Talk:List of films based on Marvel Comics publications/Archive 2

Needed a sub-section of only announced films without actual release date?

WP:SPECULATE

Quote of guideline: Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.

@Favre1fan93:

Please, remember there are additional dates for Marvel Studios and 20th Century Fox Marvel films. We must added those dates? OscarFercho (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Announced films are fine, as I originally stated, the blank dates are not. That's speculation. And as I just stated again, all these films were officially announced until another sources says they are no longer being developed. Just because they don't have release dates doesn't mean they don't exist. And that is the purpose of this new section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you bring another argument about your point?, not only your obvious edits that I undoneOscarFercho (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

They are films that exist. Not much else too it. Having, or not having a release date is not really relevant as long as the projects have been officially announced in some capacity (not rumored to be happening, not placeholder dates). As such, they should accurately be represented on this article and list until a time comes that they either get a release date or are officially cancelled. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

We know the actual status of these projects?OscarFercho (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

For Me, not make sense with the guideline, specially the Fantastic Four sequel, but the three, only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.OscarFercho (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes we know the status of them: they've been announced. Hence a completely separate section than the "Upcoming" films with definite dates and development status. The info as stated and the way it is presented is perfectly fine and tells the reader all they need to know. Any other formatting and/or including them in the existing section would be against the guideline you are trying to make prevent this inclusion (which is incorrect). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank You for the talk. I agree with we know the status of announced, but no more, the original dates has been delayed, and that leave those projects on uncertain future. I like it more opinions about this theme, what You think about It?OscarFercho (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The films in question all seem to be films that we were told were upcoming, and now it seems like they aren't, though we haven't actually been told that they aren't. I don't think we should remove them altogether until we actually get confirmation that they aren't any more, so why not just mention them below the table in prose? Just in a short paragraph that says 'these films were announced as upcoming on these dates, but have since been removed from the schedule'. That separates them from the films that are definitely happening, without presuming that they are cancelled since we don't have a source saying that. Remember, these events were "notable and almost certain to take place" in the same way that the other upcoming films are, and the only way we can decide that they are no longer so, is by doing OR to go from removed from schedule to cancelled (especially problematic since we have consistently been told that they are all still happening at some point). - adamstom97 (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

But the Guideline says only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. In this moment, there's no certain of really these films really will happen.OscarFercho (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem, as I see, is that it's the way for commence to include projects that we know are in development, like New Mutants and X-Force, and turning again this list in a disorder.OscarFercho (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

That sounds fine Adam, though the intent I had was to mimic the way the List of television series based on Marvel Comics article includes "announced" series, at the bottom of its table. All of these are "announced" films, just without a release date. Per WP:V, we know all exist and have the potential to be made. By their inclusion as I formatted in the table (or if we go with prose) we are not violating WP:SPECULATION because we are presenting all known info. We would violate that if we used wording such as "these films don't have dates, but will definitely happen" or "these films no longer have dates are are definitely not happening". Until new information is released on each film, saying yes it is still happening, or no it isn't, there is nothing improper about their inclusion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

That seems fine as well. Oscar, what we are saying is that we need reliable sources before we can act on anything. We have reliable sources telling us these are happening and we have reliable sources telling us that they no longer have a release date, but we don't have reliable sources connecting those dots for us, and so we can't go to WP:SPECULATION yet. I understand that it seems these are not "almost certain to take place" anymore, but technically, as far as Wikipedia and WP:V are concerned, that is not yet the case. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I understand the point, but I think that's better in a separate section, as I proposed first, as on the List of DC Comics films, in order to distinguish in search to not induce to a confussion, due to there's no recently updates of these porjects.OscarFercho (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

If you are referring to List of films based on DC Comics#Cancelled and inactive projects, that was added to the article per consensus over at DC Extended Universe, and is a bit different to what we are attempting to do here. None of the films we are trying to add here are cancelled or inactive (that we know of). The section at the DC article really isn't the best place for that info, but I wasn't part of the original discussion, and we shouldn't be emulating it here. Either in the table as I created it, or converting that to prose, as Adam suggested. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

As I say, I don't see problem, from my point of view, if included this inactive or non-recently updated projects on its own separate section or subsection, but not on the List of feature films. Thanks for the talk.OscarFercho (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Converting on a prose this projects seems to me a better way for not induce to a confussion.OscarFercho (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, really, I want to thank you for the talk.OscarFercho (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Frost Fight

@OscarFercho: do not remove proper reliable sourcing for lesser primary sourcing or no sourcing what so ever like you did here, here and here. I am not sure what this has to do with "But the format of the cell" that is so erroneous as to be removed. Not sure why you wish to suppress information? Spshu (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok. but respect the format of the cell. Those cells isn't for an excess amount of information.OscarFercho (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You say OK then you again revert to primary sourcing! Where is written in MOS that "notes" are "isn't for an excess amount of information." or what I put in that field is excessive? Why do you wish to suppress any additional information about the film (as the article is up for deletion)? Spshu (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The cell of date its only for year, the last cell its only for basic information, not for an excess of detailed info. Pelase respect the format.OscarFercho (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

This film is not notable. Why should information about this TV film be suppress do to your limitation placed on the table? Spshu (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The film is notable, even if the article is deleted, the film still here, but the info to the cells in this list its only basics and essential.OscarFercho (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

No, the article is up for deletion as it is not notable. Who writes and directs it is vary basic. Spshu (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with OscarFercho here. The table should list similar information for each film, whether they are notable enough for a separate article or not. The table isn't the place to dump information about non-notable films. It looks very strange for the table to have more-detailed information about less notable entries than those that are most notable. Calathan (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Not really, Calathan, one would see that notable films have their own article, thus it would not look strange to have more detail information in this article about one that is not notable. Spshu (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

OscarFercho and Calathan, there is an article for deletion discussion started for this film if you want to take sides in it. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The only example I've seen of adding writers to films is in the List of films based on DC Comics, and that's specifically for the adapted ones in the DCOAM series (I may have got the initials wrong). Instead of it being deleted, effort should be made in building the article. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That's true, these lists aren't place for excess of information, no need exactly date of release or detail of credit team behind those projects.OscarFercho (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You are right about one thing Anythingspossibleforapossible, we should find ways to build the article in order to improve it. The article for deletion of this page is here if anyone wants to take sides in either opposing or supporting the deletion. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

AfD results

The AfD end with the decision to merge information and redirect to this page. Please respected the |AfD decision. Spshu (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@OscarFercho:, You make demands that I go the talk page and you don't show up and continue to revert. Spshu (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The article its now redirected on this list, I respect that resolution, what's the problem with that?OscarFercho (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

This list its only for reference information, not for an excess of detail. Do you want change the format of this list?OscarFercho (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

No you are not, since you removing the information that vote for merger indicated at the AfD should be at the List page. So, no you are not "respecting that resolution". Lists do have details and it has been changed for this one due to the AfD. Spshu (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Secondly, you still have not restored the source that you AGREED to return to the article earlier on. Spshu (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

There's no cells on this list that cites directors, writers, month of release, only year, or characters involved on the film. Do you want change this format?OscarFercho (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The redirects no means translate basics information of the article redirected on other, only that the article redirects its essentially irrelevant.OscarFercho (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are not making any sense. At best, I can respond that those that chose redirect indicated that additional information should be added. They should have technically vote "limited merged and redirect" given their responses. Spshu (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

AfD closer here. I came here per Spshu's notification on my talk page. Editors are free to selectively merge any content from the redirected article to the target article. How much to be merged to the target article should be determined through discussion, not edit warring. I have no opinion on what content should be merged. SSTflyer 10:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Right @SSTflyer:, but that discussion does take place at AfD (since I have seen votes like "merge" there). Oscar had a chance to participate in the AfD, as pointed out that it was up there and Rtkat3 was linking to the discussion. I was asking if you as closer see that the consensus there was to add additional information. I don't see the point of another discussion if the AfD cover that additional information should be merged. I could see a discussion about what is added since there was perhaps no consensus on that part of the issue. Spshu (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you want discuss this theme or impose your point of view?OscarFercho (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

No consensus at the AfD discussion on how much information to merge. The AfD discussion focuses on whether the topic is notable. Consensus is that it's not, hence my "redirect" closure. SSTflyer 14:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Insigificant change edits

(formerly: Reception info)

OscarFercho, Do not make an update on reception for CA:Civil War for a single additional review, WP is not a newspaper nor a database. Especially since the % did not change one iota. Spshu (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

What? Why?OscarFercho (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

What. Why: not a newspaper nor a database. You just had the WP software remember an edit for increment of 1 additional review that did not effect the TOMATOMETER % not one percentage point. WP doesn't need to be absolutely up to date for non-effective change in information. You might as well as making edit warring edits to waste the Wikimedia Foundation resources more. But of course you are doing so over the above issue (details about Frost Fight). Spshu (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

And exactly what's the problem with that?OscarFercho (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you questioning the good faith edits?OscarFercho (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You like using resources for little benefit of no incremental change in information? Of course, some one can question good faith edits. Just because they are good faith edits does not make them the correct edits. Good faith edits is not a defense against being reversed. Spshu (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Your interpretation ot the guidelines is wrong, please cheak before start a talk for this theme.OscarFercho (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

←Just stating that my interpretation of the guideline is wrong is not proof that I am wrong. Making insignificant edits like you did is wrong that is just basic common sense. Spshu (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That update seemed completely fine to me. While there isn't any need to check often to see if the number of reviews has changed, if someone notices that the numbers have changed it is good to update them. Our article should reflect the current sources to the best of our knowledge. Nothing in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER has anything to do with this situation. That is about us not covering insignificant events (like individual regular season sports matches), and not writing in a newspaper-like tone. It certainly isn't saying we should leave our articles out of date if we notice that the sources have changed. Spshu, your concern about the Wikimedia Foundation's servers is just completely unfounded. They have plenty of capacity to handle tons of small improvements to articles, and improvements, even as small as this one, are encouraged. Calathan (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Then why enforce 3RR, Calathan? Just let them role. The article was effective NOT out of date the % DID NOT CHANGE just the number of user reviews. IT WAS NOT ONE IOTA of improvement. OK, NOTNEWSPAPER may not address the issue directly. But a newspaper is suppose to be up on change in news subjects. Pulling up WP:STATS brings ("For the policy regarding use of statistics in articles, see WP:NOTSTATSBOOK"), which is still WP:NOT. With the nutshell stating: "The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere." NOTSTATSBOOK states: "As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Spshu (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Spshu, you aren't making any sense at all. Whether it is appropriate to make a very minor improvement to the article has nothing to do with WP:3RR. The edit warring policy is about getting people to work together constructively. It isn't at all about trying to reduce the amount of data the Wikimedia Foundation servers have to store. About WP:NOTSTATBOOK, that is about whether we should include information or not include information. It isn't saying that we shouldn't keep the information we do choose to include up do date. Calathan (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Calathan:.OscarFercho (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Please @Spshu:, see the WP:EQ, your attitude is hostile, the update of current box office and critical reception are sense addings, not irrelevant. Please, I invite you to review all the guidelines before you do a discussion or you will be denounced.OscarFercho (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Calathan, what was the change in reception (the percentage) in his edit? Did it change? Spshu (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

What is the big reveal or significant in that a movie made just a few more hundreds of dollars? Spshu (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Hi. Sorry, can you bring your thought of this issue?. Thanks.OscarFercho (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with everything Calathan said here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"WP:NOTNEWSPAPER has anything to do with this situation. That is about us not covering insignificant events (like individual regular season sports matches)," Basically, Calathan, in adding a single review you are covering that insignificant event which did not change the percentage. Since, there was no percentage change, which other than being a statistical sound number (barring discussion about randomness) of reviews (30-33), there is no improvement of the information thus nothing to update. A single review is less than an individual regular season sport match. Spshu (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Osubuckeyeguy:. Can you bring your thought on this issue. Thanks.OscarFercho (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

What is the relevant change between 70% and 70% Rotten Tomato score (which is the reception that we are tracking)? Newspapers and TV news only report in the millions for box office results. Spshu (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Proper cataloguing of films

I recently did an edit that simplified the way movies are listed in each section. Previously, movies based on TV series, whether they were backdoor pilots, movies repackaged as films for home video releases or abroad, and sequel films to TV series were in different sections. I believe it is best that all of these are grouped together, in order to avoid confusion. I created a new section called Films based on TV series and put all of the titles that fit the description above in this section. I also re-named the Television films section to "Non theatrical releases" and moved The Punisher (1989), Captain America (1990) and Fantastic Four (1994) in there. These movies were either unreleased or direct-to-video releaes and were located in the section that is de-facto for theatrical releases. @OscarFercho basically undid my revision but doing a revision of his own and manually undo-ing my edits. His reason was "Not, previously defined format". I am not quite sure what this means. From my understanding, we are supposed to be improving the pages. I don't see how we are not able to add new sections or make changes to what is included in these sections because another user claims we need to stick to the current format.12:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Goldeneyed (talk)

Your edits were filled with American bias. A film released theatrically in any country other than the United States is still a theatrical release.*Treker (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Treker.OscarFercho (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I apologise if it seems like it has an American bias, but that wasn't my intention. My edit was comprised of two parts, one was grouping together all films based on TV Series in one section, then the other was to move certain films from the theatrical section. Here are the issues with the way the movies are sorted:

If I am to understand how everything is set up, the first non titled section is for Theatrical releases (whether in the USA or internationally). Why is Man-Thing (2005), not included in this list? It had an international theatrical release. If the answer is because it aired on TV, then there should be a separate section for Punisher (1989) and Captain America (1990), which are both direct-to-video movies and possible Fantastic Four (1994), none of which were theatrical releases.

Another problem is that even though the first section is for theatrical releases, there are other movies listed under both the Television Movies and Episodes as Films sections, that have had international theatrical releases. So we have three sections where we place theatrical releases. That is a problem in my opinion.

What is the issue with taking all backdoor pilots, episodes repackaged as films and sequel movies (the three Hulk movies), and putting them all in one section? I haven't received an answer regarding that.21:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Goldeneyed (talk)

Need more consensous for your proposal, now we are two disagree.OscarFercho (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I think you have some points but I believe it's the easiest if all the live action films are just listed together. It would probably be good if we brought this up on the comics project talk page.*Treker (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems the better way, the comics project talk page.OscarFercho (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

How we know the title?

What's the source of the title Spider-Man: Homecoming 2? How we know that title?OscarFercho (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The source on the page. "... the Culver City studio has announced that its sequel Spider-Man: Homecoming 2 will open on Friday, July 5, 2019." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It is almost certainly a temporary title, but that is what it is and can be referred to now until it is given a new title. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I think that's not completely adequate title to reference the project.OscarFercho (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The Inhumans

According to the report of Marvel.com, about The Inhumans new television series, it will debut, exclusively, in IMAX theatres, what will meaning its first release, its debut, [1]. This like-a-movie premiere must be include on this list as upcoming feature film? Thoughts, please.OscarFercho (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Playing in a theatre does not make something a feature film. The advertisements before a movie are not all feature films because they are playing in a theatre. This is two episodes of a television series, not a film. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for my bad English. The place on the Inhumas project was put it's in the Episodes as films, subsection of Television films; is that the right place for this project? It will be released theatrically, not only broadcasting on television. @Favre1fan93:, @Richiekim:, can you provide your thoughts?OscarFercho (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Two episodes of the Inhumans TV series will get a theatrical release, so in my opinion, it is in the right section, as several of the entries (like the Spider-Man epsiodes) were given a theatrical release. - Richiekim (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree as well on placement, and specific dates are helpful given the nature of its release and the fact it is truly a TV series, and not a film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks.OscarFercho (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Deadpool: No Good Deed

I assume this was an oversight, but No Good Deed is being identified as an MCU short (because up until that point, they were only MCU shorts). -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

For that I changed the text to "The Shorts produced by Marvel Studios...". Your thoughts and changes welcome.OscarFercho (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Critical reception color code

I added the color codes to the critical reception table. For Rotten Tomatoes reviews, there were a total of 48 movies reviewed. For Metacritic and CinemaScore, there were 45 reviews. Placing these number here so it is easier for users to average the reviews in the end. The last movie released was Logan as of present, so just add up from there from the 48 or 45 reviews. Hope this helps.--ZiaLater (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a huge WP:ACCESS issue and completely unnecessary. It serves no real purpose. The additions have been removed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Thanks for letting me know. Thought it would actually help, though it is somewhat difficult when reading the code. I saw it at the DC film article first and it looks like it has already been removed. Thanks again!--ZiaLater (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Color for the sake of something having color is generally superfluous, and can, as in this case, present WP:ACCESS issues. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Venom

Someone needs to add the new venom movie that was announced for 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.243.240 (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Series column

Since people are disagreeing on this matter and I don't want to start an edit war, I'm bringing it up here. The issue: should the main table have a separate column to mark which series the films are in, or just leave them in the notes column? Personally, I'd prefer the separate column version. (Until next time... Anon e Mouse Jr.) Anon e Mouse Jr. (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Definitely not needed as a separate column. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, not needed another column.OscarFercho (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Not much valid argument against series column given be ether Favre1fan93 and OScarFercho as series column tells better story on which film belong in series, despite not all of them being produced by same movie studio. In longer list such as List of Disney Animated short , series column is very important to navigate the list for better understanding which cartoon belongs each series, Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy, Silly Symphonies ect... So dividing Marvel feature list in similar manner given how many films are included in this list makes sense to includes the series as well. This can help better understand the complicated film rights https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1xbMzsfVdbw/WKxLnfly6wI/AAAAAAABA1U/NJdNplw8fvIiqh5QLMXlcAvmW1LkukBSwCLcB/s1600/marvel-rights-v4.png unlike Disney list where there is singular producer here we are dealing with 4-5 producers if you wanted to be very technical list should actually be divided into each producer. List also start with serial, which technically don't belong given that serials were diffrent in nature form modern feature films. DoctorHver (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding the series first detracts from the films themselves. It is also something a fan would appreciate more, and while there are pages dedicated to individual series, all this is a simple list of films. No need for all the technicality. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

DoctorHver Don't insist with you want on this list and on the List of films based on DC Comics if there are not consensus or the negative from other users.OscarFercho (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Interconnected films

A colour coded key can be put in place to stop repeating notes and create a better way of handling interconnected films. This can also be done on the similar DC page. The X-Men film series, MCU(the film series inside the MCU could have different shades of the main colour to show which it is apart of same for X-men’s deadpool and wolverine), Spider-Man, Amazing Spider-Man, other and potentially film Series where the series might become a new film series that has cut ties with or merged with the the other film series and end up in a different that technically connects the 2(like Sony wanting its own spider-verse that runs parallel to the MCU sharing the same Spider-Man character or potentially Fox owned characters like deadpool becoming a part of the MCU or a potential MC multiverse because of Disney buying Fox assets and its popularity) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:464E:7400:54CD:1A25:B5D9:F490 (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Box office totals don't add up

I just was looking at the box office totals and they are very much off. I just spot checked and they current total is now is excess of $27 billion. I added everything up with a calculator using just millions. I am guessing that the numbers can be totaled up in some way in the Wiki markdown, similar to a spreadsheet total. If you have to edit the total directly every time the page is updated, that would be..... well, that would be disappointing. That's why I figured the markdown probably has some way of doing a total automatically cause this can't be the first time somebody has brought this issue up. That said I'm not sure how to do that. So figured I would just bring to folks attention here. David Reiss (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, nobody responded to me. I took the liberty of sitting down a calculator and re-added the worldwide totals column. Came to $28,481,987,737 (as of today) with a per-movie average of $569,639,755. There has been 50 movies, so the average didn't shot up a lot. I only did the updated math on the Worldwide totals column. David Reiss (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

All right. All done now. I updated all the totals and averages on the chart. All are current of as now. David Reiss (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Red Sonja

Should Red Sonja be added here? The Red Sonja comics were published by Marvel at the time of the film's release.The Editor 155 (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Previously discussed here.OscarFercho (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

And here.OscarFercho (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Short Films

I'm sorry I messed up the Short Films section when I added in the 1978 Japanese Spider-Man featurette. Could some please clean it up? I must admit that wiki tables aren't my strong suit at all. --JFP (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, I managed to fix it myself. --JFP (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The Iron Warrior

Why is Man-Thing in the television films section? It's a theatrical film. --The Iron Warrior (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Why does everyone want to change the studio(s) back? This is the proper list:

Year	Title	Studio(s)	Notes
1944	Captain America	Republic Pictures	15-chapter serial film; Marvel was then known as Timely Comics.
1986	Howard the Duck	Universal Pictures / Lucasfilm
1989	The Punisher	New World Pictures	Direct-to-video in U.S.; limited theatrical release internationally.
1990	Captain America	21st Century Film Corporation / Jadran Film
1994	The Fantastic Four	New Horizons / Constantin Film	Unreleased
1998	Blade	New Line Cinema / Marvel Entertainment / Amen Ra Films
2000	X-Men	20th Century Fox / Marvel Entertainment / The Donners' Company / Bad Hat Harry Productions
2002	Blade II	New Line Cinema / Marvel Entertainment
	Spider-Man	Columbia Pictures / Marvel Enterprises / Laura Ziskin Productions	Distributed by Sony Pictures; nominated for 2 Oscars.
2003	Daredevil	20th Century Fox / Marvel Entertainment / Regency Enterprises / New Regency Productions
	X2	20th Century Fox / Marvel Entertainment / The Donners' Company / Bad Hat Harry Productions
	Hulk	Marvel Enterprises / Valhalla Motion Pictures / Good Machine
2004	The Punisher	Lions Gate Entertainment / Lions Gate Films / Marvel Enterprises / Valhalla Motion Pictures / Artisan Entertainment
	Spider-Man 2	Columbia Pictures / Marvel Enterprises / Laura Ziskin Productions	Distributed by Sony Pictures; won 1 Oscar, nominated for 2 more.
	Blade: Trinity	New Line Cinema / Marvel Entertainment / Imaginary Forces / Amen Ra Films
2005	Elektra	20th Century Fox / Marvel Entertainment / Regency Enterprises / New Regency Productions / Horseshoe Bay
	Fantastic Four	20th Century Fox / Marvel Enterprises / Constantin Film / 1492 Pictures
	Man-Thing	Lions Gate Films / Artisan Entertainment / Fierce Entertainment / Marvel Enterprises / Screenland Movieworld
2006	X-Men: The Last Stand	20th Century Fox / Marvel Entertainment / The Donners' Company / Dune Entertainment / Ingenious Media
2007	Ghost Rider	Columbia Pictures / Marvel Entertainment / Marvel Studios / Crystal Sky Pictures / Femme Enciente Pictures / Michael De Luca Productions / GH One / Vengeance Productions / Pty Ltd.	Distributed by Sony Pictures
	Spider-Man 3	Columbia Pictures / Marvel Studios / Laura Ziskin Productions
	Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer	20th Century Fox / Marvel Studios / Constantin Film / 1492 Pictures
2008	Iron Man	Marvel Entertainment / Marvel Studios / Fairview Entertainment	Distributed by Paramount Pictures;1 nominated for 2 Oscars
	The Incredible Hulk	Marvel Entertainment / Marvel Studios / Valhalla Motion Pictures
	Punisher: War Zone	Lionsgate Films / Marvel Studios / Valhalla Motion Pictures	Not part of MCU.
2009	X-Men Origins: Wolverine	20th Century Fox / Marvel Entertainment / The Donners' Company / Seed Productions
2010	Iron Man 2	Marvel Entertainment / Marvel Studios / Fairview Entertainment	Distributed by Paramount Pictures;1 nominated for 1 Oscar.
	Thor	Marvel Entertainment / Marvel Studios
2011	X-Men: First Class	20th Century Fox / Marvel Entertainment / The Donners' Company / Ingenious Media / Ingenious Film Partners / Dune Entertainment / Bad Hat Harry Productions / Hutch Parker Productions / Big Screen Productions
	Captain America: The First Avenger	Marvel Entertainment / Marvel Studios	Distributed by Paramount Pictures1.
	Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance	Columbia Pictures / Marvel Entertainment / Marvel Studios / Hyde Park Entertainment / Imagenation Abu Dhabi / Crystal Sky Pictures	Distributed by Sony Pictures; not part of the MCU
2012	Marvel's The Avengers	Marvel Entertainment / Marvel Studios	Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures starts distributing Marvel Studios films;2 nominated for 1 Oscar.
	The Amazing Spider-Man	Columbia Pictures / Marvel Entertainment / Laura Ziskin Productions	Distributed by Sony Pictures; part of the MCU.
2013	Iron Man 3	Marvel Studios / DMG Entertainment	Distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures and Paramount Pictures; nominated for 1 Oscar.
	The Wolverine	20th Century Fox / Marvel Entertainment / The Donners' Company / TSG Entertainment / Bad Hat Harry Productions / Hutch Parker Productions
	Thor: The Dark World	Marvel Entertainment / Marvel Studios
2014	Captain America: The Winter Soldier		Nominated for 1 Oscar.
	The Amazing Spider-Man 2	Columbia Pictures / Marvel Entertainment	Distributed by Sony Pictures; part of the MCU.
	X-Men: Days of Future Past	20th Century Fox / Marvel Entertainment / The Donners' Company / TSG Entertainment / Bad Hat Harry Productions	Nominated for 1 Oscar.
	Guardians of the Galaxy	Marvel Entertainment / Marvel Studios	Nominated for 2 Oscars.
2015	Avengers: Age of Ultron
	Ant-Man
	Fantastic Four	20th Century Fox / Marvel Entertainment / TSG Entertainment / Marv Films / Robert Kulzer Productions / Kinberg Genre
2016	Deadpool	20th Century Fox / Marvel Entertainment / The Donners' Company / TSG Entertainment / Kinberg Genre
	Captain America: Civil War	Marvel Entertainment / Marvel Studios
	X-Men: Apocalypse	20th Century Fox / Marvel Entertainment / The Donners' Company / TSG Entertainment / Kinberg Genre / Bad Hat Harry Productions / Hutch Parker Productions
	Doctor Strange	Marvel Entertainment / Marvel Studios	Nominated for 1 Oscar.
2017	Logan	20th Century Fox / Marvel Entertainment / Kinberg Genre / Hutch Parker Productions	Nominated for 1 Oscar.
	Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2	Marvel Entertainment / Marvel Studios	Nominated for 1 Oscar.
	Spider-Man: Homecoming	Columbia Pictures / Marvel Entertainment / Marvel Studios / Pascal Pictures	Distributed by Sony Pictures; part of the MCU.
	Thor: Ragnarok	Marvel Entertainment / Marvel Studios
2018	Black Panther
	Avengers: Infinity War
	Deadpool 2	20th Century Fox / Marvel Entertainment / The Donners' Company / TSG Entertainment / Kinberg Genre
	Ant-Man and the Wasp	Marvel Entertainment / Marvel Studios
Upcoming
2018	Venom	Columbia Pictures / Marvel Entertainment / Marvel Studios / Pascal Pictures	Post-production
2019	Dark Phoenix	20th Century Fox / Marvel Entertainment / TSG Entertainment / Kinberg Genre
	Captain Marvel	Marvel Entertainment / Marvel Studios
	Avengers: Endgame
	Spider-Man: Far From Home	Columbia Pictures / Marvel Entertainment / Marvel Studios / Pascal Pictures	Filming; to be distributed by Sony Pictures; part of the MCU
	The New Mutants	20th Century Fox / Marvel Entertainment / Kinberg Genre	Post-production
2020	Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3	Marvel Entertainment / Marvel Studios	In development
	untitled X-Men reboot film

--The Iron Warrior (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Spider-Man: Homecoming

Not really a complaint here, but just curious. Do we really need to clarify that Spider-Man: Homecoming and Spider-Man: Far From Home are set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? The Wiki page already said that movies produced by Marvel Studios are set in the MCU unless proven otherwise, like Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance. And since both films are produced by Marvel Studios and it doesn't need to be proven otherwise, do we really need to have it say "part of the MCU" even though we already know that it's part of the MCU since it's produced by Marvel Studios? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spider-Man2017 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Inhumans premiere

@Favre1fan93: Hi. Are we sure that Inhumans premiere is the right title for the Episodes released in IMAX of this series, I'm not sure. Thkans. Kr.OscarFercho (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It is, given the discussion to change it to such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it. Understood. Apreciate you the response.OscarFercho (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The Silver Surfer

The Silver Surfer short by Erik Fleming should be added to the list as it was an authorised product. Even though it was an experimental movie, it was released at a film festival. --Sportscorrection (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

References

The Silver Surfer short film is a fan-made project, not by professional filmmakers. We only allow projects on this list that have been made by a legit studio and professional crew members. Sorry. Cardei012597 (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, is a fan made, not official.OscarFercho (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Deadpool next movie

@Cardei012597: What's the source of the next Untitled Deadpool movie for december is an animated project? The source don't say that.OscarFercho (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I think even can be a new short of Deadpool, this is the original source [2].OscarFercho (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I thought I heard somewhere that it would be an animated film, but it might just be a guess. I also heard rumors that it might be a PG-13 Deadpool 2, https://deadline.com/2018/09/dark-phoenix-alita-battle-angel-deadpool-gambit-release-date-changes-1202473229/, so it could be anything. I honestly do not know where to put this project, as they announced nothing official outside of an Untitled Deadpool project to be released Dec. 21, 2018. Cardei012597 (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

This reference, https://screenrant.com/deadpool-2-movie-pg-13-release-date/, also seems to claim the project is a PG-13 Deadpool 2, so should I just move the project to live action? Cardei012597 (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I think there's not enough information to include that announce for now; might be the same Deadpool 2 in PG-13.OscarFercho (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I just want to know if this: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/deadpool-2-ryan-reynolds-filmed-new-scenes-pg-13-cut-1156129 changes anything regarding PG13 Deadpool. Ryan Reynolds stated many new scenes were filmed for this PG13 Deadpool. Yeah, parts of Deadpool 2 will be in it, but it seems like this might be its own film, with these brand new scenes. What do you think? Cardei012597 (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Not, no agree. It's, in fact, the same movie but with new scenes.02:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Red Sonja

OscarFercho, I have a question. I researched this information and I gathered that the character of Red Sonja was created by Marvel Comics for their brief Conan the Barbarian comicbook line. She did not appear in the Ron E. Howard books, and is only partially based on certain Conan aspects. Her first appearance is from a Marvel comic book; she was created by Marvel. My question is, if we can agree about this, can we add the film adaptations of Red Sonja to this page? Heck, her own wiki page lists her as a Marvel Comics character. Thoughts? Cardei012597 (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, what do you think about this? Cardei012597 (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

That theme has been previously discussed. Is not a Marvel character; no rights, no more titles about her, is not of Marvel.OscarFercho (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Other territories collumn for Box Office table.

OscarFercho and other editors, I don't see the necessity of the "Other territories" collumn for the Box Office table. The "Worldwide" collumn already includes the total gross of other territories and North American gross, which has its collumn. I think its redundant to have "Other territories" collumn, even its sister page List of films based on DC Comics understood that it isn't necessary. Thoughts? Cardei012597 (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The table is meant to be easy to read. It doesn't hurt to keep it and provides the information in a way that is easy to understand. As such, including the column of information makes sense. dreiss2 (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The world is not just Northamerica.OscarFercho (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Previous discussion

Can redirect to this past discussion before any sense change, Talk:List of films based on Marvel Comics/Archive 1#Direct to video should not be split?OscarFercho (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Fox Marvel films

Can anybody provide evidence of the 20th Century Fox distributor has been been closed?OscarFercho (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The site of 20th Century Fox studio, maybe the best reference, still consider Dark Phoenix in its next releases.https://www.foxmovies.com/movies/dark-phoenixOscarFercho (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Prep work for near future movies

I added Prep-work for both Dark Phoenix and Spider-Man:Far From Home to the box office section. It was commented out, but it would allow people people to just un-comment the markup when the movies are fully released. Then people won't have to think about how to put the full entries in the page - something that when done quickly is easy to mess up. OscarFercho keeps saying it's too early, but the reason I added it here was that several other pages around Wikipedia do this very thing already. It doesn't add any problems to the page, as these parts would be commented out. So people are not being presented with any information that would confuse them. It literally just makes maintaining the page easier for everyone here.

So, I am making this comment here becuase I think this prep-work will make maintaining this page easier for everyone here. Thank you. dreiss2 (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Please wait to add, for less two more weeks.OscarFercho (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Why? The inclusion now only adds and does not detract from anything. Waiting serves no purpose. dreiss2 (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Adds now serves to no any purposes.OscarFercho (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

It's very clearly not an Ad because it could be commented out. It just makes it that when the material later gets put in that the person adding it wouldn't need to think hard about. Just remove the comments and update the totals as normal. You're worry about some ad is more than kind of pointless here. Right now your reason for not adding it amounts to nothing more than "because I said so". While the reasons I have given involve actual thoughts. dreiss2 (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Need more thoughts.OscarFercho (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Dark Phoenix (film)

It clearly states Disney is the distributor, it doesn’t matter if it’s not tied to the MCU, it was distributed by Disney, now stop changing back the distributor unless you have a solid reason to as why it wasn’t distributed by Disney, for now leave it as it is. And stop thinking that Disney has no business distributing this film, if it’s stated on the films page, that shows that you (the changers) don’t know anything about this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.54.163.113 (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Not, it's not clear, the entity that distributes is Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation if you seen the credits.

The credits are not accurate, as those were most likely made before March 20th, Credits shouldn’t count as a source anyway, as they can sometimes be invalid and are only from personal opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.54.163.113 (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Really? Seriously? You unestimated the own credits of the movie? @Cardei012597: Thoughts?OscarFercho (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe a lot of this confusion just stems from this basic question: Will Disney actually distribute future Fox films or will Fox be allowed to continue to distribute its own films? I do not believe there is a definite answer to this question. The basics of the Disney / Fox deal is that Disney owns Fox, but we don't know how this affects Fox and its distribution company. Many articles are only focusing on the lay offs of Fox, not really on who is distributing these films. The only info I found relating to this is Disney being signed on as a co-production partner on The King's Man. Due to this uncertainity, I propose a compromise: Any 2020-onward Fox release will have Disney as a production partner or even as a distributor, but NOT any 2019 Fox release. I say this because 2020 releases are mostly in the filming stage (not finished or ready for a Fox distribution) and can be taken by Disney during the film's creation. For 2019 releases, the films were practically finished/completed before Disney could get involved. So in simplistic terms for this Marvel list, The New Mutants and The Kings Man are Disney's productions, while Dark Phoenix is only Fox's. Thoughts on my compromise? Cardei012597 (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm totally agree.OscarFercho (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

But that doesn’t explain why WDSMP is listed on films’ pages that released this year. This argument is not valid in any way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.54.163.113 (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I don't know why certain people decided on giving Disney the distributor credit on Dark Phoenix or any other 2019 Fox film. The Disney / Fox deal did not give specific insight on who actually distributed the 2019 films. I believe some people just assume Fox has no distribution credit on any film released post March 2019. These films were practically finished by Fox before Disney bought Fox. If you can bring these people into this discussion, I'm sure they'll understand our compromise and maybe even accept it. However, on this Marvel page, we should keep this compromise. Cardei012597 (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

20th Century Fox are NOT distributors anymore, their last film as a distributor was Alita: Battle Angel, It is made clear that Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures was the distributor of Dark Phoenix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.108.98 (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you see 'Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures' in the credits of 'Dark Phoenix? Do you have proof that 'Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures' was actually listed in the end credits of Dark Phoenix? I do not care what it says on other wikipedia projects, no one has proof that 'Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures' was listed in the end credits of Dark Phoenix. Come back with proof (NOT on Wikipedia) and then maybe I'll hear out your argument. Cardei012597 (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you see 'Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures' in the credits of 'Dark Phoenix? Do you have proof that 'Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures' was actually listed in the end credits of Dark Phoenix? I do not care what it says on other wikipedia projects, no one has proof that 'Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures' was listed in the end credits of Dark Phoenix. Come back with proof (NOT on Wikipedia) and then maybe I'll hear out your argument. Cardei012597 (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I want to see proof from a major news article that specifically uses these words exactly: 'Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures was listed in the end credits of Dark Phoenix'. If you can not provide a news source that specifically states this, than this discussion is closed. Cardei012597 (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

It's true. I agree, there's no any only one sole reference to the Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures in the movie; it can't be considered released under the umbrella of Disney; there's no any evidence.OscarFercho (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Someone else

Why aren't the Conan the barbarian movies on here? The Lord of Falafel (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Cause that isn't a Marvel propertie movie.OscarFercho (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Marvel Imprints

I decided to seperate the imprints from the Marvel proper and I think the list is little bit more easily navigated with this reordering of films. 212.30.205.98 (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Can't decide without any consensous. Please submit before a sense change.OscarFercho (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Various notes on what should count in the "Live-Action Films" area

A few things here: 1. Inhumans(2017) should be counted as a theatrically released movie instead of "episodes as films" because it premiered theatrically. If it was a theatrical release of two previously aired TV episodes then I'd understand, but it premiered theatrically.

2. The Toei Japanese Spider-Man movie should be counted because it was only released theatrically, by itself as opposed to being played before a longer film. In Japanese culture it's acceptable for theatrically-released movies to be this length so I think excluding it gives off a certain amount of Western bias.

3. Similarly, I think the theatrically-released movies based on the Japanese series' Battle Fever J, Denji Sentai Denziman, and Taiyo Sentai Sun Vulcan should all be included as well because they were all produced by Toei as a part of a 4-year production deal with Marvel. For the most part, they're Marvel movies in the same way that Mutant X was a Marvel TV show. Having very loose comic connections but being produced by Marvel. At least Battle Fever J: The Movie should be considered because it was very loosely based on Captain America, with a version of Miss America appearing. Keep in mind these shows are officially recognized as a part of the Marvel Multiverse.

4. I think the 70s CBS TV movies that were released theatrically overseas should be considered for addition to the "Live-Action Films" category because they should count for the same reason that The Punisher(1989) and Captain America(1990) do. Just because they were TV movies instead of Direct-to-Video doesn't mean they shouldn't count. They were released exclusively in a theatrical sense in the territories they were theatrically released. Films that should be considered include Spider-Man(1977), The Incredible Hulk(1977), The Return of the Incredible Hulk(1977), Spider-Man Strikes Back(1978), and Spider Man: The Dragon's Challenge(1981). Also something to think about is The Incredible Hulk: Married. It was released theatrically outside North America as The Bride of the Incredible Hulk. If not in the "Live-Action Films" section, it should be moved to the TV movies section. Just because it was released as a part of a TV show does not make it ineligible of being a TV movie.CoalDiamondMagic (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

All that Japanese series are in the List of television series based on Marvel Comics, the other have its place in this list.OscarFercho (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes of course the series are, but each of those series has a movie that is not included in this list. CoalDiamondMagic (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

captain america 1990 and punisher 1989

Why is captain america 1990 and punisher 1989 in the direct to video category? since they were given a limited release in other countries they should be in the theatrical live action films category.Cjcrum668 (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussed in the subsection up.OscarFercho (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The main section "Live-actions films" were deemed to only include American theatrical released films. The captain america 1990 and punisher 1989 were moved because in America they were both released direct to video. There is currently a discussion being held for where to move the unreleased FF film in the Man Thing talk section. Cardei012597 (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Man-Thing film

Why is Man-thing in the television film category. It should be in the live action film category since it was released overseas and grossed one million at the box office.Cjcrum668 (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Originally intended for a theatrical release in the United States, the film premiered on the Sci Fi Channel under the Sci Fi Pictures label. It grossed $1 million against its $30 million budget from a small release in international theaters.

It doesn't matter was intended for a theatrical release, is a television film.

@Favre1fan93:@Cardei012597:@Sc2353: Thoughts.OscarFercho (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Not all of the fims in the main live action film category even had United States theatrical release (see 1989 The Punisher, 1990 Captain America, and the unreleased 1994 The Fantastic Four film). I am not 100% sure what qualifies as "live action films" in the main category, only that they were not direct released on a television cabel channel. On a slightly different note, I do think the "live action films" category should only be used for American theatrical released films, and the rest that did not premiere in such movie theaters should be put in a separate category with Man-Thing. In the television category, maybe renane it "Home media releases" or something like that, another broad term for any film not released in American theaters. For example, what if a Marvel film at a future date decideds to be released only on Disney+, skip all American theaters entirely, I would think it should not be placed in the main "live action films". Sorry for this extended reply. In short, I agree with Oscar on keeping Man Thing in the Television films section, but maybe reword it to "Home media releases" for such films. Thoughts? Cardei012597 (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Cardei012597:!! I think too in future rename of section, or subsections, for on demand exclusively releases, but not for now. The TV movies with any form of limited release in theaters not qualified as "Main films", as the feature two first episodes of Inhumans, these "films" are exceptions.

Can you help me with the format of the reference of Thor Love and Thunder in this article. Thanks!! and Greetings.OscarFercho (talk) 05:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I fixed the cite, I still think 1989 The Punisher, 1990 Captain America, and the unreleased 1994 The Fantastic Four film should not be in the "Main films" category, but I am willing to indefinitely postpone moving them into a new section, if a consensus deems it so. They were never shown in American theaters, unlike the rest of the "Main films", heck even the unreleased Fantastic Four film never got any official release, just illegal bootleg copies on YouTube. So, I am just not sure about these three films. Just my two cents. Cardei012597 (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The animated films have a subsection titled "Direct-to-video and television films". I think we should do just that: move the 1989 The Punisher, 1990 Captain America, and the unreleased 1994 The Fantastic Four film from the main "Live action films" into the television films subsection, retitled "Direct-to-video and television films". Thoughts? Cardei012597 (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Really, really thanks for fix the cite. I completely agree with The Punisher and Captain America movies move from "Main films", maybe to a new subsection, but the unreleased FF movie, I don't know, I'm not sure, in its moment, 'til we know, was intended release in theaters.OscarFercho (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I will move the 1989 punisher and 1990 captain america films in my new subsection idea. With the unreleased FF film, technically, the film has been shelved indefinitely as it served as a ashcan project for the producers to hold onto the rights to the comic property. Cardei012597 (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I moved the 1989 punisher and 1990 captain america films to the section retitled "Direct-to-video and television films". I suggest removing the unreleased FF film from this list and move it to the page List of unproduced film projects based on Marvel Comics as the page includes unreleased films. I do not count the illegal bootleg copies of the film on YouTube as a proper release in any sense. I think this position makes the most sense. Thoughts? Cardei012597 (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm reallly okay with these changes. Only the FF unreleased movie, still, I'm not sure. I think we need more opinions from other users, like @Favre1fan93:, he's good with this criteria. OscarFercho (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

My issue with 1994 FF movie is that was unreleased, but exist, I saw it in a bootleg version, was just commercially unreleased.OscarFercho (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I know, but my page List of unproduced film projects based on Marvel Comics has a section for unreleased films. I think it is best to move the unreleased FF film there, as it just does not fit the mold of a Marvel film released by a studio. I can add a hidden note in the main films table that directs readers to the unreleased FF film section at List of unproduced film projects based on Marvel Comics, if you think that will help. I just do not think it should qualify as a movie, as it is clear the studio had no intention to release the film. There are sources, even from the late Stan Lee, that state they intended to shelve the film indefinitely. It just happened to leak on YouTube a decade later. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I think is better hear more opinions, not just both of us. 1994 FF is a film but unreleased, not unproduced. What you think?OscarFercho (talk) 05:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess FF can stay, but maybe move to the "Direct-to-video and television films" section below? Cardei012597 (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I found copies of a blue ray release of the 1994 Fantastic Four film on Etsy. https://www.etsy.com/listing/931668898/roger-cormans-fantastic-four-with?gpla=1&gao=1&&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=shopping_us_c-books_movies_and_music-movies&utm_custom1=_k_CjwKCAjwtpGGBhBJEiwAyRZX2sA1QS0CUgfobPbvAqEWSw-my15rhqWw886otXwndfCcg-FU2pGbwhoC4JIQAvD_BwE_k_&utm_content=go_12573073825_119955076456_507798476811_pla-353214764099_t__931668898_242332811&utm_custom2=12573073825&gclid=CjwKCAjwtpGGBhBJEiwAyRZX2sA1QS0CUgfobPbvAqEWSw-my15rhqWw886otXwndfCcg-FU2pGbwhoC4JIQAvD_BwE Should this qualify for moving it to direct-to-video? Cardei012597 (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure that's the better place for 1994 FF movie, but I like to see more opinions.OscarFercho (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not think anyone pinged earlier is coming to this discussion anytime soon. Cardei012597 (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok. For me, the change is good.OscarFercho (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

References

New Title Of Page Recommendation

I think the new title of the page should be called American films based on Marvel Comics publications since the films listed in the theatrically released films category had a release in the United States unlike Man-Thing, Punisher 1989 and Captain America 1990 which had theatrical releases but it was only in other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.162.209 (talk) 23:51, June 23, 2021 (UTC)

Will be considered.OscarFercho (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Serials vs shorts

@OscarFercho:, Following from the DC discussion from yesterday, I also decided that the idea behind serials being "a series of short films" also qualifies for the Marvel page. I moved the Captain America serial there, and retitled the section to "Serials and short films". They are both in the same subject, as a serial is a collection of short films. Under the definition for a serial, even the Marvel One-Shots can be defined as a serial, as they are a collection of shorts. Thoughts? Cardei012597 (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I think is not the case. Both formats are not the same thing.OscarFercho (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

By the definition found in Webster Dictionary, serials are a "a series of short films". Both terms "serials" and "short films" can be grouped together because they are dealing with related subject matter. A short film is a piece of a serial, while serials are a group of shorts. They can be placed together as they have more in common with each other, rather than full-length feature films, which is not as related or similar to either one of them. Cardei012597 (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The 1944 serial Captain America (serial) is a series of 15 short films released weekly in theaters. Each short film was approximately 16 minutes. It is not a feature length film, it is a series of short films. There are many news sources, even its own Wikipedia page, that corroborate with what I am saying. Serials belong in the same group as short films, as they are in fact, a series of short films. Cardei012597 (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Really I can't understand the change, the one is the only one serial film and the other is the only one real action short, but both are not some like "episodes as films".OscarFercho (talk) 01:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

All I am saying, and I hope you agree, that serials and short films are very similar. The only difference is the quantity of shorts. Serials are a collection of short films. That is just a factual statement that can be proven true by a single Google search of the definition of "serial film". Why should they be separated? They are the same. The 1944 Captain America serial is 100% truly a collection of 15 short films, each running for about 16 minutes. Cardei012597 (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

There should be a separation for feature length films and short films on both pages for Marvel and DC. I suggest a new title for the main section "live-action feature films", instead of "live-action films". Shorts and serials do not belong in this main section, as they are not similar in content to feature length films. That is just fact. They are too different from the feature length films. Serials and short films are more related to each other, in content, then they are to feature length films. That is the truth. Cardei012597 (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

No. there's no reason for those changes, is not make any sense just for one serial and one sole live action short.OscarFercho (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, sorry to tell you this, but it makes absolutely no sense to include a short film collection in the same section as The Avengers or any actual feature length film. There is a monumental difference between a collection of 15 short films and a singular 2 hour movie. They do not operate the same. They are not at all similar in the least. Short films and serials are the same. Live action feature films are not even close to being like a short film or a serial. This is a simple fact: the 1944 Captain America short film collection does not belong in the main live action feature films section. Prove me wrong. There is nothing in common between a series of shorts (serials) and a feature length film. That is the reason for these changes: Captain America is a short film collection, not a feature film. Prove this reasoning wrong with evidence and details. Cardei012597 (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not matter of prove, it's criteria, and I don't see the need for the change.OscarFercho (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I do not see why this Captain America short film series should be listed as a "live action feature film". That just does not add up in any sense. It is a series of short films, not a feature film. The criteria is that is does not belong in the main section. The necessary element of this change is because someone thought a series of short films and a feature length film are identical. This thought someone had is just plain false. Why should we be bound to the original editor's confused thought process of includes a short film series with feature length films. I do not see the need to uphold this original editor's choice from many years ago, when it does not make any sense. It does not belong with feature films and this original decision made years ago was 100% the wrong decision. If I could, I would try to find who ever chose this and discuss it with them. If we can find out who was this original editor that placed the serial there, we can extend this discussion with them. For now though, we can not justify reverting my choices for the serial because the original version makes no sense. I would like to see the original years old opinion that tried to justified this serial being in the main section, before more discussion is considered for this specific topic. Cardei012597 (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the frequent edit spam

Apologies if this is the wrong place/way to discuss this, I'm admittedly relatively new to Wikipedia.

Is there anything we can do about the IP editors who keep re-adding the 1989 Punisher movie even though it's already on the page (and doing it incorrectly so it occasionally breaks the table), or re-adding that short description even though it's unnecessary and we keep saying that it's unnecessary? These things happening once in a while isn't a huge problem but at this point we're dealing with this multiple times a day every day from the same people. ShyKen (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

"Live-action feature films and shorts produced by Marvel Studios are set within the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) unless otherwise noted. "

As far as I can tell, none are so noted. Was a column erased or something? Thmazing (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Punisher War Zone mentions that it's co-produced by Marvel Studios in the notes and mentions that it's not part of the MCU, that appears to be the only one.

On that note, should Marvel Studios be listed in the "Production studio(s)" column for that movie, similar to how the MCU Spider-Man movies are "Columbia Pictures / Marvel Studios" or is there a reason that's not already the case? ShyKen (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.

Shouldn't Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. (1998) be on this list? If not, why? 87.60.207.59 (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It's listed in the "Direct-to-video and television films" section. ShyKen (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Conan the barbarian, Conan the Destroyer, and Red Sonya.

Why wasn't the Conan franchise never mentioned? 2600:1702:31C0:5B10:78CB:AB9:493:A79E (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Cause is not a Marvel propertie. See in the previous discussion.OscarFercho (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Marvel Comics has publications for Conan the barbarian, Conan the Destroyer, and Red Sonya.

So wouldn't it make sense for "films based on Marvel Comics publications" to actually include "films based on Marvel Comics publications"? DWreck1995 (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Conan the Barbarian was created by the magazine Weird Tales in 1932. Weird Tales was never bought or owned by Marvel at any time. Conan the Barbarian and its sequel are not Marvel. Plain and simple. Cardei012597 (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Red Sonja was first created by The Magic Carpet Magazine in the short story "The Shadow of the Vulture" in January 1934. This was decades before Marvel published comics based on Conan the Barbarian and Red Sonja in the mid-1970s. There are sources online (Google it) that validate what I said. Red Sonja and the Conan movies will not be added to this page. Cardei012597 (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

This item has been previously discussed. See in the talk page archive.OscarFercho (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. But the Wiki says it's a list of "films BASED ON Marvel Comics publications" In otherwords, the original magazine (and the dates that they published their comics) would be irrelevant as long as the film was in fact based on a Marvel Comics publication. Well, the original Conan the Barbarian film IS based on the Marvel Comics publications. "The drafting of a story for a Conan film started in 1976; Summer conceived a script with the help of Roy Thomas, a comic-book writer and Conan expert who had been writing the character's adventures for years for Marvel Comics." The assumption could also be made that the sequel and the Red Sonja film are also most likely based on their Marvel Comics publications. If you want to exclude certain films that ARE based on Marvel Comics publications because they aren't Marvel properties, that's fine. But the Wiki should no longer bare the title of "films based on Marvel Comics publications" then. DWreck1995 (talk) 07:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

An observation. The two Conan films of the 1980s were inspired by the popularity of Marvel's adaptations (as stated in the main article), though the company was not directly involved in their production. Red Sonja was an original Marvel character, created by Roy Thomas. Though supposedly inspired by Howard's Red Sonya of Rogatino, she has a completely different origin story and a different historical setting. The only elements retained from the older character were the red hair and the fiery temper. Dimadick (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no precident to add the Conan films as "Marvel films". I would assume every actual Marvel film has had Marvel Studios as a credited production partner, or at least interviews from the Conan/Red Sonja crew talking about the film being based on Marvel comics. Outside of a rare mention by the film crews, they almost always state their intention is they are based on Robert E. Howard's work, long before Marvel was involved. A great comparison is the G. I. Joe films, where there are Marvel comics based on the property, BUT Marvel was not the first (original) creators of the property, they first started as toys. I am sorry but neither Oscar Fercho nor I would ever accept Conan/Red Sonja's inclusion on this page. Cardei012597 (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Poor example. Hasbro hired Marvel as creative consultants for the relaunch of the G.I. Joe property in 1981. The comic book series G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (1982-1994) and the animated series G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (1983-1986) were commissioned by Hasbro in order to promote the toyline and provide a backstory for the characters. Many of the original characters were designed by Marvel writer Larry Hama, and the enemy group Cobra was a clone of Marvel's Hydra. Dimadick (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I will provide another example. In 1972, Marvel Comics created Dracula (Marvel Comics) for the series run The Tomb of Dracula. Do you think because of Marvel's involvement in created a version of Dracula, every Dracula movie should be listed as "films BASED ON Marvel Comics publications"? I hope your answer is "No". This is a very similar situation with Conan and Red Sonja. They did have comics written for Marvel, BUT this fact does not make Marvel their home nor origin. It is the original works, like Dracula, that get the credit for their original existence. Nothing said by you two editors, the opposition, makes my point mute or incorrect. Your basis for adding Conan and Red Sonja does not have much weight in regards to their origin of their creation, novels from Robert E. Howard in the 1930s. Cardei012597 (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

"novels from Robert E. Howard in the 1930s" Why are you referring to novels in the plural? Howard wrote many short stories about Conan, but only one novel: The Hour of the Dragon (1935-1936). The Tomb of Dracula has had only one film adaptation, Dracula: Sovereign of the Damned (1980). It does not have a Wikipedia article, just a listing in the main page. Dimadick (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I am a little confused on your side of the argument, Dimadick. Are you saying that these original 1930s Conan short stories are not the official credited adapted works these films are based on? Provide proof that the studios/filmmakers behind the Conan/Red Sonja films intended their films to be based on Marvel Comics published in the 1970s. Until such a time where this evidence is given, this matter is closed. Cardei012597 (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I will simplify my point. Companies allow their art to be licensed in various mediums. For example, Conan is a licensed character, created in the 1930s, owned by the Robert E. Howard estate. They allow a licensed agreement with Marvel for comicbooks in the 1970s. Marvel did NOT create these characters. Robert E. Howard licensed their characters, loaned them, for use under Marvel. Many major non-competitive companies allow licensing of their characters to Marvel. We can not, and should not, include licensed character comics as actual "Marvel created titles". Dracula, a "poor example" as you say, is a licensed character from the Bram Stoker estate, as he was created decades prior to Marvel's usage of such character. In your mind, every character Marvel was allowed to license, even if they did not create the character, should be considered a "Marvel film". No one, and I literally mean no one, attatched to Conan or Red Sonja films has said of their intentions to adapt a 70s Marvel Comics character. They were solely adapted Robert E. Howard's work from the 30s. That is all. Nothing stated by you or anyone else in the opposition has proved this wrong, incorrect, or false in any way, shape or form. I consider this matter closed until actual proof is given to support your claims. Cardei012597 (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Final note, every film and television show based Marvel Comics includes this in the beginning/end credits: "Based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name." I have not seen this credit on the Conan/Red Sonja films. If you can prove me wrong here, with evidence and direct link independent sources, then this conversation will continue. Cardei012597 (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• • • • • The article on the 1982 Conan film already states: "The film industry's attention was drawn to the popularity of Conan among young male Americans, who were buying reprints of the stories with Frazetta's art and adaptations by Marvel Comics.", citing a 1979 article by Kenneth Turan. "The drafting of a story for a Conan film started in 1976; Summer conceived a script with the help of Roy Thomas, a comic-book writer and Conan expert who had been writing the character's adventures for years for Marvel Comics."
        • The article on the sequel states that two of its main screenwriters were Roy Thomas and Gerry Conway (Two of Marvel's main writers for its time period), but that they were dissatisfied with changes to their script. The film included a female warrior named Zula, but I am not certain in she was based on a Conan supporting character of the same name which Thomas had created in 1978. The comic book version of Zula was used on-and-off between 1978 and 2000.
        • The article on Red Sonja already states that she has little resemblance to any Howard character. "Red Sonja was created by writer Roy Thomas and artist Barry Windsor-Smith for Marvel Comics in 1973, partially based on Robert E. Howard's character Red Sonya of Rogatino, a female swashbuckler from his 1934 short story "The Shadow of the Vulture". ... Thomas created a new origin story and transposed the timeline from the 16th century of Howard's original Red Sonya to the Hyborian Age, another Howard creation, in order to have the comic-book Red Sonja interact with Conan the Barbarian." The rights to the Thomas version of the character belonged to a separate company: Red Sonja, LLC. A 2006 court case decide that Paradox Entertainment (the claimed owners of Robert E. Howard's characters) had no legal claim to Thomas' character. Dimadick (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Theme previously discussed. Please propose a new talk if you want start the issue again.OscarFercho (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a strange conversation. If, what you claim has any basis of fact, than Marvel Studios would be credited on any Conan/Red Sonja film, including the 2011 Conan the Barbarian remake and the upcoming Red Sonja remake. Right? Or I may be terribly mistaken in thinking that Marvel never had any connection to such films productions. Even films like Howard the Duck (1986), which pre-date the formation of Marvel Studios in 1993, have a "based on Marvel comics" credit. The Conan/Red Sonja, which were also released in the mid80s do not include this credit in the final film credits. Trust me, I have seen all 3 films at least twice and there was no "Based on Marvel comics" anywhere to be seen. There is not enough certainty in fact for your side of the argument to justify including these films on this page. Cardei012597 (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

"Trust me, I have seen all 3 films at least twice and there was no "Based on Marvel comics" anywhere to be seen." So have I. They happen to be among my favorite films. For someone who frequently sinks into depression, fantasy and science fiction films rarely fail to cheer me up. Dimadick (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I really enjoy, at least, the first two Conan films (my personal favorite Arnold film is Terminator 2), but I just can not support their inclusion on this page. I am truly sorry, but if they were based on Marvel comics, it would of been stated in the film credits. I hope you agree at least the Jason Momoa remake was terrible. I personally thought it ruined any possibility of a true Conan 3 in the future. Cardei012597 (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

You'd think there would be interviews and articles about Jason Momoa, as Conan in the 2011 film, being a "Marvel Comics" hero, before he was cast as Aquaman. Unless, the Conan movies were never based on, nor credited, Marvel Comics. Or even Arnold Schwarzenegger in the original three films, before Batman & Robin. My point is that there is too much uncertainty on the Conan/Red Sonja films having any direct credit or substantial connection to Marvel Comics. I hope one day we can agree on this glaring uncertainty. Cardei012597 (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Animated TV films and Direct-to-video films

This section of the list should be divided up into two sperate section or three sperate section. there is diffrence beteen physical release and non-physical format such as Television broadcast and digital streaming. First format is completely physcial such as originally released on DVD or Blu-ray. Television is broadcast ether through the air or cable. Streaming can be ether online for free or digital download purse.DoctorHver (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

There's not enough releases for that.OscarFercho (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the difference between these release formats is particularly relevant here. Splitting theatrical releases from everything else makes some amount of sense, because theatrical releases are generally considered to be more noteworthy, have higher budgets, and higher expectations of quality. Streaming service movies, TV movies, and direct-to-DVD movies are all roughly the same in those regards, and the goal of all those release formats is people watching the movie at home on their own television, the particulars of how that happens are beyond the scope of this article.

Also, frankly, this page already has way too may sections (side note, why do Lego movies have their own section?), so I really don't think we need more separation here. ShyKen (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Backdoor Thor/Daredevil Pilots in Hulk Films

What is the issue with mentioning on this page that The Incredible Hulk Returns and The Trial of the Incredible Hulk are backdoor pilots for a Thor and Daredevil series respectively? Other films in that section mention pilot/backdoor pilot status so clearly it's relevant information, and the reverts that have been done so far have just said "restored original version" and "reverted pointless changes" as the edit summary, which isn't a great response to a good faith edit that makes the article more accurate and informative. If there is an actual reason to not list this information please explain, because I do not see it. ShyKen (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

And just in case there's any ambiguity about this, here's various sources that describe both of these as backdoor pilots

https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a34282/daredevil-incredible-hulk-1989-movie/

https://www.slashfilm.com/909251/remembering-that-80s-tv-movie-where-thor-fought-the-hulk/

https://www.tor.com/2017/10/27/first-draft-of-the-mcu-the-incredible-hulk-returns-the-trial-of-the-incredible-hulk-and-the-death-of-the-incredible-hulk/

https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/a846970/backdoor-pilots-scrapped-tv-shows/

https://www.primetimer.com/quickhits/the-trial-of-the-incredible-hulk-featuring-stan-lees-first-cameo-premiered-32-years-ago-today ShyKen (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)