles take place mostly during the same week as evidence in the comic book tie-in Fury's Big Week
- The Avengers (May 2012)
- Iron Man 3 (December 2012, leads into first few days of 2013)
- Thor: The Dark World (November 2013, but the prologue takes place right after The Avengers in 2012)
- Captain America: The Winter Soldier (Early 2014; likely January)
- Guardians of the Galaxy (August 2014)
- Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (October 2014)
- Avengers: Age of Ultron (April 2015)
- Ant-Man (July 2015)
- Doctor Strange (takes place from February 2016-February 2017)
- Captain America: Civil War (May 2016)
- Black Panther (a few weeks after Civil War, likely June 2016)
- Spider-Man: Homecoming (a couple months after Civil War, start of school year; September-October 2016)
- Thor: Ragnarok (November 2017)
- Ant-Man and the Wasp (Majority of film takes place in early May 2018)
- Avengers: Infinity War (Late May 2018)
- Avengers: Endgame (Prologue takes place a couple weeks after Infinity War in late June 2018)
- Avengers: Endgame time jump (October 2023)
- WandaVision (Three weeks after snap, which mid-October, putting it around early to mid November 2023)
- Spider-Man: Far From Home (Takes place in June 2024, post-credits scene at the start of July 2024)
I really hope this explanation can help people really figure out the MCU timeline. If you need me to provide what I would say in the timeline section and my explanations for certain parts of the timeline, I will gladly do so! IronMan287 (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)IronMan287IronMan287 (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- This is way too granular/inuniverse for inclusion and largely WP:OR. There's already a discussion happening to create some sort of timeline, that is relatively simple/easily sourced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)