Talk:Thor (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Replacement on Thor #Idris Elba

Obviously we need something that will replace this deleted content, so I was thinking the following:

• "It's an extraordinary visual spectacular," says Elba. "It's different from anything else I've done; but at the same time, it's been pointed out to me that here I am playing a central, solid figure again – the one that people should trust. [1] I feel very proud of being part of that movie." [2]

This would bring the section back in to line with Wikipedia standards: KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 12:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I moved this discussion here from Conficutus's talk page for wider attention and input. Let me begin by saying we do not NEED anything, we would LIKE more insightful content from Elba. Unfortunately (and I do not mean to be disagreeable), but this not very constructive either. Elba again here is offering more praise for the film. The comment, "I am playing a central, solid figure again – the one that people should trust" doesn't say much of his interpretation of the character. The comments in the cast section our more than mere filler, and we should not be in habit of adding content for the sake of adding content. Frigga's and Hogun's sections are also very short for this same reason. If Elba makes a more substantial comment about the role we will add it. Until then remember there is no rush.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous. You are defending the right to put in something that is clearly WP:UNDUE - a controversy stir involving a very small minority of white supremacists - while silmutaneously finding fault in information that is appropriate for a filmcast sction i.e. "which uses well-written prose to describe the casting and staffing decisions made, as well as discussing the reasons behind some of the cast decisions, the thoughts of the actors themselves about their roles, and some brief explorations of their careers before and after the film, e.g:" [3], which the [[4] source] I have offered does. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 19:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that article would make a great source for the article about Elba, himself. But he doesn't say much of substance about this film specifically (since that wasn't the focus of the interview at large) beyond a couple of minor things about the controversy and a line or two that may be hard to parse without running the risk of interpretative language on our parts (I'm thinking specifically of the central solid character line there - I think I know what he means by that but it seems we may have to spell it out).

If I recall correctly, another source was put forth in the longer thread above where he made note of something more specific to his approach to this character. What if we used this source to mention his response to the controversy (colour blind casting or mentioning that he thought about race) and the other to address the acting approach? I do think we should mention the controversy but should keep it brief. It takes two sentences, at most, to cover what it entailed (not counting any response from cast and crew). I'm having another one of those moments where I fear I'm not making sense... am I? Millahnna (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Colour blind casting and what Idris thinks about race are also mentioned in this same [[5] source]. Plus, it's the best source we have about his views about the film and his role and his previous roles and how they have helped with the part. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 20:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Here's everything that is mentioned in the article about Thor: ""In scripts you are still often seen like that – imposing, athletic, scary," says Elba. "The way to break that cycle is just to do. Take my latest film, Thor, for example. It's not written for a black man – it's just a character. And that's the way forward."Thor is certainly a different kind of role for Elba – his first foray into the realm of the superhero. Based on the Marvel comics, Thor has been described by critics as a somewhat counter-intuitive blend of Nordic mythology, CGI special effects and the unlikely direction of Kenneth Branagh.Elba joins an impressive cast, including Anthony Hopkins and Natalie Portman, to play Heimdall, the god who mans the bridge between the human world and Asgard, the realm of the gods. He is clearly excited about the film and says he can't wait to take his nine-year old daughter Isan to see it."It's an extraordinary visual spectacular," says Elba. "It's different from anything else I've done; but at the same time, it's been pointed out to me that here I am playing a central, solid figure again – the one that people should trust. Take Stringer or Luther – that seems to be a common denominator in the characters I play."Casting Elba to play a Nordic god has not been without controversy. As a black person who was born in Norway, I tell Elba I personally don't see what all the fuss is about, prompting more of his trademark chesty chuckle."When Kenneth asked me to be part of it, I did find myself questioning race," Elba confesses. "But Kenneth hadn't even given that a thought. He just needed an actor who has presence and command, and felt that I fitted the bill."It was so refreshing – and a testament to him as an actor and director that his casting was genuinely colour blind. I feel very proud of being part of that movie." - which is quite a lot when considering User:TriiipleThreat keeps claiming there is very little information to put in the WP:CAST (hardly an excuse). And as I said above, the controversy can be reduced to one sentence. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 20:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, Elba's saying that he sees himself as a central figure in the film and that's he proud to be in this movie really are self-promotional and non-notable. Every actor sees his or her role as important, and every actor is proud to be in a big movie (and the script is the best ever and the director is an insightful genius, etc.) In journalism we call this "Dog bites man." I don't mean to sound flippant, and I respect your passion. But the quotes you give above really don't say anything significant or unusual. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know that's what he says in that article. That's why I mentioned it in my comment above. Like I said, what if we use the one or two lines about race from THIS source (i.e. the one you referenced in the comment I replied to) to note his reaction to the controversy (I think simply saying that he "questioned race" but ultimately liked the colour blind casting is sufficient) and the other source mentioned in the messy long thread above to note his thoughts on how to approach the character (the only specific I can remember at the moment is researching the source material). Millahnna (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see that in the article. The Elba quote I see there, which seems appropriate, is, "We have a man [Thor] who has a flying hammer and wears horns on his head. And yet me being an actor of African descent playing a Norse god is unbelievable? I mean, Cleopatra was played by Elizabeth Taylor, and Gandhi was played by Ben Kingsley".[30] --Tenebrae (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That works for me.Millahnna (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yawn. So you are gaming the system per playing dumb . Allow me to reiterate:

Currently, the Idris filmcast section is WP:UNDUE and contravenes WP:FILMCAST guidelines. On the neutral noticeboard it has already been commented that the controversy should not even be included. If it is, it should be a sentence long, because anything more would be giving too much weight to a blown-out-of-proportion controversy stir regarding a few disgruntled white supremacists who threatened a boycott - taking the form of a few hundred “likes” on facebook. Based on balance, we have stated that if the controversy be included, it can/should be one sentence long, saying “Idris Elba’s casting as a Norse god created a small controversy which Kenneth passed off as “daft” Idris as “ridiculous”.”In terms of the source that I have, please don’t get distracted. The issue here is the current state of the article. Once you sort out that, then you can focus on other sources. It’s called casting the beam out of your own eye. Currently, 80% of the Idris Elba filmcast section is devoted to addressing the controversy, and for User:Tenebrae’s sake, allow me to make clear that that includes Idris Elba’s defence. Or, put in a different way, they are no sentences whatsoever in Idris Elba's cast section that is relevant to WP:FILMCAST except the first one. Or, put in a different way, the section needs at the very least a . The section must be changed. Again, for those who have a complex with memory retention as seems to be the case, I have repeated it here: ““Idris Elba’s casting as a Norse god created a small controversy which Kenneth passed off as “daft” and Idris as “ridiculous”.” Please feel free to comment on the above sentence before I change the article. Thank you! KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 10:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? I am not gaming the system or playing dumb. If you intended that reply to go someone else, would you please indent appropriately? This sor tof thing has greatly contributed to the overall confusion in sorting out the arguments about the content here. Perhaps the complex isn't with memory retention but with clarity of conversation?

I reiterate that I agree with those who feel that the controversy should be mentioned, but only briefly and that an equally brief summation of Branagh's and Elba's responses to it should be included. I agree with Confiutus that Elba's cast section currently devotes too much space to the controversy but I disagree with some of your choices about what quotes to present (in his section in general not just in relation to the controversy). See earlier conversation about "thanks" comments.

And with that I'm done commenting on this issue. I was concerned before that I was not being too clear. Now I realize that the whole conversation is like a dog chasing its tail. There is no clarity to be had here only deliberate obfuscation. Millahnna (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I want to note that Conflictus' uncalled-for assertion that those who disagree with him are gaming the system or playing dumb crosses a hard line of civility — particularly when the other editors have clearly tried to find common ground with him. I thought we were all treating each other with respect here, and I would urge Conflictus to strike out those remarkably uncivil, unfair and untrue comments. It --Tenebrae (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I've tried come up with a compromise that hopefully works for everybody. The complaints from comic book fans and the boycott are both addressed. Elba's response is shortend to Conficutus' liking and Polisher of Cobwebs' clarification is noted. I still contend that any additional content be more than self promotional verbage.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I applaud TriiipleThreat's surgically careful edit, and I'd like to try and nuance it a bit with two technical questions and one comment.

Has there been a boycott, or just the threat of a boycott? And were they threatening to boycott the movie (still not out in the U.S.) or to boycott product-placement advertisers (such as Dr Pepper)? Also, having Elba call the threats ridiculous is fine for what it is, but it's vague. His comment about Elizabeth Taylor and Ben Kingsley is specific, informative, and frames the issue in historical context. It's also only a sentence long. For those reasons, I would urge us to put that sentence back in, or to discuss counter-reasons to the points about specificity and context. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. The source states that the CCC is boycotting the film, how much effect it is having I have no idea. I also thought Elba's full response was well stated (THR even called it artistic) but I'm interested in settling this issue and moving on.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

By full response you mean the Taylor/Kingsley sentence? I think that given the amount of material recently excised that even Conflictus could not object to adding that single sentence. Conflictus, please weigh in. Let's see if we can reach a somewhat fuller compromise. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think User:TriiipleThreat has improved the Idris Elba section, yes. I maintain my view that it can be addressed in one sentence per WP:UNDUE with more WP:BALANCE per WP:NPOVN by the following:

“ "Online complaints [1][2] about Idris Elba's casting as a Norse god were passed off as "daft" by Kenneth Branagh and "ridiculous" by Idris". ”

We don't need to mention any or all the different terms the media uses: "white supremacists", "racists", the "comic fans" or the "COCC", but we can just say "online complaints" to encompass all to ensure it is not WP:UNDUE or POV pushing/promoting. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 22:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I was actually asking for a response about the sentence with the Taylor/Kingsley comparisons.

Also, please discuss before adding what appears to be a non-notable quote of Elba saying, "Wow, these sets are big!" --Tenebrae (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You're cheerrypicking again. Firstly it was "fit the bill", now it's Idris describing the sets which according to WP:FILMCAST is fine. I really do feel you are not borderlining on disruptive editing now. Here's the edit I made: [6] I did it because you keep complaining that there isn't any WP:FILMCAST information to put in the article. This is film cast information. "...which uses well-written prose to describe the casting and staffing decisions made, as well as discussing the reasons behind some of the cast decisions, the thoughts of the actors themselves about their roles , and some brief explorations of their careers before and after the film, e.g:" Is there an attempt here to prevent any information whatsoever going in this section apart from to do with the disgruntled comin fan controversy? KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 23:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC) May I remind you that Natalie Portman in her FILMCAST section says: "When asked why she took the role, Portman replied, "I just thought it sounded like a weird idea because Kenneth Branagh's directing it, so I was just like, 'Kenneth Branagh doing Thor is super-weird, I've gotta do it.'"" "Super-weird"?, "gotta do it"?, "weird idea?", "Kenneth directing it" - yes, somehow I don't think that your logic is standing up too well here, or are you questioning the "encyclopedia significance" here? I mentioned if before but I do feel you may have to try casting the beam out of your own eye. Please stop acting in this disruptive way. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 23:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing is a mighty big charge, and I would urge you not to make it lightly. I would be glad to have any admin look at the following quote and render an opinion as to whether it's non-notable fluff:

Just the bigness of the show. It’s so epic, these huge sets were just amazing to look at. And they really pat [sic] attention to detail. When you read the comics, you see all the drawings, and to actually see them in real life, it’s like, “Whoa!” ... I’m sure I’ll be back in something cool.

"It's like, 'Whoa!'"? Surely you can see that that's really not of encyclopedic significance. The one piece of solid information is that Elba has a four-picture deal with Marvel Studios.

And I still haven't gotten an answer about including the Taylor/Kingsley sentence, which actually says something. I think you can see I'm not just putting something in without discussion in this section. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be easier to address your concerns if you kept your posts chronological in descending order on a page.

To respond to your Natalie Portman argument: Wikipedia generally frowns on pointing to other articles to promote our point of view, since other articles may have problems with them themselves. That Portman quote is atrocious, and I could certainly find a less frivolous quote to say why she took the part.

If you feel that strongly about this quote, we can always do an RfC.

And, again, I'd appreciate if you'd stop making baseless accusations of descriptiveness. I'm the one saying, "Let's go to the talk page and discuss it" rather than making unilateral edits to a controversial section. If anyone's being disruptive, its the one making edits without discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, it would be courteous if you would please respond to my request for your opinion on the Taylor/Kingsley sentence. It really isn't very good Wiki etiquette to keep ignoring a politely asked-for request. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've already responded to your Taylor sentence, see above (22:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)). I've responded to it indirectly. The fact is, out of all the editors here, I've done the least editing on the article in the past week and the most discussion. Edits have only be reverted on trivial explanations (nit-picking) every time within 10 minutes by you or User:TriipleThreat who keeps claiming I need to discuss more, or that there is a consensus, making WP:BOLD an unreality and it would appear you are WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM. Any tag team type behaviour (WP:GANG) makes more candid the reason why editors with clean hands need to look in to a situation. None comic fans, or people not affiliated with the users involved on here as was Millahnna. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 00:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Your response was so indirect, I still don't see it. I'm afraid I don't understand why you object to a direct response. Honestly — I don't get it.

Regardless: You need to please stop throwing around accusations. If you have a complaint, report it properly to an admin. If your complaints have a rational basis, I've found the admins to be by and large responsive and responsible. If you're not willing to do that, then please stop the equivalent of repeated name-calling; it's pointless and uncivil.

I'm particularly taken aback by the tag-team accusation: Go to my and TriiipleThreat's talk pages and you will see conclusively and absolutely that we are not colluding or even discussing this with each other.

You say you are providing the most discussion. I would respond that tirades and baseless accusations do not count as constructive discussion, nor do long blocks of text that tend to come off as bludgeoning.

I propose you make a post stating — in simple, direct terms — exactly what it is you want, and ask editors to comment. Go to the WikiProject Comics Notice Board and put up a neutral post asking editors to come to his page and comment. That would be more constructive than another round of coming back here and name-calling. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the definition of tag-teaming at the link you provided yourself is "meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus." As I'd mentioned, I and the other editor you blithely tar have not speoken with each other. And if there's anyone having trouble with consensus, it would be you.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

My tag team comment is a general one. I wouldn't go to Wikiproject Comics Notice Board because we don't need WikiCOmics expertise. This is a problem that needs clean hands. Comic book fans have been disgruntled with Idris Elba's casting as Heimdall, this is why we've had this WP:UNDUE problem ,no doubt where an attempt seems to be being made to not improve or add to the Idris ELba casting anything relevant to WP:FILMCAST and as much attention to the controversy itself. It would be civil if you would reply to what I wrote above, on 22:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC). Also currently, you used the word "issue" in the section, while I sed the word "threat". As I said before, that word is misleading simply because Idris wasn't referring to the "issue" (the general debate) but the controversy or threat. You still haven't changed Natalie Portmans casting section and you still haven't restored the parts which you yourself said were notable to the section (regarding Idris's future films with Marvel). That's four things. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 00:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Again with an unwarranted and at this point slanderous accusation. If you believe people are ganging up on you and have unclean hands, then go get an admin. If you don't have faith enough in your accusation to do that, then stop accusing.

"Issue" is NPOV.

I didn't realize I was required to go and work on the Natalie Portman article immediately.

I've tried to address your concerns by suggesting the Taylor/Kingsley sentence. You seem to be slapping away the hand I proffer. Fine. As for your question at 22:42, 24 April 2011 — what question? I really, truly don't understand your obliqueness.

Now: Either get an admin and back up your accusations, or stop accusing. If you make unwarranted accusations again, then I will ask an admin to intervene to stop your incivility. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What accusations? I said I'm still waiting for you to do those four things. I'll repeat them here. Firstly, please respond, give your opinion, as to what I said here: "We don't need to mention any or all the different terms the media uses: "white supremacists", "racists", the "comic fans" or the "COCC", but we can just say "online complaints"/"Compaints" to encompass all to ensure it is not WP:UNDUE or POV pushing/promoting." Secondly, I've said at least four times now that the controversy can be addressed in one sentence: "““Idris Elba’s casting as a Norse god created a small controversy which Kenneth passed off as “daft” and Idris as “ridiculous”.” Please tell me why we don't just use that. Thirdly, I don't understand how you could thing "issue" is NPOV and not "threat", please elaborate. And you still haven't changed Natalie Portman's section, nearly 24 hours later, that's on average, 288 times longer it takes you to revert my edits. Your passion for NPOV does appear to be delusive in this regard. Don't forget to include the four film commitment Idris has signed up to. You said that was notable. Thank you. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 16:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You ask, What accusations? "Tag-team," "unclean hands," etc.

The current page reads: "Elba's casting prompted a boycott by the Council of Conservative Citizens and a debate amongst some comic book fans, insisting it was wrong for a black man to play a Nordic god. In response Elba called the debate, 'ridiculous'.[30][31]" It already does not mention "white supremacists" etc., so I'm unsure from where that claim of yours arises. This plainly worded two-sentence passage has nothing WP:UNDUE about it. Your phrase "[S]mall controversy" is too vague; it would be irresponsible (whitewashing, as it were) not to attribute the issue to a named organization when that organization is publicly known. While I believe adding the Taylor/Kingsley sentence would provide needed context — saying "ridiculous" without saying why seems simply like saying "nyah-nyah" — I would not make the addition unilaterally but only if other editors felt likewise.

If you would read the article, you would see the four-picture commitment has already been added.

RE: "on average, 288 times longer it takes you to revert my edits" strikes me as an obsessive comment. This is aside from the fact that we're all volunteers and we get to things when we can amid our real-life responsibilities. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm just comparing how long it takes you to revert my edits in comparison to changing the article as discussed - I find it interesting. I just think mentioning the CCC is wrong, as I had a quick scan on the articles and they are many different terms used "racists", "white supremacists", "comic fans" and the "CCC". Have you deleted the content from the Natalie Portman cast section yet? I don't think "small controversy" is too vague, but we could change it to "small racial controversy". How about that? KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 17:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC) About the article, it says: "Elba's casting prompted a boycott by the Council of Conservative Citizens and a debate amongst some comic book fans, insisting it was wrong for a black man to play a Nordic god." I don't think the term "debate" here is appropriate. As mentioned before, it wasn't the "debate" that Idris was referring to, it was the racial "controversy" stir. I would politely request that you make amendments to the section? At the moment, it sounds like Idris is calling the debate ridiculous, which isn't true. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 17:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Stating the boycott came from the CCC is accurate and helpful as there is an existing article about the group. The term "debate" is how it is described by the source and Elba's "ridiculous" comment is a direct response to said "debate". The term is verifiable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is, with the caveat I'd mentioned. Apparently, so do other editors: At least two on this talk page explicitly agree with this, and no other editors has discussed or made changes to that section. I think it's time to accept consensus. Also, I ask you stop badgering a fellow editor about the Natalie Portman article: As I'd mentioned, we're volunteers, and we get to things when we're able to.

I'm not sure there's anything really left for you and I to discuss — you're absolutely free to seek informal or formal mediation, an RfC or any number of dispute resolutions Wikipedia makes available. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I think we should add that Kenneth called the controversy "daft" as that would be more accurate per WP:BALANCE. Don't get me wrong, I think the section has been improved, it just needs a little clean up. Also, I still feel the controversy can be addressed in one sentence. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 11:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Have we established a consensus on that?

Idris Elba’s casting as a Norse god created a small racial controversy which Kenneth passed off as “daft” Idris as “ridiculous”.”

Personally, I feel that would be a vast improvement. I have no idea why the CCC is mentioned when no boycott has taken place, or we do not know the extent of the boycott yet. It may turn out to be relatively small. Eitherway, I think we've established that the current wording, though has seen an improvement, is wrong. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 14:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Idris Elba's Film Cast section

I've been told there is little information to put in Idirs Elba's WP:FILMCAST here by User:TriiipleThreat and it would seem I am the only one providing sources for this. I'm putting here all the info we can choose from to put in the film cast section, collected from all the discussions and sources I have mentioned throughout these discussions. Is there little information to put in the filmcast section of Idris Elba? :

• "Heimdall is “the brother of the warrior Sif. He is the all-seeing and all-hearing guardian sentry of Asgard, he stands on the rainbow bridge, Bifrost and stands watch for any attacks to Asgard. For ages, he stood as the guardian of Asgard, defending the city’s gates from any intruders, and was one of the most trusted servants of Odin."

• "You took the role of Heimdall in Thor because you wanted to work with director Kenneth Branagh. Is there a moment that epitomizes that experience for you? Every day. This is a man that’s an amazing actor. Just hearing him giving his take on how to mold me as an actor. This is a man that called me up personally and said, “I know this isn’t a big role, but I would really love to see you play it.” It’s Kenneth Branagh. I was like, “Definitely.” [7]

• ""In scripts you are still often seen like that – imposing, athletic, scary," says Elba. "The way to break that cycle is just to do. Take my latest film, Thor, for example. It's not written for a black man – it's just a character. And that's the way forward." Thor is certainly a different kind of role for Elba – his first foray into the realm of the superhero. Based on the Marvel comics, Thor has been described by critics as a somewhat counter-intuitive blend of Nordic mythology, CGI special effects and the unlikely direction of Kenneth Branagh.Elba joins an impressive cast, including Anthony Hopkins and Natalie Portman, to play Heimdall, the god who mans the bridge between the human world and Asgard, the realm of the gods. He is clearly excited about the film and says he can't wait to take his nine-year old daughter Isan to see it."It's an extraordinary visual spectacular," says Elba. "It's different from anything else I've done; but at the same time, it's been pointed out to me that here I am playing a central, solid figure again – the one that people should trust. Take Stringer or Luther – that seems to be a common denominator in the characters I play."Casting Elba to play a Nordic god has not been without controversy. As a black person who was born in Norway, I tell Elba I personally don't see what all the fuss is about, prompting more of his trademark chesty chuckle."When Kenneth asked me to be part of it, I did find myself questioning race," Elba confesses. "But Kenneth hadn't even given that a thought. He just needed an actor who has presence and command, and felt that I fitted the bill."It was so refreshing – and a testament to him as an actor and director that his casting was genuinely colour blind. I feel very proud of being part of that movie." [8]

• "You just finished your stint filming Thor as the Asgardian warrior Heimdall. How was that? It was an interesting genre of film to make. I had never done comic book stuff, so that was really great. What was the coolest part? Just the bigness of the show. It’s so epic, these huge sets were just amazing to look at. And they really pay attention to detail. When you read the comics, you see all the drawings, and to actually see them in real life, it’s like, “Whoa!” Do you see yourself doing another superhero character or are you good with the crime dramas?I have a deal with the Marvel Studios team, a four-picture commitment. I’m sure I’ll be back in something cool." [9]

• "I would like to be in the lead position, with characters around me," says Elba, mentioning Nick Fury or Blade as potential roles for him to sink his teeth into. "If that's what I'm going to do, it's better to be the kick than the sidekick." "It's a big, big, big film," he added. "I saw the trailer and I was like, 'Damn, I'm in that movie?'"[10]

I personally think there is plenty of WP:FILMCAST material...compared to Idris Elba's casting section now, it does make me think that an improvement should be made (additions). Thank you.

KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 17:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Is the film version of Heimdall, Sif's brother? I have not yet seen the film but I have not seen anything in the trades or elsewhere to indicate it. The rest is already stated in the article without all the wordy and subjective phrasing.

• Elba taking the role because he wanted work with Branagh, seems fine as is the case with Portman.

• Elba talking about his casting in this quote, "The way to break that cycle is just to do. Take my latest film, Thor, for example. It's not written for a black man – it's just a character. And that's the way forward." also seems fine. The article previously had similar quote talking about "multi-level casting" that you objected to. The following praise of the film and Branagh isn't notable.

• As Tenebrae stated Elba's comments about the sets aren't notable either. The four-picture deal is already noted in the article.

• Elba's desire to play other characters aren't notable in this article, neither is the praise for the film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's what WP:FILMCAST says. "which uses well-written prose to describe the casting and staffing decisions made, as well as discussing the reasons behind some of the cast decisions, the thoughts of the actors themselves about their roles , and some brief explorations of their careers before and after the film , e.g:" No, we don't want anything t do with addressing the racial aspect: ""The way to break that cycle is just to do. Take my latest film, Thor, for example. It's not written for a black man – it's just a character. And that's the way forward." also seems fine." - this is addressing the racial aspect per the controversy stir. So, as explained many times before, we don't want that because it will add more WP:UNDUE weight to the section about race. What about "He is the all-seeing and all-hearing guardian sentry of Asgard, he stands on the rainbow bridge, Bifrost and stands watch for any attacks to Asgard. For ages, he stood as the guardian of Asgard, defending the city’s gates from any intruders, and was one of the most trusted servants of Odin" that's a much better description. Also ""It's an extraordinary visual spectacular," says Elba. "It's different from anything else I've done; but at the same time, it's been pointed out to me that here I am playing a central, solid figure again – the one that people should trust. Take Stringer or Luther – that seems to be a common denominator in the characters I play." and everything from here seems great too [[11]. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 18:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Why did you suggest something and then say it adds undue weight? Also the controversy created by fans or white supremacist and Elba remarking on race and the casting process are separate topics especially when Elba makes comments about it in no relation to the controversy. Your description is very wordy and adds elements of subjectivity. These descriptions should be VERY basic and brief as is the case with the other characters. Specific plot related information if deemed important should be addressed in the plot section. The quote, "It's different from anything else I've done; but at the same time, it's been pointed out to me that here I am playing a central, solid figure again – the one that people should trust. Take Stringer or Luther – that seems to be a common denominator in the characters I play" is very vague. Again nothing in that last source is of any note.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

To Conflictus: Talk pages have to abide by the same rules as other pages. Trying to evade consensus by putting your version of an article on the talk page is against guidelines. It needs to be removed or I will ask an admin to intervene. I'm genuinely sorry it's come to this. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, regarding Conflictus' most recent addition about Elba taking the role because he wanted work with Branagh, I said it was fine in the above. We can discuss it further if you like.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Given the huge, bombarding walls of text he's been posting, this was buried. Here's my take on its formatting. (Also, I'd just like to note that, for reality's sake in this discussion, actors who aren't big stars virtually never turn down roles in major movies. The real reason actors take roles is that they're offered, and it's work. Regardless....).

Idris said Branagh's involvement was a great incentive to take the role. "This is a man [who is] an amazing actor. Just hearing him giving his take on how to mold me as an actor [was important]. This is a man [who] called me up personally and said, 'I know this isn’t a big role, but I would really love to see you play it.' It’s Kenneth Branagh. I was like, 'Definitely.'” [17]

--Tenebrae (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What about: {bquote|"It's an extraordinary visual spectacular," says Elba. "It's different from anything else I've done; but at the same time, it's been pointed out to me that here I am playing a central, solid figure again – the one that people should trust. Take Stringer or Luther – that seems to be a common denominator in the characters I play."}} This would apply well to WP:FILMCAST "thoughts of the actors themselves about their roles <, and some <brief explorations of their careers before...the film". KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 11:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we've already discussed about this but the comment doesnt add anything of any constructive value, its simply too vague.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's just that he mentions his previous acting experiences (Stinger, Luther) and how them strong characters are similar to his role in Thor. That's what WP:FILMCAST says: "some <brief explorations of their careers before...the film". I don't see why not. It adds some background knowledge to the section KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 12:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

He is just using buzzwords without any real context.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. In both Stinger and Luther, he was the main character. Very popular characters here in England anyway. Plus, the article currently says: "boycott by the Council of Conservative Citizens", but it's not a boycott. The CoCC threatened a boycott and also, I was doing some research, not all the members are for the boycott anyway, actually, very few. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 13:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Actually, the CoCC "called for a" boycott. Which is even worse. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 13:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with TriiipleThreat that the quote is just fluff. Agree with Conflictus that if it were a threat of a boycott as opposed to having gone through with a boycott (and with the movie not out yet in the US, not sure what they would be boycotting at the moment), then we should make that distinction. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, according to Conflictus' contributor history, he has only been registered on Wikipedia for less than a month. Not wanting to bite a newbie, I'd have to suggest that it's inappropriate for someone so new, who isn't completely experienced in the collaboration/consensus method of Wikipedia, to take up so much of other editors' time and effort on what appears to be a single-minded obsession with Idris Elba. Conversely, judging from his apparent familiarity with (albeit his misinterpretations of) Wikipedia policies and guidelines he keeps referencing, I would like to ask if Conflictus has actually been editing Wikipedia longer, under another name. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of being User:Ashgard an you have already implied. What I'm saying about the current version is that, the boycott hasn't happened, but the article makes it out like it has. If it hasn't happened yet, the issue is 100% non-notable and really should not be in the article at all. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 14:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not true future events are notable but we have to be careful with our wording.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

To Conflictus: I haven't implied anyone in particular. I'm just wondering, as is perfectly reasonable to do, whether you are a new Wikipedia editor or whether you have edited under another name. We have a right to have some idea of with whom we are collaborating. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Why isn´t there a German version of this article?

It would be interessting, to know, why there isn´t a German version of this article? We know, Germans loves their tradition and culture - ich can´t explain myself why there isn´t a article...

iam sorry for my english —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.76.130.149 (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thor isn't really part of German culture. It's more part of the Scandinavian countries. "Germanic" is not the same thing as "German". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.88.117.32 (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Most likely because nobody fluent in German has written one yet… --Jasca Ducato (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Wenn man deutscher Artikel will, muss man zum ersten der Artikel schreiben! (If you want a German article, you first have to write that article. =p) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW. Meanwhile there is a German article. And the movie has been released in Germany on last thursday (April 28th). It would have been quite difficult to write an article about the movie before it hit the theaters since the German WP has a quite strict rule against that.--BECK's 09:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

970 A. D.

vs. New Mexico? Not that I expect a comic to make sense but there's usually more continuity than that. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

In 970 A.D., Odin (Anthony Hopkins), king of Asgard, wages war against the Frost Giants of Jotunheim and their leader Laufey (Colm Feore), to prevent them conquering the Nine Realms, starting with Earth. The Asgardian warriors defeat the Frost Giants and seize the source of their power, the Casket of Ancient Winters. In the present

If this is to what you refer, it's made clear that the Mexico stuff doesn't take place in the year 970. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, see that it was apparently there at 22:07. The continuity break is the common one for graphic novels, with the 970 scene the standard backgrounder. It's not especially salient in the current composition, suggest new ¶ 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've separated the sections to make it clearer Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Nighthawk

Jeremy Renner's cameo in the movie is him as Nighthawk working with SHIELD assigned to take down Thor when he is trying to reclaim his hammer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.41.6 (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean Hawkeye, not Nighthawk. Its explicity stated, even here in Wikipedia (see: Jeremy Renner) that he has a cameo as Hawkeye. Nighthawk is a different character altogether. <splashallison>

Just US or Worldwide?

So far it just says an Aussie date and a US date. Is that US date the release date for the rest of the world or just us? The worldwide date should be given unless they plan on releasing in only two countries. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMRELEASE we only list the earliest release (Australia) and the release date in the country that produced the film (U.S.). Listing every country's release would be exhaustive.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is the US getting it after Australia?74.100.60.53 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC).

Because that's where the best opening was I imagine, most of Europe got Fast Five before America too, like 2 weeks before in some cases. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know about WP:FILMRELEASE, I guess that makes sense. I thought we just had a very strange release listing here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 14:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Pending protection

I have requested (and was approved) for the use of pending protection for this article based on this discussion and discussion of newly released films (mainly high profile films) being protected from anonymous edits for short term during the film release. Hopefully this will encourage more helpful work to be done on the article during this time. —Mike Allen 03:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Due to the current controversy of pending protection, semi-protection is being used instead. That means IPs and non autoconfirmed editors will not be able to edit the article for two weeks. You will need to make an edit request on the talk page. Thanks. —Mike Allen 04:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Icecrawler, 7 May 2011

I have noticed a small grammar error in the Thor (film) page under the sub section Crictical Reaction. Here is an excerpt: "Thor is the most entertaining superhero debut since the original Spider-man". The m is not capitalized.

Icecrawler (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's been fixed, thanks! —Mike Allen 04:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sequel

Shouldn't this article have a section on a possible sequel? All the other movies do! With the film's success, there have also been a lot of articles on this subject. This would also be more productive than endlessly debating edits made to the Idris Elba section! --210.240.115.126 (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Preparation for GA review

First let me say thanks to all those who have contributed to the article, Nehrams2020 recently assessed this article as B class. However there are still some things we need to do before the article is ready to be nominated for Good Article status. He suggests the following should be done:

1. Expand the lead.
2. Expand reception.
3. Repair or replace the dead citations.

All are welcome to help with this process and if any of you have any further suggestions discuss them here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

All of dead citations have been replaced but all of the references should be archived so we dont lose anymore. WebCite is good tool for this. Just follow the instructions, it easy and takes only minutes. Then add the archived url and the archive date to the citation with the parameters |archiveurl= and |archivedate= .--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My two cents, he's right about the lead. And that's always one of the easiest parts of it because you are just mainly summarizing the rest of the article. So basically what you need is the main plot summary on it. The reviews seem to be positive so mainly you need to explain that on the lead along with explaining the box office performance which can always be updated as long at it's on theaters. The release section should be summarized and a little mention of the soundtrack might be in order as well. That's about it nothing needs to be sourced because basically a good lead summarizes the sections of the bottom of the article as WP:Lead recommends. I hope I have helped. And the reception section shouldn't be too hard since we got Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I helped out with the lead a little bit. But I do know it could be expanded some more. I noticed this tells most of the major cast a little bit while some GA lead sometimes tells who the lead actor is playing and then talk about the plot of the setup of the character. I hope I made sense there. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I was actually going to suggest WebCite, glad it's already going to be used. I'd recommend also having one outside person review the article for copyediting after you're all done. Let me know before you nominate and I'll give it one more look over. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

And may I just say, this has been one overall one of the smoothest and most cooperative and collaborative of comic-book film articles. I am so glad that WikiProject Comics has such careful and amiable colleagues as all of you. Even in areas of disagreement, we mostly (with one hard-to-miss exception) respected each other and acted civilly, and, given some of the history of Wikipedia and the Project, I treasure that and value my fellow editors. I'll be helping to pitch in with copy edits, etc. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Can´t have a GA moviearticle without Roger Eberts opinion, surely? He didn´t like it. Or just didn´t pay attention. http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/05/_i_didnt_attend_the.html#more Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the article's references could be reviewed and cleaned up. I think it would be more sightly to write out the dates in full (and to use the {{nowrap}} template with the month-day pairings). Some references seem on the weakly reliable side, such as Cinematical, CHUD.com, Collider, Cinema Blend, Cinefools.com, Latino Review, OnLocationVacations, etc. Wherever possible, I think we should upgrade the reference to one that is more authoritative and has the same information. In addition, I think there are more references to use. Here is a VFX one, and it appears that American Cinematographer will be publishing a Thor article this June. There may be some magazine issues out now that will have film coverage not necessarily available online. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, though the interviews might be irreplaceable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have expanded the article's lead section to include the premise of the film and further details of the film's production history. Would it work? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, great job!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

BOX OFFICE PLAY AROUNDS and other conflicts

I completely agree with the sequel notion, it must be added to the Thor article since its a famous movie many people would like to know the future of this franchise. Another big problem is an annoying incompetent fool who keeps on changing the Box office revenues to the older date, I want to keep it updated but some fool is ruining what i write. PLEASE STOP. This article should be of fine quality, thus it must be updated frequently I update it the second its been updated on Box OFfice Mojo. PLEASE RESPECT OTHERS WRITING AS WELL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddyghazaley (talk • contribs) 14:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't fair to ask for respect when you're calling someone an incompetent fool.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

First let me say that your contributions updating the box office revenue are greatly appreciated. You should contact the editor reverting your edits directly and remember to be civil. I did revert one of your edits regarding box office predictions as this information seems highly speculative. I think it might be best to wait for the actual numbers to come in. I wonder what others think. Regarding sequels that information is notable and should be added. However to date I have not seen anything substantial other than speculative reports with no attribution given to its source and vague comments by Branagh. I'll dig around for something useful.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Predictions, even by Roger Ebert, are not notable as they are complete speculation and largely subject to change.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it is okay to include box office estimates. WP:CRYSTAL says, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced... Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." I think that estimates from Box Office Mojo are acceptable because they've collected and tracked a lot of box office data. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

In addition, it may be worth considering rounding the box office figure. For example, $357,691,254 is specific but a false representation of the worldwide gross. They obviously did not collect every single dollar. Writing $357.7 million would indicate the margin for error as opposed to such a specific dollar figure. You can see this approach in use at Priest (2011 film). Erik (talk | contribs) 15:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I truly appreciate your comments, the predictions are clearly theoretical but would be removed later on. Its merely to provide readers with a possible result at the box office. As for the box office revenue representation, it clearly is the most accurate stats we have concerning box office data. Moreover, Box Office Mojo is provided with this information by the studios so it is the studios' words which is mainly accurate. We present the information given by a reliable site on wikipedia where every one can see the exact figures(thats what I personally believe). THANK YOU FOR the SEQUEL Contribution very informative and well said. Eddyghazaley (talk | contribs) 18:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This being an encyclopedia and not a news source like Wikinews, I believe we should not estimate and we should not give projections. There is no deadline, and an encyclopedia by its nature needs to have the most concrete and irrefutable information and data possible.

The aggregated studio figures are the generally accepted source by news organizations and academics worldwide, and while we are not privy to each studio's bookkeeping, we should not make assumptions that the figures are incorrect. The Wikipedia standard is not unknowable truth but verification by a reliable source.

That Priest (2011 film) or any other Wiki article does a particular thing has not been considered a valid argument on Wikipedia generally, since many Wiki articles need much work to reach policy and guideline standards. --Tenebrae (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Elba casting controversy

I have just had to yet again fix this article's confused discussion of the controversy over Elba's casting. I've fixed it before, but someone keeps changing it back to, "Elba's casting prompted a debate amongst comic book fans and a proposed boycott by the Council of Conservative Citizens, some insisting it was wrong for a black man to play a Nordic god." I'm sorry, but whatever the reason that someone prefers that wording, it's not accurate and it doesn't make sense. If you use it, it suggests that it was the CCC who were having the debate, with some of them thinking that Elba's casting was appropriate and some saying it was inappropriate - which obviously isn't the case. ALL of the CCC thought it was inappropriate; the debate was among the fans. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm writing a section and warn you for bias, Polisher of Cobwebs. The casting caused distinct offence to all Nordic faith adherents including Marvel comic fans. The "CCC" merely jumped in on the debate. I am changing this with references and this edit while it can be modified WILL NOT be removed by yourself or I will immediately escalate this situation. PeterHarlington (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Council of Conservative Citizens? Jane Foster's science HQ had HH symbology.

Petey Parrot (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

@PeterHarlington, previous consensus this information should be limited at best per undue weight. Please see the archived discussions. Furthermore the sources you cited do not seem to make the requirements of a reliable source. Also please do not threatening comments to fellow editors. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but whatever consensus you are talking about is rubbish. I am offended that the CCC organisation represent the entirety of objections when their presence is but one 10th of a percentile or LESS. You have to improve the material rather than a tyranny of reversion.PeterHarlington (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm completely happy for someone who is a better, more accurate writer than me to improve the article, or even reduce the material present, but there is no way in hell I'm standing for opposition to the casting of Idris to be equated almost 100% with CCC organisation. Go right ahead and improve on the material. If you want more citations, I will provide them. Ask away, change, reduce, rewrite but do not revert.PeterHarlington (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As the article currently reads only the planned boycott is attributed to the CCC, the "debate" is stated to be amongst some comic book fans. Also 'botcktherobber.com' is not a reliable source therefore their opinion on the matter is irrelevant.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Let's play. How many of the citations in this Idris section as it stands, reliable source? PeterHarlington (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss your edit that is fine but I will not engage any straw man arguments.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

How is it a "Strawman" to verify all other citations in the Idris section after your strictness regarding the citations I provided?PeterHarlington (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The PeterHarlington edit reads like soapboxing to me, and it's certainly written in heated and in no way neutral terms. And his edit-summary threat "DO NOT REMOVE. IMPROVE THE MATERIAL, OR YOU WILL PAY. I AM SERIOUS" is completely out of line and simply on its own could be grounds for his being blocked. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I did provide citations. However I accept your judgement and should have submitted the proposed changes to the talk page. But you can read my above comment where I make it clear that I am open to edits by someone else if something is insufficient. I will provide more citations and am looking for some. BUT I expect the current citations to now be shown the same strictness as I was shown because I am going to challenge them.PeterHarlington (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Cosmic Cube

Can someone please explain why we can't write that it's the Cosmic Cube at the end "per WP:EGG"? I honestly don't understand how the guideline is supposed to apply. --Kreachure (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Good question, and I hope I can answer satisfactorily. If you go to Talk:Iron Man 2, you'll see a comprehensive discussion and consensus that according to WP:FILM and guidelines about writing about fiction, we can only describe a plot with what is seen and heard onscreen. The filmmakers never refer to the device as the Cosmic Cube. Comic-book fans may know what it's supposed to be according to Internet chatter, blog posts, etc. People connected withe film may even refer to it as such (although my understanding is they're calling it "The Tesseract").

Regardless, the final arbiter is what the filmmakers themselves have chosen to put onscreen. If they had wanted to call it the Cosmic Cube, they would have. Anything that we might add based on personal knowledge or belief is disallowed by the core policy of No Original Research. For film plots, we can only go by the primary source, and in terms of concrete, objective, irrefutable fact, the phrase "Cosmic Cube" is never used onscreen (and nor does the object in any way resemble the Cosmic Cube of the comics). The filmmakers don't call it that; even if we don't want to respect their wishes, Wikipedia guidelines state that we have to respect the primary source and not add outside commentary. I hope this helps. With regards,--Tenebrae (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And to expanded on what Tenebrae stated since we cannot call it the Cosmic Cube in the article, we also cannot link to it which is where WP:EGG comes in.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree I just hope this won't be Iron Man 2 all over again. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand now. However, I suppose there will be no objection to linking to the Cosmic Cube once Captain America: The First Avenger confirms that it is indeed the Cosmic Cube (known as the Tesseract in the Marvel Cinematic Universe)... --Kreachure (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

In the Captain America movie article, it all depends — none of us have seen it yet. It may be a mash-up, like how Anton Vanko in Iron Man 2 was a conglomeration of two characters. But for the Thor movie article's Plot section, no matter what another movie says, we have to keep with the manifest content of the Thor film itself, which as its own entity doesn't call the object anything. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Really, if it isn't already, this needs to be added to the FILM Style article thingy so the discussion doesn't have to keep happening. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Changed the description of the "unnamed device" to something a little less vague but that is still within Wikipedia guidelines. The information provided in the description is present in the film as the object is both "glowing" and "cube-shaped". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.227.11 (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it was less vague than it was in the film and I don't recall it glowing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I recall it being a luminescent blue. At any rate, I know we can't call it the "Cosmic Cube" even though that's what it probably was because of Wikipedia's guidelines, but it seemed better to give a general description of the what the device looked like in the interest of thoroughness rather than just call it an "unnamed device". "Unnamed device" could be anything from the Cosmic Cube to an old microwave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.227.11 (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't have a copy on hand though but I'm fairly sure it wasn't glowing, it was just a hunk of metal at the time. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, how about this. We don't have to call it the Cosmic Cube, but it's pretty implicitly the same prop as the Casket. Can we call it that? Or should we change Captain America (film) so that we make it clear it might not be the same shield in every scene? They don't state that either. Yuefairchild (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

First, it isn't the Casket. The Casket is a big ass Casket. The cube in Thor is an inanimate block of dark metal while the one from Cap is a glowing, blue thing every time we see it. While they are probably the same one, saying so here is just original research and not allowed.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the Plot reference about a "glowing object" -- neither Darkwarriorblake nor I remember anything glowing. There were lights inside the briefcase, like those of attached devices, but there was no glowing object. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Giant Man and Clint Barton

though Jeremy is mentioned in the article and the movie, there was this giant man who fought with thor in the Movie and kevin had leaked info on this too, so can someone put a light on this somewhere? even here?116.71.39.44 (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Filming

Filming is missing a statement about the source format. This is the appropriate place to cover the format in which the film was initially shot. I have added a brief comment. I do see that it is mentioned in post-production, as well, but the initial format statement should be in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.39.1.227 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree the information is already covered, we do not need to state it twice and since the conversion process occurred in post-production, it belongs there. This has been reverted twice now by two different editors, please do not re-add it without obtaining consensus first. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this an attempt to bury the information? Source format is clearly a topic to be covered in filming. Post production is for post production items (hence the title). Source format is not a post production issue except as it pertains to transfer and presentation. Source format should be clearly covered under filming. 184.39.1.227 (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Wherever it goes, it needs to be footnoted with a reliable-source citation. Also, I would respectfully ask 184.39.1.227 to assume good faith. There's no reason for any editor to "bury" information. We're all here to provide information. Your comment seemed a little accusatory, and we all try to operate with good will here. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

2D by itself is not notable, the expectional part of your statement is the conversion process, which occured in post-production. If you had something else to add like information about cameras or film used I might agree with you. Also there is no attempt to cover this up as it's clearly stated to be converted to 3d in the post production section as well as the lead.-- TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"2D by itself is not notable" except if you are interested in the source format which many people are because they know the source format can significantly impact the quality of the release material which can be in a completely different format. This type of response demonstrates either a complete lack of understanding or a complete lack of "good faith." Creating a community that doesn't adhere to common-sense standards and fosters esoteric non-standard definitions for usage creates value only within the community. The simple answer is "post-production is for post production" and source format belongs under "filming" which isn't an opinion it is simple deduction based upon common usage of the words you are mis-using. I see no good-faith here only an effort to obfuscate information and a failure to follow any standard that the lay-person would be able to find useful.184.39.1.227 (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I would have to disagree with 184.39.1.227. 2D is what virtually ever movie is made in, so I also don't see the need to mention it. You mention "common sense'; I would say common sense dictates that we can safely assume all films are 2D unless otherwise noted.

Also, as I'd said before to this anon IP, your language displays an unnecessary incivility. Accusing another editor of deliberating trying to obfuscate is serious and also, I believe, nonsensical, since we all volunteer here to provide information, not hide it. As well, telling another editor he completely lacks understanding because he happens to disagree with you is uncalled for, and violates Wikipedia etiquette guidelines, in which we debate content without taking personal swipes at other editors. Please use more appropriate and civil language, as the other editors in this discussion are doing. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

When you start to make assumptions you fail to properly document. If you have missed that it is a frequent question whether or not a movie is filmed in 2D vs. 3D I am here to communicate that information--here, where it is appropriate (given it's my own research into common consumer questions). I am happy to provide numerous references, if you require. It reads like your key response is that "in our community we assume 2D." While I agree that 2D is common I think that assumption does a disservice to everyone outside of your community. I'm surprised there is such resistance to proper documentation--hence my strong suspicion that the information is being buried especially given the correction is a minor one. Just to be clear I'm not applying "common sense" in terms of assumption. I am using "common sense" strictly in an understanding that common word definitions be adhered to (e.g. in this case "post production" vs. "filming") which I clarified when I made the original statement. You jumped quickly to accusations. I hadn't accused anyone of obfuscation. I had simply inquired and/or stated my observations. The responses I receive seem to be very telling. Finally, I haven't taken a "personal swipe" at anyone--but I have accused a community of word-mis-use (if the pronoun left you wondering I am sorry it wasn't clear and blame the English language for the over-simplification of "you"). It is not my intent, at this point, to accuse anyone of anything. I have stated, factually, my observations. Nothing more. I do understand how pointed observations can appear, superficially, to be accusations. We can discuss the facts or we can allow distractions to take everyone off topic. My responses have been on par with the other responses, here.184.39.1.227 (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: "I hadn't accused anyone of obfuscation": Your specific words were, "Is this an attempt to bury the information?"

RE: "I haven't taken a 'personal swipe'": Your specific words were, "This type of response demonstrates either a complete lack of understanding or a complete lack of 'good faith.'

Your disingenuous comments notwithstanding, you have indeed made uncivil statements.

RE: "...given it's my own research into common consumer questions). I am happy to provide numerous references, if you require": A core Wikipedia policy is no original research. If a reliable-source publication indicates that there is something unusual or anomalous about this film so that 3D added after filming was complete is not to be considered post-production, then please cite that.

Finally, Wikipedia operates by discussion and consensus. I understand you are an unregistered user and may not have taken the time to learn some of the policies at the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Regardless, two editors disagree with you after several days of discussion that began May 29. You can certainly open a Request for Comment or seek other Wikipedia mediation. I'm not sure it's a productive use of your or our time to continue retreading the same area here. Perhaps having third-party comments would be more useful. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be noted that two major scenes of the film weren't directed by Kenneth Branagh? --Boycool (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The post-credits scene filmed during post produced is already mentioned to be directed by Joss Whedon.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Should the Jon Favreau-directed, Thor-stylized archive footage from Iron Man 2 be mentioned? --Boycool (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Strike that. I'll have to listen to the commentary again, because I'm not sure if the Iron Man 2 post-credits scene was filmed in the production of Iron Man 2 or Thor. --Boycool (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

This is over. Erik (talk | contribs)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:OnlyForQuadell flat-out refuses to provide edit summaries, and attacked me after I left a diplomatic note, which anyone can read for themselves on his talk page. It's some buried, imperceptible change, possibly of a single letter to change a word. The fact that he adamantly refuses to say, and his immediate willingness to attack, raises suspicion. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC) By "attacking" you mean "pointing out my policy violation", right? Ok, guilty as charged then. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Can we restore LadyofShalott's good changes to the article? I am also fine with OnlyForQuadell's edit to change "he [Kenneth Branagh]" to "[Kenneth Branagh]", although I cannot discern what was changed in the "god of thunder" paragraph. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC) LadyofShalott's changes are in, AFAIK. Thanks for being constructive by actually talking about my changes! Yes, that was indeed a tiny style improvement I did, I think the double "he [Kenneth Branagh]" looks amateurish. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC) I've notified admins of OnlyForQuadell's 3RR vio. I'm leaving the page as is for now until an admin looks at it. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC) You mean, you have notified admins of our 3RR violation. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Tenebrae, OnlyForQuadell changed "he [Kenneth Branagh]" to "[Kenneth Branagh]" and changed <ref name="huver"/> to <ref name="huver" />. His recent revert restored LadyofShalott's changes, which you undid in the process of reverting him. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC) ...or something of similar importance. Actually, the change was so tiny that I forgot what it was. Thanks again! --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC) To Erik: As I said, I was planning to restore LadyofShalott's edits, and was in the process of doing so, when OnlyForQuadell made his 4th revert, which is a bright-line violation that necessitates admin intervention. It would not have been appropriate to continue editing the page after a 3RR is reported. Also, to respond to OnlyForQuadell's assertion of "our" 3RR vio: That is not so, since 3RR requires 4 reverts. I would also note that two editors, not just myself, have reverted OnlyForQuadell for making minute edits while refusing — for no reason — to give edit summaries. Refusing to do something required by guidelines after being politely asked to do so constitutes uncivil and disruptive behavior. I would presume that Erik is not in favor of not leaving edit summaries, and not in favor of refusing to do so when politely asked. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I should left an edit summary in my original revert. The actual quote is "Interestingly enough, he said to look at Peter O'Toole in two specific films", Kenneth Branagh was added in brackets so we know who the "he" is. When OnlyForQuadell removed the "he" not only did he change the direct quote stated by Hiddleston but he also removed the subject of the sentence since [Kenneth Branagh] isn't actually stated.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Of course it isn't, that's why it's in brackets. I'm not quite clear what you are aiming at. Words in brackets are not in the original, but placeholder or shortcuts used in a quote. In this case, both the original ("he") and the placeholder ("[Kenneth Branagh]") was in, so I removed one. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Both are needed. It is a direct quote, "he" is what was actually spoken and [Kenneth Branagh] is needed for identification.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Now you have me in doubt about how to use brackets! I can see where both of you are coming from. OnlyForQuadell is assuming that the bracketed name is replacing the word "he", and TriiipleThreat is assuming that the bracketed name is clarifying who "he" is. I'm not quite sure which is the most proper approach? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Sorry, that makes no sense. Brackets are used for placeholders all over the place (any [...]), not only in this article ("the way [Thor] moves and fights"). Unless you propose to use a different symbol for this, we have to use brackets; now simply assume that the brackets "hold the place" for one word more. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC) See this. In one instance, the word itself can be replaced with the bracketed word, with the brackets indicating that it is not the original word. In another instance, the brackets include supplemental information (e.g., "...told Billy [William Smith] that..."). So as far as I can tell, either way is okay, though I don't know which is the most preferred. Actually, looking at MOS:QUOTE now, the example used replaces the original word. Let's go with that here. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Doh, we should have checked the MOS earlier. Thanks again for you help (and your cool head). --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC) I'm fine with [that] as well and agree that discussion should have started along time ago.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC) You should read up on 3RR. Let me help: "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Actually, I have to apologize, I was a bit cocky: I don't consider my changes to be in violation of 3RR, because I reverted vandalism. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC) An edit you disagree with is not vandalism. That's a remarkable claim to make.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Indeed, and I never made it. Stop making stuff up! Just for you, again: It's vandalism because it's expressively based on bad faith alone and removes and improvement to the article. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Your definition of vandalism is far off the mark. Stop with the vandalism business. Acroterion (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Is there a better name for his behaviour? Maybe the trusty old WP:HARASS? --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC) OK, you claim your a newbie, and yet you claim to have a better grasp of vandalism, 3RR and WP:CIVIL than an admin. Have you been registered on Wikipedia before under another name? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Stop making stuff up! --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC) I've never made anything up. I've directly quoted your insult to me, which you deny despite it being in black-and-white print. An admin has repeatedly told you that you are the one making false claims and statements. And as to this last, I simply asked a question — one which, I notice, touched a nerve. Also, I didn't receive an answer.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Shut up or provide difflinks for each particular claim. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC) "Shut up"? My goodness; however you were raised, it was certainly without manners. In any event, I've posted your "balls" insult several times, and if you'd like me to re-post the admin's admonitions on this page, I would be very, very happy to, so that everyone can see them. --Tenebrae (talk) (Outdent) My balls "insult" is bogus, I never said what you think I said. Anyway, put up or shut up, post difflinks or stop spreading lies. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to OnlyForQuadell late shot

He claims: "My balls "insult" is bogus, I never said what you think I said."

The truth: As I have said before and he incredibly denies, he said "Balls! Or maybe, nowadays you don't need any balls for that...." on his talk page at 01:26, 31 August 2011. For him to deny what's in black-and-white is just remarkable. And in fact, an admin has just blocked him for precisely that kind of vulgar, insulting, uncivil language.

I have my suspicions as to why User:Erik, who is not an admin, would unilaterally take it upon himself to declare a discussion "closed" only after the editor with whom he has been siding has blatantly lied and been uncivil one more time. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Plot speculation and/or reference needed

My first change was made because I felt it qualified as extrapolation the way it had been written. (I apologize that I initially used "speculation" since "extrapolation" is more appropriate.) Plot summaries based purely upon what is in the film can only state what is actually seen, and the scene only implies that Selvig may be under the control of Loki. Stating that he is in fact under Loki's control is extrapolating upon what is seen. I added the reference because that reference clearly states that it was their intention for Loki to be controlling Selvig. Without the reference explaining that it is not extrapolation it should be changed as I stated above, so the reference is necessary to keep that sentence from violating the rules. Spidey104 14:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

First thank you for starting a discussion. Technically both you and Darkwarriorblake were correct. And you are also correct that "Plot summaries based purely upon what is in the film can only state what is actually seen". However in this case the "implication" as you refer to it is heavily present in the scene and in my opinion obvious to the audience. Loki doesn't have to say "I am controlling Dr. Erik Selvig" to make the case. As for the reference, it is not need because again as you say "Plot summaries based purely upon what is in the film can only state what is actually seen", the general audience was not given access to this interview, so we do not write plot summaries by taking in account supporting materials. Similarly the stinger in Iron Man 2 does not make reference to Mjolnir, even though numerous outside sources including other films state it is in fact Mjolnir. I'll be glad to hear opinions for more editors on the subject.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Based on the link I previously posted I thought any sort of implication was out because it was not explicit. Obviously I was wrong in that. In that case would it be fine to adjust the sentence to say that the control is implied? Spidey104 20:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I need to rewatch that scene, but it seemed fairly obvious to me that Loki made Selvig agree, so much so that it was explicit not implied. Any other opinions?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoAJTGhDdVs - I'm failing to think of an alternative film at the moment where there would be an argument for extrapolation. This is a film aimed at families and kids, it isn't a cerebral mind-game. It's straight forward what is happening here. Selvig has no association with Loki prior to the events shown before the credits, he doesn't believe Thor is anything but a loon. Then we see invisiLoki who says a line, Selvig repeats the line verbatim with ominous music. I just don't see what is left to interpretation there. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"I'm failing to think of an alternative film at the moment where there would be an argument for extrapolation." What do other films have to do with this? Spidey104 13:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Dark and Triiiple: Loki says, "Well, I guess that's worth a look," Selvig says, "Well, I guess that's worth a look." The plot we have ends with: "Loki, invisible, whispers to Selvig to agree, which he does." That's exactly what happens. We don't say, "Loki assumes control of Selvig's mind." The plot as we have it is only saying exactly what happens on the screen, unless I'm missing something. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I also support the concerns by Darkwarriorblake, TriiipleThreat and Tenebrae. The film's post-credits scene pretty straight-forward in what is going on. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"Agree with Dark and Triiiple: Loki says, "Well, I guess that's worth a look," Selvig says, "Well, I guess that's worth a look." The plot we have ends with: "Loki, invisible, whispers to Selvig to agree, which he does.""

By your own statement you say that what is currently written is not what happened. A better way to write it would be "An invisible Loki whispers and Selvig repeats the same sentence verbatim." Possibly include a statement of mind control implications, if you so desire, but at least state what you yourself admit actually happens. I have never disagreed with the interpretation of the film. I am only arguing on the rules as I see them, so comments on the heavy implications of the scene are pointless. Spidey104 13:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I've worked with you often, Spidey, and I know you're a good and thoughtful editor. I'd have to respectfully disagree that my transcript of the dialog is incompatible with "Loki, invisible, whispers to Selvig to agree, which he does." It's simply not credible that two such disparate people at the same instant would independently use the exact words, "Well, I guess that's worth a look." Selvig doesn't say, "Sure, I'll look at it," or "OK, let's get started," or "Thanks for the opportunity, Col. Fury," or "OK. Sure," or a million other variations.

Let's break it down.

• The first three words — "Loki, invisible, whispers...." — I'm sure we can all agree on. He is Loki. He is invisible. He's speaking in a softer voice than normal speaking volume.

• Likewise the last five words: "to agree, which he does." Selvig is a he. Selvig does agree.

• Which leaves two words: "...to Selvig." Aside from the astronomical coincidence that Selvig would use the exact same words as Loki, we have to ask: Who is Loki talking to? Himself? Someone offscreen? In all sincerity, who else do you believe he is speaking to? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I have never disagreed with the interpretation of the events of the film, but rather with how they are presented here based on the rule I linked to above. In your break down of the final sentence I agree with points 1 and 3. My disagreement with point 2 is about subject confusion, but that is getting away from the main point.

The rule I have brought up is why the Iron Man 2 article says Coulson finds a large hammer instead of saying he finds Mjolnir. Spidey104 14:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Because it isn't called Mjolnir in the film and relies on a film that didn't exist at the time to say that is what it was. You don't need to watch another film to understand what Loki is doing to Selvig, without external knowledge you DO need to watch another film to know what Mjolnir is and again, that WOULD be extrapolation, since it isn't called that in the film and requires another film to understand that wasn't going to be out for a year at the time.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

So you've admitting they are different levels of extrapolation. Thanks for the clarification. Spidey104 14:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not seeing how the existing sentence in this Thor article is extrapolation in any way whatsoever. I thought I demonstrated that in the breakdown of every individual word. There's also no extrapolation in the Iron Man 2 article, so I'm not sure it's accurate to speak of "different levels" when there appears to be no extrapolation at all going on.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There's got to be a middle ground between the over-general current text ("Loki, invisible, whispers to Selvig to agree, which he does.") and the over-interpretive allusions to mind-control. How about "Loki, invisible, prompts Selvig to agree; Selvig repeats his words verbatim."? 74.74.150.139 (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a little clunky, but otherwise, I'd have no problem with that. What does everyone else think? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that's less specific about what is clearly going on in that scene. It's obvious to people watching it and I even went and found that source that backed up the obvious. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of phrase "Selvig repeats his words verbatim" without a quote of Loki's original words, which I also am not a fan of as it lengthens the plot unnecessarily. How about "Loki, invisible, prompts Selvig to agree, which he does."?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

While I like the more concrete, observable physical-action phrase "whispers to," I can certainly live with "prompts." If Selvig had used any other words, there might be doubt, but as we've discussed above, the use of the exact same words refutes coincidence. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"Loki, invisible, whispers to Selvig to agree, which he does verbatim."?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"An invisible Loki prompts Selvig to agree, which he does."? Gets rid of of the clunky "verbatim" and loses the excess commas. Spidey104 20:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

After looking them over, I really like Spidey's version.AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Call me crazy over here but I was under the impression your problem was 'extrapolation' not the way it was written. Your suggestion is exactly the same as it is now, replacing whisper with prompt. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You might be crazy, but this is not evidence of that. I've given up the fight about the 'extrapolation' because it isn't worth my time. My above sentence suggestion, that has already gotten a second vote from AdventurousSquirrel, is an attempt to fix what I can about that sentence: how poorly written it is. Spidey104 21:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I like to think I'm flexible rather than wishy-washy, so, yes, I, too, am fine with Spidey's more streamlined version, though I think because both Loki and Selvig are named in the sentence, "he" can mean either. Adapting Spidey: "An invisible Loki prompts Selvig to agree, which Selvig does." --Tenebrae (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thor (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Searson (talk · contribs) 21:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, it's well written. There may be a little more use of "blogs" as sources than I'm comfortable with. They're not suppossed to be used to begin with, but I can bend this a little with regard to certain blogs (those published by reputable news outlets: LA Times, WSJ, etc) as most often that is an easier format for publishers to allow certein columnists to publish reviews and the like; I have a "Blog" of sorts myself for a print magazine, I'm the only writer they allow to do this, it has editorial oversight and is just a means for me to quickly publish articles relating to the Magazine and the internet in a timely fashion, not a "personal reflection" type of blog that wiki is against, but I'm getting off point, here. I'm going to look at some of the ones I'm not familiar with a bit more closely. Before I say they're "reliable" or not. The prose is generally good, but one of my pet peeves is over use of certain filler words like "Also". Sometimes it is warranted and I usually remove it unless it's in a direct Quote. In the Sequel section it's in each of the paragraphs: "Also in September", "Also in August", "Also in October". Try and rephrase this in a better way. thanks--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful critique, I'll try to clean up some of the prose.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!-Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)