[go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Talk:Deadpool & Wolverine

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GoneIn60 (talk | contribs) at 07:27, 2 October 2024 (→Comedy film: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 1 month ago by GoneIn60 in topic Comedy film
Learn more about this page

20th Century Studios

Latest comment: 3 months ago71 comments21 people in discussion
After much discussion, the consensus is clear on how to address the involvement of 20th Century Studios. Newer responses questioning about this which have veered into WP:NOTAFORUM territory should look to the frequently asked questions (FAQ) at the top of this talk for a summarized explanation. Any new arguments can be made in new discussions. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Should we give them a studio credit like on the Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny article? They have a copyright mention Jediknight15 (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

This has been discussed multiple times, including in the thread right above this one. We need a reliable source to confirm that 20th Century Studios is one of the production companies for this film. A copyright mark on a poster or trailer is not enough. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Deadpool and Wolverine | 20th Century Studios Australia/New ZealandI found this on their page. That enough? Jediknight15 (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
That page doesn't explicitly state 20th Century is a production company, and it is likely on their site because they are a copyright holder. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I just came back from the film; when the credits roll, "In association with 20th Century Studios" and "In association with TSG Entertainment" both appear in the credits. I'm not too familiar with policy, so what do we do with this information? GeniusReading2310 (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
based on how we handled the studio's involvement for the pages Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules (2022 film) and Diary of a Wimpy Kid Christmas: Cabin Fever, i suggest that we do the same thing and include an {{efn}} for either Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures or Marvel Studios that reads "The film's copyright is registered to/shared with 20th Century Studios." after looking at the end credits myself, the official copyright notice reads "©2024 20TH CENTURY STUDIOS / © & ™ 2024 MARVEL" continuing, "For purposes of United Kingdom copyright, MVL Film Finance LLC was the owner of the copyright in this film production immediately after it was made." Flyless Kyle (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not mean we ought to do that here. That copyright credit and "In Association With" credit are rather trivial and not related to the distribution, let alone being remotely close to a production credit, so I do not see the validity or use in adding a note on this to the infobox. Most readers do not care about these weird credits, anyway, as these are all just technicalities that all business use, rather than something specifically new for this film. It is still WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to note either of these studio's or their credits at this time. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

FYI, per the MPA's classifications notice that included this film, it lists Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures as distributor, so if there is any official 20th Century credit, it would be as a production company (which at this time, all indications are that was not likely the case). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Although for the Alien Romulus, they still credit 20th Century Studios as distributor, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures is not credited, for Deadpool & Wolverine, it would possibly that the 2021 20th Century Studios logo would appear in the movie as a variant. TCFFanmade2006YT (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
We have no way of knowing that yet. Even if a logo for that studio appeared, we would still need a reliable source for what its exact involvement or credit is, if any. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I could suggest however that, on the other hand, Avatar 3 should list Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures as distributor rather than credited 20th Century Studios as distributor despite being one of Walt Disney Studios' production companies since Disney's acquisition of 21st Century Fox's properties in 2019. I made a question on Quora about whenever the Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures credit expect to appear in a future 20th Century film following the release of The Amateur (e.g. Avatar 3).
It would be nice if The Amateur itself becoming the last 20th Century film to credit itself as distributor when the film comes out next year if that's confirmed a day before its release on 11th April 2025? SolshineBenie (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is not the place for general discussion of 20th Century's credits on other films. Please keep comments relevant to this film. Regardless, we go by what official crediting lists, not our preference. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
My apologies then! SolshineBenie (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
https://x.com/DeadpoolUpdate/status/1802536005053841784?t=upQKHpqWQIGo0EIIsqbNIg&s=19
20th Century Studios involvement is officialy confirmed in the poster of Deadpool & Wolverine, as per Twitter. TCFFanmade2006YT (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Still doesn't confirm how it is involved. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The poster is in the Chinese writing at the moment so we have to wait until the English translation of the poster credits confirm it. SolshineBenie (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
https://x.com/SoraThePanFloof/status/1802861222481834298?t=kh0m5UxWQSBwfa2cBmUmug&s=19
Here we go. Now in English writing 2601:408:701:BD10:AB50:CF1D:DF89:D9E4 (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah but as expected, the billing block as no 20th Century mention. Even though this is a blurry, unofficial image, it only has "MARVEL STUDIOS Presents - A KEVIN FEIGE production - A MAXIMUM EFFORT / 21 LAPS production" at the top of the billing block. So still, nothing to add to the infobox. We'll have to wait until the final credits to see what sort of copyright, trademark, or otherwise credit 20th Century gets, if at all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
But that is an official but blurry image SolshineBenie (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Again, the logo for 20th Century Studios (a copyright holder) appearing on any of these posters does NOT confirm they are a production company. The blurry billing specifically states "Marvel Studios presents A Kevin Feige production A Maximum Effort / 21 Laps Production". Nowhere does it list 20th as among the production companies. If it were one, it would have been in that listing. I think this puts the case to rest and is more similar to Paramount's logo displaying at the end of The Avengers and Iron Man 3. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
We know that but i know before about the Paramount logo does appear in Avengers Assemble and Iron Man 3. So despite the 20th Century Studios logo appearing in that poster, being a co-production of the film still not yet been confirmed and therefore the alternative poster of the film is considered to be a prototype at the moment. SolshineBenie (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that's... what I said. Just because 20th isn't credited in this one doesn't mean it will somehow be credited on any new poster. This isn't some "prototype", it is an official poster. We have a source for Disney being the distributor and 20th has never been credited as a production company thus far, so no evidence supports its inclusion whatsoever, even after all this discussion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see now!! SolshineBenie (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
so not even a logo on the bottom of a poster means anything regarding 20th Century Studios (meaning it'll not open up with the 20th Century Studios logo (with maybe a 4th wall break to show how the Fox logo got in the void) and it'll mean nothing (no copyright or credit either) literally. Even with Paramount Pictures doing the same with Indiana Jones 5, Avengers (2012), and Iron Man 3. And no 20th Century Studios film has been distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures at the end of their films. Why can't Disney give 20th Century Studios credit for something they originally owned until 2019 when they were bought? They're not using the company to disturb their mature content (since Hollywood Pictures is gone) while Disney disturbs the G to PG-13 content. 2601:408:701:BD10:AB50:CF1D:DF89:D9E4 (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thus far, everyone who has pointed to the logo has speculated about 20th Century's involvement without providing any sources that actually back-up those claims. See WP:SYNTHESIS for more on this concept. We cannot go off of a logo alone as proving 20th actually produced this film, and the fact it was not listed as a credited production company in this billing or as a distributor is enough weight that it is not credited other than for holding copyright to the Deadpool and Wolverine characters. We have a source affirming Disney is distributing this film, and it does not matter what other films or studios have done in the past, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. From a real-world perspective, this is not out of the ordinary or hard to grasp upon, so I'm not sure why so many are hung over this logo and studio when it is clearly not directly involved. This talk page is also not the place to speculate about this logo or what it entails, and I will note that any further comments of that notion ought to be removed for being irrelevant, per WP:NOTAFORUM. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Can you at least state "This Is the first Deadpool film not to have 20th Century Studios' involvement" (the logo in the void doesn't count as being involved) if this turns out to be true when it releases in theaters? 2601:408:701:BD10:AB50:CF1D:DF89:D9E4 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
That is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and unnecessary to state anywhere, either in the lead or otherwise. 20th Century Studios is NOT involved in this and I don't see any sources indicating that will change from now to its release next month. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, you did forget about Lincoln (film), Shopgirl and Bridge of Spies (film). Jediknight15 (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Clearer shot of the billing block. It does seem that 20th Century only is getting a copyright for the film, though I don't know how we reflect that, if we even need to. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it needs a mention (especially in the lead) as that would be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Still not sure why so many cared about this in the first place. 20th isn't credited as a production company, so there really isn't any place to include them unless we have any sources that make light about this in some noteworthy way. At the very least, we may want to include the copyright on the poster file itself (it would be preferable to have the billing on the file, though I know that is not always available). Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I found the American poster with billing here and have since uploaded it, and noted 20th's copyright on the file, as well. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
So what does the poster mean for 20th Century Studios? Are they just a copyright holder or are they distributing the film (with the logo shown on the theatrical poster)? Both Deadpool films before this one weren’t produced but distributed by 20th Century Studios (Fox at the time). 2601:408:701:BD10:11A4:44A2:9F4F:F9DF (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
As explained above, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures is the distributor, per this source. 20th Century only receives copyright credit for its involvement in the prior Deadpool films. We don't know if/where it's logo may be shown in the film, either, nor does it mean they are a production company. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just want to mentions that the source you provided doesn't have any information about Deadpool & Wolverine.
Also, "20th isn't credited as a production company" is no longer can be a proof that 20th Century Studios not join in the production of this film since all New Regency films since 2022 also don't credited 20th as a production company. Plus, I found that IMDB is listed 20th Century Studios as one production company ([1], but I don't think this can be the best support source)
But by the way, instead waste time to argue these things, with I think the best way to conform "is 20th Century Studios received credit for this film" is wait the film's release and eveything will be clear. 2001:1970:57A3:D100:0:0:0:27C8 (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Altough we can not put the IMDB source of Company credits of Deadpool and Wolverine as 20th Century Studios is credited as "co-production, in association with" which the movie is distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures through their Walt Disney Pictures banner, so ofc, let's have hope if the 20th Century Fox logo appears but getting destroyed as a logo variant in the opening. TCFFanmade2006YT (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
https://www.ign.com/movies/deadpool-wolverine
In the IGN page of Deadpool & Wolverine mentions 20th Century Studios as distributor under the name of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. TCFFanmade2006YT (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Those are not the official credits and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation is a former name of 20th Century that is still sometimes used. IGN is also not the best source for these credits, anyway. The facts still stand that 20th Century Studios is NOT a production company or distributor, and I added an FAQ at the top of this talk to emphasize that for anyone else who may have this question. No other sources are going to reliably prove otherwise, so I would encourage those attempting to find a way to justify something that has been proven to be incorrect to just WP:DROPTHESTICK. 20th is only a copyright credit, and I feel this may be the last time I re-explain this for the time being and let the FAQ speak for itself. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would like to note that the only possible way 20th could be credited in this film is "Distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures through the 20th Century Studios label". But nobody can prove this technical knowledge right now. That is how, I believe all modern 20th Century films are distributed, as you'll know that 20th Century's theatrical and home entertainment distribution are handled by Walt Disney Studios MP and Walt Disney Home Ent, respectively. But hey, nobody can prove that, so I agree with you Trailblazer, let's not do anything until we see some receipts. Thank you for putting a great deal of your time into discussing to the other editors just why they don't need to jump the gun on this. With love, BarntToust (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can support that. SolshineBenie (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is nothing to support here as there is still no reliable source for anything, nor do we know if any source will provide any relevant details about this yet. If a source does eventuate that sheds some light about this copyright credit and logo use, then we can have a separate discussion about it (rather than dragging this on for longer than it needs to be). I will note that the marketing art for The Fantastic Four also include the 20th Century copyright credit, so this is not something inherently new or out of left field. All it takes is time and patience, and may I remind everyone of WP:NORUSH, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. Thank you. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, we understand that. SolshineBenie (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just wanted to say that I uploaded a new version of the poster image (which now includes the MPA rating box, Hollywood Records' logo, etc.) that was missing from that earlier one. Looks more complete now. It does need to be resized though, so if anyone can do that bit that would be great! I tried myself but I couldn't for the life of me get it to look good without hampering quality! Also, adding my two cents: I completely agree with Trailblazer101's approach to this issue. In situations like these, it's always prudent to take the wait-and-see approach: do not speculate, synthesize info, or theorize! ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 22:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Jedi94: I tagged the image for Wikipedia's internal bots to come and reduce the size. Usually the safest/most accurate way to get it done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Trailblazer101 Hey, thanks for again repeating my sentiments on how we treat treat why/how the 20th Century logo appears, and thank you for pointing out the credit of F4 art. I do believe @SolshineBenie was remarking that this is possible, not that anything tangible exists to support. We would do well to understand how most of the companies work in distribution, so we can better comprehend this project we all seem so dedicated to work on. I wanna thank you once again for explaining and carrying discourse around this topic. I think that if anything comes of this, a new discussion is needed. It does take a bit of scrolling to get here to add a comment, lol! Thank you for establishing order to this discussion, it really helps to benefit this article. With much love, BarntToust (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Favre1fan93 it's on this in this article as followed:
"Hugh Jackman as Logan in 'Deadpool & Wolverine'. 20TH CENTURY STUDIOS/MARVEL - https://ew.com/deadpool-and-wolverine-cover-story-cameos-future-marvel-mutants-ryan-reynolds-hugh-jackman-8672079 2600:6C5D:0:A41:EC69:8561:4580:1FD6 (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@2600:6C5D:0:A41:EC69:8561:4580:1FD6
also:
https://www.20thcenturystudios.com.au/movies/deadpool-and-wolverine 2600:6C5D:0:A41:EC69:8561:4580:1FD6 (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Again, that is just a copyright credit that 20th retains for this film. It does not confirm them as a production company. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Via sources like Variety and Metacritic: A Walt Disney Motion Pictures Studios release of a Marvel Studios production, in association with 20th Century Studios, TSG Entertainment. Producers: Kevin Feige, Ryan Reynolds, Shawn Levy, Lauren Shuler Donner. Executive producers: Louis D’Esposito, Wendy Jacobson, Mary McLaglen, Josh McLaglen, Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick, George Dewey, Simon Kinberg 2601:408:701:BD10:CDEA:41D4:9D54:57DD (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Per page 3 of the official credits PDF, 20th Century Studios and TSG Entertainment's "In Association With" credit is not the same as a production credit. Again, this is a Marvel Studios / Maximum Effort / 21 Laps Entertainment production. 20th's copyright credit and TSG co-financing the film DO NOT make them production companies, and they are clearly not credited as such. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
If anyone has seen the film, please let us know if the 20th Century Studios logo appears in it as an actual opening logo. Thanks! Mattgelo (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
That would change literally nothing. The logo is not shown in the end credits with the others (as seen from pages 27-29 here), and even if it were just the logo shown on screen, that would not change the fact that 20th Century Studios is ONLY credited for the copyright and "In Association With", but not as a production company. No technicalities will change that, even after all this discussion, no evidence has proved 20th being a production studio. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK, this is clearly not going to turn out any differently than it has already. As someone who is seeing the film tomorrow at midnight and works at a movie theater reviewing the footage, this will not matter in the grand scheme of things. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I didn't say to add 20th as a production/distribution company here, I was just curious, and I know it will not change a thing. Anyways, hope you enjoy the movie :) Mattgelo (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Then that falls under WP:NOTAFORUM. Please keep discussion here for any contributions to this article and refrain from making any general comments, as those are not appropriate here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Final time: My guess of the logo appearing is the same reason you see the Paramount logo on The Avengers, Iron Man 3, and Indiana Jones: and the Dial Of Destiny. So, my guess is, you'll still see the 20th Century Studios logo in the opening (and maybe at the end), but it'll say "Disturbed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures". I heard people say from their non-spoiler review that this is released under the 20th Century banner. So rather than complaining that it's not, we just watch the movie once it officially releases in our country (for me this friday because im from the United States) and then well see if thats true (and plus Disney usually has a banner to disturb R-rated films. And since Touchstone is dead, 20th Century Studios will probably be used instead) 2601:408:701:BD10:2651:5EE2:F196:ABF9 (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
That is all WP:OR and not appropriate to theorize here. Please stop making these comments as this crosses WP:NOTAFORUM. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Since you probably came back im gonna guess: 20th Century Studios only received copyright holding credit and with association credit too and the film doesnt open up with the 20th Century Studios logo. Is that correct? (Not trying to be mean) 2601:408:701:BD10:2651:5EE2:F196:ABF9 (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can affirm that, as with many prior MCU films, no other logos are in the opening other than Marvel Studios' (no Disney, no 20th, etc). Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
can we give them a studio credit note like iron man 3 and Indiana jones 5? Jediknight15 (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
That is not how this works. The studio is not credited as a production studio. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Trailblazer101 (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Jediknight15, kindly refrain from readding Deadpool & Wolverine in the 20th Century Studios's article despite the discussion here saying that the aforementioned studio is not involved in the production. I'm not sure why you insist on adding the studio here (and listing the film in the studio's article) despite multiple editors already providing source/s. Centcom08 (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Centcom08 I did not add that movie in the article, i only added the present date as the franchise is still going. by that logic, why has Star Wars still got a "present date"? Fox hasnt been involved in it since 2005 and maybe some re releases. Jediknight15 (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I noted about the film's "In association with" credits in the production section where we talked about TSG here. This feels acceptable and a way for us to at least note 20th Century as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think a very brief mention like that feels appropriate, Favre1fan93. Considering all the Fox-era copyrighted material that is in this film, 20th Century Studios's minimal involvement here (and I stretch the use of the word "involvement") is at most just a legacy associate credit, ("in association with") like Paramount had with two other MCU films. There is no 20th Century Studios logo that opens this film, only Marvel Studios. Nothing more needs to be mentioned of it, and that includes within the infobox parameters, aside from perhaps a footnote denoting to a reader what Trailblazer101 has been extensively explaining for the last couple of months. But even that may just be catering to a select audience...~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 16:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Maybe you can add on distributor based on what Forbes said.
source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timlammers/2024/07/25/when-is-deadpool--wolverine-coming-to-digital-streaming-and-disney/ 122.3.133.206 (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Forbes is not reliable for this and doesn't support it. The material Favre added is sufficient and covers the relevant information. I don't think we need to explain this in a note as 20th was never known to be involved in a production/distribution manner, and that was only baseless speculation that I don't believe amounts to us addressing on here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was thinking the same thing with just the single mention in the top part of the article. Since it's the conclusion of 20th Century's film series, I think mentioning that connection really brings the whole thing together. Doesn't even need to be long as what Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny did with the Paramount mention, I think just adding "in association with 20th Century Studios [and TSG Entertainment; optional]" in between the "produced by" and "distributed by" sections in the opening sentence would be enough to suffice. IAmNMFlores (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
As I have explained multiple times, that would be placing WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on that as the credit does not merit any actual involvement in the film's production and is only given because 20th was involved in the past and has copyright holding. We already note these credits at the end of the "Filming" section where it is relevant, though it does not need to be in the lead. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh I didn't notice that before. Yeah that's fair. IAmNMFlores (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Do I have the go ahead to add a citation next to the Marvel Studios production company that says "While the film is released under the Marvel Studios banner, the film is copyrighted to 20th Century Studios." I'm asking before I do that so I can find out if it helps to avoid confusion with distribution and production companies for this film? GTAGamer245 (talk) 04:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, this does not need to be noted as 20th Century's copyright status is not relevant to the production companies. Marvel Studios is the main production company. See the multiple times I have explained this in this very discussion. 20th's involvement (or lack thereof) is not that notable to warrant this type of mention. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Critical reception

Latest comment: 2 months ago79 comments14 people in discussion

Why can’t we add the critical reception to the lead? It’s been about a week now since the film released which is plenty of time for critics to form their analysis. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

nobody can tell a definitive consensus of the film. is it polarizing? is it mostly positive? it sure seems to be commercially successful, but there is really no set answer to what was thought about it.
"while the film received both positive and negative reviews from critics, it was a commercial success, grossing..."
no conclusion to draw to. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Bumping again since no one seems to have given a response to this. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Nyxaros: Please explain why adding an accurate representation of the critical response section is apparently NPOV or SYNTH. It is what is written there in the section. We need to suggest something to be added there as the film has been out for about three weeks now which is plenty of time to craft a general consensus of these reviews. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 12:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
What is your suggestion? - adamstom97 (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
There isn't really a conclusion to draw here. Some think it's divisive as all hell, others say it's been well-recieved. The only conclusion to draw here is that at least critically, there isn't really a general consensus. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I mean we can say MoM was also the same thing. And shouldn’t we be putting more weight towards the critics from the trades? Some of the ones in the ref bundle claiming it was divisive are lesser-known, with the exception of NYT. Maybe we can just say “mixed to positive reviews” to cover the whole spectrum. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Were there any complaints from viewers with regards to the amount of swearing, foul language and violence in the film?"195.244.197.30 (talk) 05:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)"Reply

We are in 2024, not 1954. Foul language doesn't surprise anymore213.230.92.215 (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Comment: None of your additions were "accurate". You implied that positive reviews were predominant but that several sources "claimed" that it divided critics. This is not what is written in the reception section. On the contrary, there are more sources reporting that the film was divisive. ภץאคгöร 15:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC) Moved message down to correct reply sequence. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
If that’s the case, then, as I suggested above, we should just say “mixed to positive reviews” which I think covers this whole range including the divisive ones. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Do not edit the related content without a consensus + there's no such thing as "mixed-to-positive", which is, again, a synthesis. ภץאคгöร 23:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
So then please suggest what we should put there as we are just going in circles. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment: It's only been two weeks. Tertiary sources work at sloth speeds. See WP:NORUSH. DonQuixote (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment – I agree with this removal by Nyxaros. It is clear there is no consensus for that wording, and historically, WP:FILM has not supported that kind of language in film articles (e.g., "mixed-to-negative", "mixed-to-positive", etc.). If you search the talk archives of the film project, you'll find discussions dating back more than a decade.
    At film articles, critic summary discussions seem to crop up every few weeks or months. It usually comes down to whether or not the sources generally agree, and two of the most prominent in the beginning are Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. When they disagree, it's usually a sign that we should be avoiding a critical reception summary statement in the lead. For smaller films, you might find enough to support one direction over the other, but for larger blockbusters like this film, it's doubtful. There will be more published, and eventually the spectrum will reflect the disparity and disagreement we're seeing between RT and MC. Best to leave it out at this point. My 2¢. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    So then take a similar approach to what Joker did, i.e. “the film polarized critics..” as that is literally what the section supports. Then follow with what is broadly praised and whatnot. This hasn’t been an issue with MCU film articles but for whatever reason this one is being intensely looked at. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 03:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    "Polarizing" is one thing. when you have a bunch of sources saying that exact thing, well that would have been appropriate. But, there are other sources calling it "mostly positive". Consensus is "polarized" between 'polarizing' and 'positive'. It's meta, yes, but it shows nobody can decide whether it was thought of positively or both ways. we cannot decide either. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Then we can just say “The film split critics, with some giving it divisive reviews, while others said it gave positive reviews.” I think that’s the best we can do without avoiding SYNTH. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Just another way of expanding on divisive. Keep in mind that it is the sources that are split. As soon as you say that the critics are split, you are opposing some of those sources.
    If you were going to write this, it would have to be something like, "Some publications such as USA Today reported that the film received positive reception from critics, while others like the New York Times stated it was more divisive." But again, that is a mouthful for the lead and is better dealt with in the body. Then there's the concern of WP:WEASEL. We don't really know what the split entails, because we should not be aggregating the sources to determine if this is a true split down the middle. It could be 70-30, 80-20, etc., in favor of one over the other. The use of "some" is arguably questionable. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    (edit conflict) There are a significant number of sources that say the overall reception was positive, not divisive. Not only that, but there are prominent sources making that assessment including Rotten Tomatoes (an aggregator) and USA Today (cited in the article). If this is summarized as "polarized", which also means divisive, then you are essentially picking a winner by choosing the sources that cite divisiveness. The only proper conclusion that can be drawn is what is written in the opening sentence of the "Critical response" section, and I see no reason to repeat that in the lead, since it doesn't really provide any value, but that's essentially what you'd have to do if you wanted something. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Word. Thank you GoneIn60. Couldn't've said it better myself. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I feel like that’s the best option to put in the lead, even if it’s a bit wordy. But you said it’s what’s best to add without running into any issues, so I’ve added that if that’s what should be there. Should critics opinions on the film change in the coming weeks we can definitely change it. But please let me know if it should be tidied up any further. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 02:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    MarioProtIV, I'm not sure why you're having a hard time understanding that we are still having a discussion and haven't reached an agreement. This is the 2nd or 3rd time now that you've impatiently plucked a suggestion from the discussion and inserted it into the article, guessing that other editors might be okay with it. When I said, "I see no reason to repeat that in the lead", another editor agreed. It would be better to wait until others have weighed in and some form of consensus has been reached. Right now we don't have that. If you need help understanding this concept, ask for help on your talk page or at WP:TEA. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I guess I’m just annoyed that this kind of discussion about the critical reception is even taking this long because in the past, it really has not been this much of a hassle even for MCU film articles, even for films that split critics. I haven’t seen any suggestions on how to improve this, and if I’m not mistaken, RT is not a great indicator to include for critic reviews in the lead, and Metacritic was more or less used/more weight put on In that case, the “mixed to average reviews” by critics there seem to corroborate the divide in divisive vs positive reviews. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 06:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    There is WP:NOHURRY, wait until there is consensus for new wording. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
So I came up with a few options we could use to put in the lead without sounding redundant or SYNTH.
Option 1 - "Sources differ on the reception the film received: some said it recieved divisive reviews, while others claimed it received positive reviews upon opening. Nevertheless, it was a box office success, grossing $1 billion… […]" – This rewords what the section says while making things a little more clearer. The transition to the box office success is worded in a way to sepeeate that from the reviews.
Option 2 - "Reviews of the film differ by source: some say it was divisive amongst critics, while others said it received positive reviews." - Short and straight to the point while not being SYNTHy.
Option 3 - "The film received both positive and divisive reviews according to critics, […]" - I feel this might be the least bloated of them and still summarizes the split in the sources (not the reviews).
Hopefully, maybe we can work towards something from here. If anyone has any better ideas please feel free to leave them here. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I mean, option 3 seems the best, but replace the word "both" with something along the lines of "either". but not that word specifically.
We have decided what the reception is. It is being "either positive or divisive". We need to figure out how to convey that. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
being both positive or divisive. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
YodaYogaYogurt154, just a heads up that I copied this down into a 'Survey' section below with more of the options discussed earlier. Letting you know so you can weigh in again, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Survey

Let's get the options together properly, and let's also realize there are actually two questions that need to be asked.

1) Should a critical summary statement be added to the lead section?
2) Among the following options for that statement, if it is added, which one is worded best?

A. Some reported that the film was well received by critics, while others found overall reception to be more divisive.
B. Some publications such as USA Today reported that the film was positively received by critics, while others like the New York Times determined it to be more divisive.
C. Reviews of the film differ by source: some say it was divisive amongst critics, while others said it received positive reviews.
D. The film received positive and divisive reviews according to critics.

Please note: If the consensus supports Question #1, then the statement with the most support from Question #2 will be selected.

Also, this isn't a formal RfC. Keeping it local, assuming there will be enough participation at this talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note: Pinging Adamstom.97, MarioProtIV, Nyxaros, DonQuixote, and YodaYogaYogurt154. Would be nice to finally get some closure here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just to clarify for #1, do you support or oppose (or are you neutral)? --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think #1 is not the way we should go. Critical reception is relevant to the point it is unclear. that's something that extra-deserves to be in the lead. so, no to 1, yes to 2A (with Trailblazer101's provisions) YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
It would be very odd to leave a brief sentence about the critical reception out of the lead. As I noted in my response, it’s basically a silent consensus to have it in the lead, especially for MCU articles. I’m not sure why you think this film needs to be the exception whereas it’s a pretty standard thing to include, and with the right wording is no harm at all. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 12:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
You can look at it two ways, 1 being that we're reflecting two differing viewpoints or 2, that we are trying to come to a conclusion on what was the general consensus. I support what I've said above for the first case, but not so much for the second. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
if we are reflecting that there are two distinct viewpoints, Yes on 1; otherwise it's a no for me if we are trying to come to a definitive conclusion on what was the one consensus. There appear to be two of those and I think we need to reflect that there are two distinct metrics here. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
i just know Mario has been trying to come to a conclusion but there is no one conclusion here. there are two generally cited appraisals. should we reflect the two appraisals in the lead? Yeps, I think so myself 👍 YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
That’s pretty much what I wanted to know so thank you for clarifying. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
also want to ping @Favre1fan93, @Trailblazer101 and @BarntToust for their input. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Support 1, 2A - As one of the proposers I’ve had some time to look it over, and I find that 2A works best. Regarding point 1, at least for the MCU taskforce from my observation, it is basically a “silent consensus” if you will to always have the brief summary of the critical reception in the lead. Addiotnslly, a casual viewer will more likely check the critical reception section itself to view the content after reading it in the lead, and also easier for their process of seeing whether or not the film is good. A little bit trivial, but this is basically my line of thought which I think is pretty much known amongst editors, even in the broader film prospect (non-MCU/non-Marvel/superhero films). Basically, it would be off-putting to not include it in the lead. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 02:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm not exactly sure why this has to be a one-or-the other approach, although I believe we should stick to what all the sources state rather than trying to come to our own conclusion based on them (which would veer into WP:SYNTH territory). From my understanding, both the positive and divisive responses seem accurate and correct here. I think 2A covers this appropriately, is WP:CONCISE, and is currently reflected by the sourcing in the article. I am indifferent on what a lead summary should state, although I will point out that many of the recently-released MCU film articles (ie Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and Black Panther: Wakanda Forever to name a couple) do not have overall receptions beyond a generalized statement because it may take a while for an overall critical summary to come into fruition other than just a general brief summary. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That's actually an excellent point, Trailblazer101. We should probably strike "overall" from 2A and perhaps replace it with "the". -- GoneIn60 (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Trailblazer101, would it be accurate to say your !vote is "Neutral 1, Support 2A" (with Adam's revision)? --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That is correct. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Support 1; Choose 2A as it makes the most sense per above. #1 wouldn't be the end of the world, but #2A is the most accurate to what is in the prose. BarntToust (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Might I add that we are beyond coming to a definitive conclusion about the critical consensus at this point with what is in the prose. We just need to determine how to reflect that "some said it was a pretty good movie" while others were like: "It was divisive". That is what we know. Or maybe not reflect that at all if that is not what we determine. I'd like to reflect what that is however. BarntToust (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Ping for the input of two experienced editors: @KingArti and @Richiekim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarntToust (talk • contribs) 22:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose 1, Support 2A – Marcello Domenis (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose 1, Support 2B w/ sources. 2A only makes sense if you have read this dissertion, and most readers will have not read this. Porpose changing "Some publications such as USA Today reported that the film was positively received by critics, while others like the New York Times determined it to be more divisive." to simply "USA Today reported that the film was film was positively received by critics, while the New York Times described it to be more divisive." Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    We do not need to mention these publications as that is not what is important here and would be placing WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on them. What is important and relevant to this reception is what the reception summary is, not where it was determined. A general statement suffices. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I hear that, but saying "some sources" when we have one each giving conflicting overall reception. I think naming them as we have one each would help let readers make up their mind on it and be more accurate than saying "sources". Can't say my heart is set on it as it's not that different really, but that's just my two cents.Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I believe Adam's suggestion below would handle this wording adequately. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Support 1, Support 2A with slight adjustment for clarity: Some publications reported that the film was well received by critics, while others found the initial reception to be more divisive. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Support 1, Support 2A with Adam's provisions - according to his specific wording approach. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Agreed with Adam’s provisions: I think his version would work best. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Concern – Hate to be the odd man out, but "initial" can be a bit ambiguous. Is this the initial reception before the film's release, during the film's release, right after the film's release, etc.? Obviously we know, but it's not self-explanatory the way it's written. Personally, I think it reads fine if we drop "initial" and just say "the reception". --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    This sentence only covers the first reviews that came out, per the sources in the article. I think you are being a bit nitpicky, but we could use the same wording as the article already has: Some publications reported that the film was well received by critics, while others found the reception upon opening to be more divisive. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Ok, true. Perhaps I am! Fine with whatever the consensus decides! Just trying to keep the reader in mind. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah, we can workshop the grammar around to whatever works the smoothest. Prose flow can always work around and with "what information do we want to reflect in the lede?" YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Agreed with adamstom97's provisions. Those would work best. BarntToust (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose 1, but were it to succeed, then 2A as clear and consise. The other options lack either clarity, concision, or both. But really, reception information belongs in the section for that, and is a moving target anyway (albeit a slowly moving one). If a film garnered overwhelmingly negative or overwhelmingly positive reviews, and there is no doubt about it, that might be lead-worthy encyclopedic information in some cases, especially if this is an assessment after many years have passed. But temporary uncertainty about the accuracy of short-term review aggregation (i.e., observation of the fact that the aggregators contradict each other) is no way key encyclopedic information that belongs in the lead.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Well said. Generally how I've felt about summary statements for years. There's always this rush to include one in the lead without giving much thought as to whether it's the right move. The knee-jerk, shining of a bright light on this one aspect occasionally places too much emphasis and weight on run-of-the-mill review aggregation from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, especially when the two are at odds, or the consensus is just middle of the road (implying a "mixed" range that Rotten Tomatoes just doesn't have a good gauge for). As we see here, it even happens when we have conflicting sources outside of RT and MC. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

MarioProtIV, just to clarify a point about silent consensus, also known as "presumed consensus" or WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Although many film articles (and not just MCU-related films) contain a silently-accepted critical reception summary in the lead, the exceptions out there are usually the ones that held discussions on their talk page. What works at one article may or may not work at another. Silent consensus is localized to the article it forms in, meaning it has no bearing or weight in another article (see WP:OTHERCONTENT). It is also the weakest form of consensus that only exists until it is "disputed or reverted".
Thought maybe that would help, since you brought it up more than once as if it should have some bearing here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
WesleyTRV, please do not change the wording in the article when it explicitly says not to in the note, as well as during a discussion on forming a consensus on the matter here on the talk page. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • BarntToust, an RfC makes sense at this point, but would you consider withdrawing the question (below) and briefly discussing ways to rephrase it? I think doing so will give us a better outcome. From the above discussion, it sounds like the question should simply ask if 2A (with adamstom97's revision) should be inserted into the lead section. Narrowing down the choice simplifies the !votes for both participants and the closer. We should also briefly summarize the argument for and against inclusion (1-2 sentences for each). Optionally, we can refrain from weighing in until others start to; let's see what a few uninvolved editors think before we begin repeating arguments and !votes. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    So far as I'm concerned, we have to ask whether or not we want to describe the critical reception, and if so, how. I'm not going to have another local discussion on what I'm gonna rephrase this as, because look at how far local discussions have gotten us. I'm giving @GoneIn60 full power in how they'd like to reword this. No need to discuss how you're going to do it, but just sum up things so they make sense. Thanks! BarntToust (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I will be traveling most of the day, unfortunately. If someone beats me to the punch, feel free. Otherwise, I'll have time later tonight. Thanks! -- GoneIn60 (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    BarntToust, given SMcCandlish's response already to the RfC, you may want to go ahead and close that one out. We can open a new one after we've given the above survey a bit more time as suggested. A neutral discussion notice like {{Please see}} can be dropped at WT:FILM to invite more participation in the interim. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFC

A request for the input on the talk page of Deadpool & Wolverine on the section Talk:Deadpool & Wolverine#Critical reception: subsection Talk:Deadpool & Wolverine#Survey. We have tried to form a consensus on how to deal with the unclear critical reception and whether/how it should be reflected in the header of the article.

  1. Should a critical summary statement be added to the lead section?
  2. Among the following options for that statement, if it is added, which one is worded best?
    1. Some reported that the film was well received by critics, while others found overall reception to be more divisive.
    2. Some publications such as USA Today reported that the film was positively received by critics, while others like the New York Times determined it to be more divisive.
    3. Reviews of the film differ by source: some say it was divisive amongst critics, while others said it received positive reviews.
    4. The film received positive and divisive reviews according to critics.

Please note: If the consensus supports Question #1, then the statement with the most support from Question #2 will be selected. BarntToust (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • Improper RfC. See WP:RFC. And RfC should ask a specific clear question, not be an open-ended "we don't have consensus so keep jabbering" invitation. RfCs take time away from editors other tasks and need to be focused on attempting to achieve consensus to do or not do a particular thing. PS: The ongoing discussion above this is not even concluded. If the intent was to make THAT an RfC, then the RfC tag goes at the top of that thread (it's fine to add one after a discussion has been ongoing a while). What is not helpful is opening a confusing "counter-RfC" below an active/ongoing discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I tried to edit the thing to be clearer. I figure the above should be closed per NOCONSENSUS. It was 10 days, and it likely wasn't set to go anywhere from there. BarntToust (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I disagree with closing the earlier survey and starting over, especially when it is still getting feedback. SMcCandlish just weighed in, and as suggested, a discussion notice can be left at the WikiProject to try to get more participants (or simply make the existing discussion an RfC). --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
1. A critical summary statement may be beneficial here to allow for a neutral explanation of the critic reviews.
2. I like B as the option because you have an ability to use sources and it gives credibility. 🦄✨bedazzledunicorn✨🦄 21:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

T.J. Miller

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is this worth mentioning? Kailash29792 (talk) 09:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I doubt that is the actual reason he isn't in the film. Would be better to have comments from the people who made it. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Category:Male bisexuality in film

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I had previously added Category:Male bisexuality in film to this article, but it was removed because it was apparently not a major or defining aspect of the film. I disagree, since the central premise of the film is that Deadpool wants to do something important to get back with Vanessa, and he flirts with Wolverine throughout the film. I think that Deadpool's attraction to both men and women is a central and important part of the film that drives the primary character interactions and the plot. I'm going to add the category back, if you disagree please discuss here. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is Deadpool bi in the films? In the comics he is pan. I don't think the films have confirmed either beyond a few winking references. This is certainly not a film about bisexuality. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
"the central premise of the film is that Deadpool wants to do something important to get back with Vanessa, and he flirts with Wolverine throughout the film" Deadpool always jokes around and is rarely to be taken seriously. His flirting with Wolverine is all part of a gag and not something that is as central to the plot compared to his desire to be with Vanessa again. We don't even know concretely if Deadpool is bisexual in this film or not, so this reads like WP:Original research to me. This is a buddy comedy, yes, but one character who is known for making these types of inappropriate or sexual quips showing some signs of attraction to another character of the same gender does not mean bisexuality is a major defining aspect of the film. I am removing the cat for these reasons, and it should not be readded while this discussion is ongoing. Plus, there are already cats for LGBTQ topics that cover those aspects of Deadpool. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Comedy film

Latest comment: 1 month ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Can we edit the headline as American comedy film instead of superhero film for the Deadpool films since the film's primary genre is comedy Ashokkumar047 (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

No. Per MOS:FILMGENRE, only the primary genre of the films should be used in the lead, and that is superhero because Deadpool is first and foremost a superhero character. Comedy is a mainstay sub-genre of many superhero works, but it is not the primary one. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Ashokkumar047: When making a claim you'd like to see inserted into the article, please provide at least one source that supports it. This helps other editors determine if it's coming from a reliable source. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Trailblazer101: It is worth noting that AFI lists "Adventure" as the primary genre and "Action" as sub-genre for two Wolverine films. For the original Deadpool, it lists "Adventure, Comedy" for primary and "Action" for the sub-genre. No mention of the lesser-known "superhero" genre. BFI's site is currently having issues, so I couldn't check there at the moment.
    Now if we hop over to AllMovie, we see a ton of genres, with superhero mentioned as one of two sub-genres (but notably, it's not the primary sub-genre). And from this discussion, we can pretty much discard AllMovie as a trustworthy source anyway. So if the superhero genre is going to be relied upon in these articles, meaning we are going to ignore the big guns AFI and BFI, then we probably need to start tying the claim to scholarly print sources (e.g., books, trade magazines, tertiary sources, etc) and stop relying on lower-quality online sources like Screen Rant and CBR. You agree? Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • We are going to discard expert sources on film like Screen Rant and rely on "scholarly" trivia? That sounds like a way to make Wikipedia unreliable. I don't have much faith on these kind of print sources. Dimadick (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Well now don't get into a huffy puff about it. The nature of the film industry generally means that we are dealing with pop culture, and as such, we sometimes only have access to pop culture resources like Screen Rant and so forth for some claims. That's the nature of the beast we all accept. And look, I'm not knocking everything they do. They do good work from time to time, but let's be real. Sites like these have a very different responsibility to their intended target audience than say an academic journal publishing a research study that will undergo significant peer review. A pop culture publisher is under pressure to churn things out daily to remain relevant; minor mistakes with fewer details is acceptable. Rumor and speculation is fine. It all sells, because that's their business.
      There's no denying that fact, and regardless of what you believe, Wikipedia has a stance when it comes to hierarchy: WP:SOURCETYPES
      Furthermore, where did I say we should abandon expert sources on film? Did you even read my post? AFI and BFI aren't expert sources on film? --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Perhaps AFI doesn't use "superhero" as a genre? Because pretty much everyone else does and consensus is clear that superhero movies are listed as superhero movies in the lead. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Now I do realize I've stumbled into Marvel territory, so you'll have to forgive me for not being up to speed on past conversations. Don't worry adamstom97 (or Dimadick). I'm not here to rock your boat or make ripples in your pond. I simply asked a fair question, and if you already have an established consensus that you strongly believe won't change (i.e. WP:CCC doesn't apply right now), fine by me. It was just a question. From a WikiProject POV, we have generally considered AFI and BFI as a good starting point. Good to know you've taken it a step further and determined that a majority of other sources have reached a different conclusion.
      Just for my reference, do you happen to have a link to one of the recent discussions? I'll bookmark it, thanks. GoneIn60 (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
      This is not something that has really necessitated consensus to determine because it has been quite obvious to many that these superhero films have that as the primary genre. I'm sure there are plenty of sources out there beyond just Screen Rant dissecting the superhero film genre and if these film leads need sources, there are definitely plenty of refs in each article that refer to them predominantly as superhero films, so it is just a matter of skimming through them if desired. We are not discounting AFI or BFI here. This has been an WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS among the editors of these superhero films for years and I personally have not seen enough of a push (or sources) to deter from using this genre as the primary one. I think such a drastic change like this, let alone the idea, ought to be discussed at WT:FILM if there are more concerns to be raised in whole. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Well Trailblazer, as you can clearly see, this thread was started on the very basis that it was not obvious to someone (a newer editor). And then when I began my research as I typically would for any film, I also began with a different finding. So it wasn't obvious to me either. Yes, these are superhero films, but is the superhero sub-genre a widely-accepted primary genre or sub-genre? That's the basic question being asked. Two of our most basic jump-off points from different sides of the Atlantic don't recognize it, so maybe it's just a pop culture label. That's just one thought.
      If someone decides to challenge the listed genre, per MOS:FILMGENRE, you'd be required to show it has adequate support in reliable sources (and the film in question is specifically mentioned in those sources). Also the statement from adamstom97 that "consensus is clear" seemed to indicate to me that this was discussed at one point, but if not, good to know as well. Just taking notes for future reference. Like you said, perhaps this should be revisited at some point (or maybe I should say "visited" if you haven't actually discussed it before, LOL).
      Oh and a quick note about presumed consensus...It's the weakest form of consensus that ceases to exist as soon as it's "disputed or reverted". You're better off citing a convincing argument for inclusion than you are saying nothing of substance, otherwise, a future discussion might see the content removed due to WP:ONUS. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Regardless of what all of these sites list other genres as, it cannot be refuted that these films based on comic book superhero characters are anything but superhero films. The superhero genre is largely a container genre that encompasses a wide variety of sub-genres (including science fiction, fantasy, action-adventure, comedy, drama, etc.), and this is evident by the varying sub-genres of several other Marvel works (ie Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a political thriller but is a superhero film primarily; Ant-Man is a heist comedy, as well). It's not like we should change every superhero film to remove that genre from the lead because a couple of classification sites chose not to list that genre, which has become widely popular and influential in the industry in the past couple of decades.
      While Screen Rant and other sites like it are by far not the best, there is no disputing the accuracy of using superhero film as the primary genre for these films. If anything, I would argue action is more of a prevalent genre to these superhero films (and to this film in particular) than comedy is, but those are still sub-genres of the all-encompassing superhero genre and I don't believe we should begin a new precedent now. The page superhero film exists for a reason and explains it is a multi-genre medium. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Fair enough. Appreciate the explanation. I think we posted at the same time. See my reply above. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deadpool_%26_Wolverine&oldid=1248929950"