Draft talk:Avengers: Doomsday

Adding Jonathan Majors/Kang

So in the THR article I found this quote:

Kang is being played by Jonathan Majors and was introduced in Disney+ series Loki. Kang, or a version of him, will be re-introduced in Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

It's so simple what this is saying: Jonathan Majors is playing Kang in THIS film, HOWEVER the variant of Kang he is playing is unclear if it's the same one from Quantamania (ex. if in Quantamania Kang dies but is replaced by one of the many Kang variants for The Kang Dynasty). We can still put Majors as Kang, all we have to add in the character description that it's unclear if it's a variant from the previous films. Iamnoahflores (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

That, to me, reads like "Kang is being played by Jonathan Majors [in the MCU]" but not explicitly that he is in this film. I haven't even seen confirmation that Kang will be in this film, let alone Majors, just speculation based on the title. I think it is very likely, which is why I added background info about Kang to the development section, but we need actual confirmation from a source that isn't speculating and isn't talking about the MCU in general. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

That's how I'm reading it as well. Hopefully we get a source specifically stating it soon. -- Zoo (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Right, even if obvious, it would be WP:SYNTH for us to add he'll be in the film. We at least need someone asking Majors about it and him talking about the film in a way it confirms he'll be part of it. —El Millo (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

This interview was close to a confirmation. He talked about it and said he was "floaty" after seeing the announcement. Although no denial either. -- Zoo (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you think that the reason no source stated was because it was incredibly obvious and didn't need to be pointed out in the first place? Iamnoahflores (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Possibly, even then we need to wait for someone to clarify it in a reliable source though. This happens every now and again, it can be frustrating if we think it is super obvious but unfortunately we just have to wait. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how "truthful" this is or was just in the moment for Majors, but MTV News started talking about this film and he was coy not knowing it had been announced, and then after learning it officially was, says "oh yeah I'm in it". It's only available on MTV News's TikTok here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel like he was truthful. Seemed like he was definitely looking around to make sure he could say something about it. -- Zoo (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

New moment in Deadline's article about Loveness' involvement:

Not much is known about the film, but a big character at the center of it is the new super villain set to wreak havoc on the MCU: Kang the Conquer, played by Jonathan Majors.

Come on now. IAmNMFlores (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

They still haven’t officially announced casting so I would hold off until they do so. Even going off of Deadline is a bit WP:SYNTH since it hasn’t been confirmed yet. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 02:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding Maslany?

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Ruffalo seems to have possibly spoiled Maslany’s involvement in Kang Dynasty. Full quote: " Joking with Ruffalo to “give me one year” of being the central Hulk after he’s played the character for a decade, Ruffalo agreed, “All right, you can have a year. No, she’s in now, there’s not going to be another Avengers without her.” That seemed a surprise to Maslany, who inquired, “What?” as Ruffalo confirmed, “That’s what I’m hearing.”" Even though Ruffalo has been prone to slip-ups the fact he didn’t retract that statement as soon as he said it and then followed up with “That’s what I’m hearing”, may seem to indicate that she may actually be confirmed for the movie. Thoughts? It kind of seems like the Majors situation above but I wanna see what others think. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that's anything we could go off of, "That's what I'm hearing" is pretty vague. Seems more like a general statement that she is an important character to the MCU now anyway. I would wait for a trade to actually report on it or for Feige to clarify. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems fair, considering Feige might now be forced to clarify and was probably trying to keep it hidden. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Waldron as writer

@Trailblazer101: You seem to have taken the quote from Wright’s interview out of context. Nowhere did he say was Waldron also writing The Kang Dynasty, only that he was working on both. It looks very likely that he was referring to Waldron being an executive producer on both films (which would make the most sense here), but he did not explicitly say he was replacing Loveness (whose exit is still unconfirmed by the trades, only reported/rumoured by people like Sneider). To assume he is would be tantamount to WP:SYNTH. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 02:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I took it from what was the most logical interpretation, given Waldron is the SW writer. Loveness' exit was just confirmed by Joanna Robinson, a reliable source. I am well aware the boundaries of SYNTH and have restored the relevant information with adjusted wording. Waldron has never been linked to either as an EP, that would be an assumption. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I definitely don't think we can use this source to suggest that Waldron is directly working on Kang Dynasty, all Wright is asked about is future multiverse projects and he says "I know Michael Waldron is working on them". It's a bit of stretch to say that he is writing this film based on that comment. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized that after the fact. With the whole creative team seemingly being replaced, it all seems to be up in the air now. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, now it's been confirmed. Lucky hunch, I suppose. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Waldron isn't writing any more.

Stephen McFeely, who co-wrote all four of the Russos’ Marvel films (including “Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” “Captain America: Civil War” and “Avengers: Infinity War”), is taking over script duties on both “Doomsday” and “Secret Wars.” He takes over from Michael Waldron (“Loki”), who was originally tasked with writing the script to “The Kang Dynasty” and “Secret Wars.” [1]

@Adamstom.97 BarntToust (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't say what you think it says. I have explained the situation clearly already. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

he "takes over" means something different than what you think it does. "taking over" does not mean adding to. your point ain't supported. BarntToust (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

McFeely "taking over script duties" from Waldron is not the same as McFeely "starting from scratch". There is nothing in the quote to indicate that Waldron's work is being discarded. We need proof of that happening before we remove Waldron, not the other way around. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Aha, something more direct. No double-negatives or otherwise similar logic either, I hear ya. Also, i removed him in the header prose too, so he'll need to be added back there as well if not done already. Thanks for explaining to me! have a good one. BarntToust (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Downey

Should Downey really be at the top? Hes not returning as Iron Man and is in a completely different role now so MCUFILMCAST shouldn’t apply to him. He was the last one announced after Feige said the F4 would be in both Avengers films. Also, we don’t usually put the villains first on the cast list in any way and the film posters usually just stick it at the bottom of the billing block when released anyway. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

How this cast list is ordered now ultimately won't matter once final billing is revealed. However, Adam is right in that prior franchise actors should be listed first. Even though Downey is now in a new role, this still applies to him, with the order than followed by the other actors from when they were revealed. To fully abide by MCUFILMCAST, the order should be Downey and Renner, then Cumberbatch and the FF actors. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I can agree with that GenerationZ2024 (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Doom as a variant of Stark

This has been reverted twice so I'm starting a topic. In their Chris Evans article, TheWrap explicitly says that Doctor Doom will be a variant of Tony Stark in the film: "But Downey Jr. is returning to Marvel as a Tony Stark variant after his onscreen version of Stark died in 'Endgame', so all options are on the table." As far as I'm aware, per WP:VNT, we can't pick and choose what to include from a reliable, high-quality trade source. I know that the Russos called the character "Victor von Doom", but technically, him being Doom and a variant of Tony aren't mutually exclusive. It could be a Tony Stark whose life changed at an early age, etc. There could be many explanations, it's the multiverse. Can't really continue without veering into original research territory, but I shouldn't need to anyway. A reliable source has said it, which should be enough to include it in the article. Aldwiki1 (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

But that’s their assumption of what RDJ’s role will be, which is almost WP:UNDUE in a way. The Russos themselves, who are directing and thus hold even more weight here then exclusive reporting by news organizations which can get things wrong, even explicitly said at the SDCC announcement that they chose RDJ because he could play the role of Doom the best - no mention of being a Tony variant and RDJ’s quip of “new mask same task” is meaningless as RDJ is known for quips and that was more then likely another quip rather then an explicit confirmation that this Doom is just another version of Tony. I’d rather take the Russos’ words from SDCC until we get further clarification from them, McFeely or RDJ on what his identity will be. Additionally, we’ll probably find out some details the closer we get to Fantastic 4 since he’s expected to make a PCS cameo there. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 06:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should be making a definitive judgement call on this because of the different levels of ambiguity surrounding which one is true or in which way. There is no point in us entertaining how one could be true when we don't concretely know if it is such. VNT would generally apply in practice, although, because it is an essay, it does not hold precedence over following what the creatives involved have all said, which in this instance is that RDJ is playing Victor von Doom, with no confirmation if this is a Stark variant or not. That is what ought to be reflected until we definitively know more with context. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The source is not reporting this as new information, it is making an assumption based on the existing information that is already out there. Therefore, we cannot use it to support the claim that Doom will be a Stark variant in this film. Just because something is written by a source that is generally considered to be reliable does not mean we trust it implicitly, we must always evaluate all sources before adding them to an article. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we can say with certainty that they're making an assumption. They don't use any wording to imply that, they use pretty precise language, which would make it original reasearch to look beyond the actual words used to take a guess at the intention. This is a reputable news source that is reporting on a potentially big piece of information. We can't ignore it just because it doesn't mesh with what we think is going to happen in the film. Attemps at explaining it away dips into original research territory. I still maintain VNT applies. If all are opposed to including it in the cast section, at the very least it should be mentioned in the body. And to make it clear that it wasn't widely reported, we can single it out with wording like "Umberto Gonzales of TheWrap reported that...". Aldwiki1 (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say "we can reveal that Downey will be playing a Stark variant" or "sources tell us that Downey will be playing a Stark variant" so there is not confirmation in the article that this is being reported as a new fact. So it would be a stretch to state that "Umberto Gonzales of TheWrap reported that Downey would be playing a Stark variant". - adamstom97 (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

And nowhere does it say "We think...", "probably", or "It would be safe to assume...", etc., so it would be a stretch to say that the author was making an assumption. We can go back and forth 50 times debating this, but it's not up to us pore over the intention behind their words. So why not just defer to VNT? Doesn't it exist for these exact kinds of situations? Aldwiki1 (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think VNT says what you think it says. Nowhere does it say "take all reliable sources at their word" or "if it appears in a reliable source it must be true". In fact it says the opposite of both. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't say that it must be true. I never claimed that it did. It stands for "verifiability, not truth." It is pretty obvious that it doesn't have to be true, which is exactly what I've been saying. I never claimed that this was a fact. I've only been saying it should be mentioned in the article, per VNT. If "reported" isn't accurate, then it can be simplied to "Umberto Gonzales of TheWrap said that..". They're a trade magazine, and Umberto Gonzales is their senior film reporter who breaks most of their exclusives. That has to be enough to merit at least a mention in the body. Aldwiki1 (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no requirement to add everything that is ever reported. How about WP:NORUSH, we can be patient and wait for confirmation from other sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why this is even up for discussion at this point. Because I'm not even saying that it should be presented as fact in the cast section. I'm only saying that we include the words of a trade magazine's senior film reporter in the body of the article. I fail to see how that's controversial or what the harm in it would be. I even suggested watering down the wording to "said". WP:RS and VNT generously allow for this. NORUSH would apply if I was asking that it be stated as fact. Aldwiki1 (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Multiple editors have disputed the addition and asked for stronger sourcing for its inclusion. We disagree that RS and VNT support the addition you made and have asked for patience. Not sure what is difficult to understand about that. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It's difficult to understand because RS and VNT actually support the addition. TheWrap is a trade magazine, RS supports that. The wording will reflect that the author simply said this in an article and won't present it as fact, VNT supports that. Can you elaborate on how they don't support the addition? Is TheWrap not a reliable source? Did the author not say this in the article? Aldwiki1 (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

If this was a report on Downey's character from TheWrap then I would agree it should be added. However, this is an offhand comment in an article about a different actor that appears to be an assumption. I and other editors believe we should hold off on adding it until there is more proof to support it, and you have not provided that proof or any reasoning to alleviate our concerns. Continuing to say that we should add it anyway because RS and VNT say we should (they don't) is not helping and is getting close to WP:DROPTHESTICK territory. If the author clarifies his report or a different reliable source comes out to support the info then we can reconsider. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

We're back to square one. As I've said before, it's not up to us to determine whether it's an offhand comment or if it appears to be an assumption. Continuing to say that we shouldn't add it due to these reasons is not helping and is getting close to, if not has already entered, WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH territory. If someone else was doing the same thing, nitpicking a trade article to gauge whether or they meant something, you'd have no qualms about saying that they're doing original research.

I'm simply proposing that a major publication's words be mentioned in the article, not presented as fact, but simply be noted that they said it. If there is a wiki policy that disallows that, I'll drop this and move on. And I never said that RS and VNT say we should add it, I only said they allow it. Second time you've put words in my mouth. Aldwiki1 (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It is "up to us to determine whether it's an offhand comment". We don't just add something because it is in a source that is generally reliable. It is part of our process here to ensure that the information we are adding is supported by a reliable source. We do this sort of thing all the time when a reliable source mentions something offhandedly that seems dubious. This is not a special case where I am trying to do something that we wouldn't usually do. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we are not required to refer to every comment in a generally reliable source. If other reliable sources start claiming that Dr. Doom will be a Tony Stark variant then it may be worth mentioning. But for now, one offhand comment by one source is not worth referencing. Rlendog (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Precisely. It does not matter how one person may or may not be interpreting an article. There are sources which question and cast doubt about the nature of this being true that are already noted in this draft. This is just another one added to the list. I read the RDJ returning as a Stark variant as referring more generally to the fact that the actor is playing a new role, but I digress. We don't know for certain what this will be at this time, and official first-party creatives have only said this is Victor von Doom, so there is no reason to say that is now not true. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

My five cents. There is a reliable source from only a couple of hours earlier. It does not answer the question in discussion, but it's pretty sure that the answer is that they are not variants. And there was nothing new during these hours, as far as we know. So the question is still in the air, and the only thing we can do is wait. Here is the source. IKhitron (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)