Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Inexplicable reversion of good faith, properly sourced, and neutral edits on 29 May 2017

On May 29, 2017, I added neutral, verifiable, and properly sourced information that was not original research to the article about how Joss Whedon actually moved into the studio to finish Avengers: Age of Ultron and was so exhausted as a result that journalists who came to see him were totally shocked at the sight.

That information was immediately reverted by User:Favre1fan93 with this explanation:

"and? i'm sure many directors and filmmakers move onto the lot to get films done by their deadlines. this doesn't seem particular to this film."

"I'm sure?" On what basis? Have you ever actually worked in Los Angeles? Have you ever worked in the industry? How many industry insiders have you ever actually met and asked about their experience? Do you read Variety, THR or the rest of the trade press? How many Big Six major film studios have you actually seen or toured? (Notice who added the maps and photos to that article.) How many books have you read about filmmaking or the history of the industry? (I'm fairly certain the answer to that last one is zero.) Can you cite any source to support your position? (I just checked and as I suspected, there don't seem to be any on Google Books, though I would be happy to see proof to the contrary.)

It is one thing to work grueling hours during post-production and then stagger home late at night; it is another thing altogether to live next to the editing bay. That is why the journalists who came to visit Whedon during post-production were utterly shocked to learn what he was doing, expressed their concern for his health, and reported their observations in their coverage of the film. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I just came back from my second D23 Expo and remembered to add another point: Having attended the live-action film presentations at two consecutive D23 Expos, I have actually seen most of the actors who play the Avengers in living color. As well as Kevin Feige and Alan F. Horn, the executives who were supervising Whedon on Age of Ultron. Can you say as much? --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
After looking at the sources and seeing the content you were trying to add, I personally don't see a problem with briefly mentioning it. Does it need its own paragraph? Not entirely sure on that part, as it seems to interrupt the flow a bit between the 1st and 3rd paragraphs. With some tweaking however, providing perhaps a better transition, I think it would be fine to keep in the article. One concern I have though is over the claim, "Journalists who came to visit were shocked...", which I'm not really seeing verified in the sources. While it is true at least a few wrote about his condition, shocked seems unsourced, and we shouldn't imply that all journalists that came to visit shared the same opinion. Unless I missed it, the latter wasn't verified by any of the three sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I still don't feel this needs to be mentioned, but might be more agreeable to a severely reduced version as GoneIn60 has suggested, if it were only a sentence or two. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hoax post credits scene

@Darkwarriorblake: It was a hoax.[1] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Avengers: Age of Ultron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Mention of Atwell and Elba in the lead?

The cloud of blue in the opening paragraph is messy and ugly, and no one in their right mind would try to read it from start to finish. Ideally we could just mention the leads (the actors portraying the title characters or whose images appear on the poster), but two that definitely need to go are Atwell and Elba: they are one-minute cameos, and their characters don't actually take part in the story (they are literally just a fever dream). I think I brought this up before, but if I don't see a reason to keep them in on this page within the next seven days I'll remove them myself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMCAST, the order given is that of the billing block. This is done for exactly a reasons such as this: to remove user opinions on the matter of certain actors. It is irrelevant that you feel Atwell and Elba should be removed because of their small appearances. The billing block order is the neutral order we use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Favre1fan93 is right that to avoid subjective interpretation, the consensus has been to let the official poster's star billing decide for us. The main discussion where I believe this was decided is here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 9#Cast rewrite. However, as you may notice, this discussion (as well as the guideline WP:FILMCAST) focuses on how to handle the Cast section, not specifically on how to handle the cast list in the lead. It just so happens that over time, we applied the guideline to the lead section as well.
As I've come across more and more films with extensive star billing lists (the Marvel movies are great examples), I'm beginning to feel the same way that including the entire billing list is counterproductive. The lead doesn't need to be this detailed, and we should avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE whenever possible. If there isn't a good alternative way of narrowing down the list to the film's primary stars, then the list probably shouldn't be in the lead when it's this long. Perhaps its time to revisit the issue considering long lists in the lead tend to contradict MOS:LEAD guidance to keep it clear and concise. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
While I understand the "subjective interpretation" rationale, it's clear that the discussion GI60 links to indirectly encourages us to write promotional nonsense that is every bit as subjective. The problem with subjective interpretation in most Wikipedia articles is that it amounts to OR, but in this and other similar cases third-party reliable sources (which are generally preferred to film posters) could easily be found that only list the main cast and don't mention people who only cameoed in the film but are famous names (or perhaps only agreed to cameo in the film if their name appeared on the poster). And technically, the current wording of WP:FILMCAST agrees with me here: Editors are encouraged to lay out such content in a way that best serves readers for the given topic., it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: ... cast lists in reliable sources, etc. In fact, out of billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links, the fifth doesn't apply, the current status quo of this article ignores the second, third and fourth are ignored: Kretschmann has more lines than both Elba and Atwell combined, and his character is named on-screen in this film (unlike theirs), and I'd be willing to guess that reliable sources give him much more weight as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
And while trying to find the name of the actor who played Strucker, I just now noticed that F1F93's interpretation of FILMCAST is employed in the cast section as well: why do Atwell and Elba need their own paragraphs, when said paragraphs contain nothing but character descriptions that are only at best half-accurate for this film? Atwell doesn't play the character described that way in this film -- she should not really be described that way for any film since the semi-canonical short films and TV shows contradict each other -- but really she is none of them in this film; she's a figment of Steve's imagination. This came up in the GOTG2 GA review, but these unsourced character descriptions are just as subjective as anything else in these articles, and are usually wrong to boot -- they should be removed.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Avengers: Age of Ultron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Films set in New York (state)

I don't see why DinoSlider is constantly deleting this category from this article, when the caption at the end of the film clearly states that the New Avengers Facility is in Upstate New York and other MCU films like Ant-Man, Captain America: Civil War, Spider-Man: Homecoming, and Avengers: Infinity War which features the new HQ have this category as well. It is NOT a redundant category, as Age of Ultron takes place both within NYC and in the portion of NY State that is outside of the city limits. - Richiekim (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think any of the other films you list should have that category either, but let's handle this one page at a time. Per WP:SUBCAT: "Apart from certain exceptions (i.e. non-diffusing subcategories, see below), an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. In other words, a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category (unless the child category is non-diffusing – see below – or eponymous)." The category Category:Films set in New York (state) state: "Films in which a significant portion of the story takes place in the territory or state of New York." Since Films set in New York City is the the lowest in the category hierarchy and only a minor part of the film takes place in upstate New York, the extra category does not seem warranted. Wikipedia categories should be limited to defining characteristics of the article. - DinoSlider (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, and I don't know much about categories / deal with them very often, I believe that adding Category:Films set in New York City automatically adds the article to Category:Films set in New York (state), and so including both does not make sense. Am I correct in saying that? - adamstom97 (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Adam, that is not correct. Unless added by some other coding method (ie an infobox parameter trigger), an article would have to add such category for it to appear. However, as Dino said, you want to add the most specific category possible. So since Films set in New York City is a child of Films set in New York (state), that is the most specific to include. However, I do think, even though it is a short amount of screen time, the appearance of the facility is significant, at least for this film (Ant-Man and Civil War too, maybe not Homecoming and Infinity War). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, I've been incorrectly assuming that this whole time. Whoops. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Peak position vs current position

As currently worded, saying that Age of Ultron is the fifth-highest-grossing film of all time is outright misleading. The sentence currently reads "The film ... grossed over $1.4 billion worldwide, making it the fourth-highest-grossing film of 2015 as well as the fifth-highest-grossing film of all time." The fourth-highest-grossing film of 2015 is obviously correct, and since the year is over that will never change. But grossing $1.4 billion worldwide made it the fifth-highest of all time at the time. It is no longer that high. I really think the verbiage here needs to be cleaned up or the number needs to be changed to the film's current all-time position of eighth. Sock (tock talk) 18:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It probably needs to be just reworded. Generally it is the peak position that is notable. For example, Star Wars is the 81st highest-grossing film these days and dropping fast but who cares? The most notable aspect of its box-office run was that it was #1 of all-time. That's what matters from a historical POV. IMO articles shouldn't be performing box-office "tracking", which is what we would end up doing if have to update its position every time it drops a spot on the all-time chart. The wording just has to make it clear it is a contemporary ranking and not a current one. Betty Logan (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
It definitely should be the peak position (which it is) as Betty stated. I've changed "making it" to "becoming". So in full: The film received generally positive reviews from critics and grossed over $1.4 billion worldwide, becoming the fourth-highest-grossing film of 2015 as well as the fifth-highest-grossing film of all time. One could take out the 2015 rank, making the statement The film received generally positive reviews from critics and grossed over $1.4 billion worldwide, becoming the fifth-highest-grossing film of all time., which as it is now implies peak position to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: I definitely like having the peak more, and that wording helps a lot. It was just the way it was worded I took issue with honestly. That seems like a big improvement! Sock (tock talk) 03:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
It was always intended to be the peak, but I see how the wording may have led to the confusion. Glad it seems better. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you see the hidden note? Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2018

In the upper right column it is stated that the budget is "$444 million (gross)" - this is totally wrong. It is just a higher estimation of the net budget (the other estimation is $365.5 million). Furthermore, in the source it is nowhere specified that this budget is gross. The gross budget of a movie is never officially disclosed, and it usually adds 50 to 200% on the net budget. Another proof, is that in the "box office section" below, with a worldwide total gross of $1.405 billion, the Deadline Hollywood has calculated that the net profit of the film is $382.32 million. Therefore, we can deduce that the gross budget should be $1.02268 billion. 78.83.112.253 (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The net budget is by definition the residual amount after the subsidy/incentive/tax credit is deducted from the gross budget. While FilmLA does not refer to the budgets as "gross budgets" it can be easily shown that this is the case by comparing them to other published budget estimates. You cannot calculate the production budget by deducting the profit margin because the profit margin includes profits from other revenue streams such as home video and TV rights, and there are other costs besides the budget to be taken into account such as the theater cut, the marketing costs, gross participation and residuals etc. Betty Logan (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

In the film industry net budget means the production budget; while the gross budget adds to the production budget all expenses made after the production phase - like the money spent on advertising, distribution and also marketing (as you've mentioned). So, obviously even you are realizing that the given figure of "$444 million (gross)" is incorrect for a gross budget, and it actually states a higher estimation of the net (production) budget. 78.83.112.253 (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I have disabled the template since this edit is now disputed. Kindly get a WP:Consensus and only then activate the template. It will help if the IP user provides some source or citation in support of his claim. --DBigXray 10:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
That is not correct but it's irrelevant anyway because the directive at Template:Infobox_film states "Insert the approximate production budget of the film. This is the cost of the actual filming, and does not include marketing/promotional costs (e.g. advertisements, commercials, posters)." i.e. the Negative cost. The reason two figures are given here is because some publications subtract the incentive/tax credit and some do not, so both are provided to remain neutral. This LA Times article about The Dark Knight Rises is a good example which says ""The Dark Knight Rises" cost between $250 million and $300 million to produce. However tax credits brought that total closer to $230 million". Here is another example for Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice: "The budget for BvS was at least $250 million, although that's after rebates and tax incentives. Sources put the figure significantly higher, or $325 million." The marketing was an additional cost on top of that: "Warner Bros. sources say the spend was in the $150 million-$160 million range, since digital marketing, an increasing percentage of any marketing budget...". You can debate whether the cost before or after the tax credit is the "true" cost (trade publications have different views about this), but ultimately it is one of those two figures that goes in the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Betty is 100% right. Based on the IP user's first comment about using a contrived calculation to get the budget from the BO gross, it seems clear they don't know what they are talking about. Foodles42 (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
So, I guess both Betty Logan and Foodles42 either are unaware that the expenditures made after production can reach amounts of up to 200% of the production budget, which means that they disagree with the Deadline Hollywood's calculation for a net profit of $382.32 million (maybe they think it's about $1 billion). Or they just don't agree that the definition of the term "gross budget", colloquially used in the film industry, should include the production budget plus all expenditures made after production. I hope it's the latter. 78.83.112.253 (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
If you look at Deadline's breakdown for Star wars: The Last Jedi they put the production cost at $200 million. As I have already pointed out to you that is the figure that Template:Infobox_film instructs us to add; the other costs that Deadline documents—such as marketing, participations, residuals, interest and overhead—are not part of the negative cost. We do not document subsequent costs such as marketing, participations and residuals because they will continue rising throughout the lifetime of the film, and in most cases they are unknown. We record only the production cost because usually it is the only information available. Betty Logan (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2019

Pietro and Wanda Maximoff are not called Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch in this film, but why are they credited as so if the IM2 page refuses to add unused aliases. 142.160.114.107 (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2019

Sorry my previous request was ununderstandable. I meant that the page for Iron Man 2 restricts aliases that are not mentioned at all. However, on this page the Maximoffs are listed in the cast with their codenames. Yet however, they are never called by their aliases in the movie. In Im2 at least War Machine is used as an insult' but in this movie the twins are never reffered to by their codenames, only in interviews and merchandise, so it contradicts the way we name characters / actors for these films. 142.160.114.107 (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Who?

Thought the avengers were Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hulk, Ant Man, and Black Widow.

Looks like a bunch of civilians listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Mind stone

I noticed the article doesn't mention the Mind Stone by name. I'll edit it to fix this in a moment. Airbornemihir (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. Airbornemihir (talk) 05:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2019

In the sequels section, it states an upcoming sequel, Avengers: Endgame, even though it already came out. LMSChina (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like this is  Already done —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Budget Correction

According to both Deadline Hollywood[2] and Box Office Mojo[3], the production budget for the film is only $250 million. The Forbes article[4] that mentions that Disney spent $330.2 million on the film does not specify if it is just the production cost or includes other expenses such as marketing. Neither does the other Forbes article[5] regarding Avengers: Infinity War that states that $495.2 million was spent on the film, nor does the report by FilmL.A. Inc.[6]. The $250 million figure provided by Deadline and BoxOfficeMojo also matches with the $250 million figure that Forbes mentioned for the film in its List of Most Expensive Films in 2016. Therefore, I am correcting the figures in this article and also others wherever required. Rajan51 (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted this change. Deadline does not invalidate the other sources used in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
It is not just Deadline. It is confirmed by others as well including Box Office Mojo and Forbes whereas that $365 million figure was reported only by FilmL.A. Inc. which also did not specify that they included only the production budget nor can it invalidate multiple other sources. Rajan51 (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The $250 million figure was a pre-release estimate. The audited properly budget is available from HMRC which is where the FilmLA budghet comes from. Betty Logan (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Is there any report which states that the $250 million was a pre-release estimate? There is no info about the date of Box Office Mojo's figure but the articles released by both Forbes and Deadline were released a year after the film's release. ~Rajan51 (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I recall at the time that $250 million was the quoted figure before the film's release. HMRC released the higher figure about a year or so after the film was released. But it would be better to discuss the data at Talk:List of most expensive films rather than at each article. Betty Logan (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Betty's statements. $250 if I recall was a pre-release estimate, but with the sources "ActualBudget" in the article that covers the UK tax authority info, plus the FilmLA report (which if I believe is after the filming), those are both accurate representations of the budget numbers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Enhanced vs Mutant

In the original, word "enhanced" is used instead of "mutant" due to mutants' rights belonging to Fox. However, in official Russian dub the word "mutant" was constant;y used instead of "enhanced". Can it be put somewhere into the article? Gevorg89 (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

This seems trivial. —El Millo (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hidden note on sequels

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consolidate discussion on this matter at Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)#consensus on Avengers 5 & 6. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

[7] Current consensus is to NOT include Kang Dynasty and Secret Wars here

Where was this discussed? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 – Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron/Archive_6&oldid=1176669233"