Talk:Avengers: Infinity War/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Change of Plot in order to prevent spoilers.

Instead of publishing the plot right now can we please switch the plot to "Thanos.demands.silence." in order to prevent spoilers. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorythefireengine (talk • contribs)

@Rorythefireengine: No, we cannot. Wikipedia contains spoilers. If the plot information is verifiable, then it stays in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but it does not go up until the film is commercially released to the general public, which does not happen until tomorrow, April 27. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The film has already been released to "the general public" if you are outside the United States. Why should "the general public" mean the American public? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably because the film is an American production, the box office takings are measured "domestically"—which is to say in America—and Hollywood has an America-centric view of the world. None of which are valid reasons for censoring the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

There's no censoring. Look at the infobox: It hasn't opened yet. Entertainment Weekly made the passing comment "with a few earlier April 25 debuts in a handful of countries," but the article contains no evidence of citation that this actually happened or even naming one of the purported countries. Find a cite showing that it's been released commercially. Because right now, that March 1 EW article is just WP:CRYSTAL. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm in New Zealand, and I can confirm that yes, the film did indeed open here on April 25. And you don't have to just take my word for it; see here and here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Taking "your word for it" is WP:OR. And the first link you supplied doesn't say the movie opened, only that it was scheduled to open April 25 in some counties — and that some in New Zealand did not want it to open then. That link is WP:CRYSTAL. I'll check the other now.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm in Australia and this (particularly the last paragraph) is further evidence. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine. Please give another editor a minute to vet this claim. And please do not continue to ignore WP:FILMPLOT.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

That link verifies it was released in Australia. Full steam ahead. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Tenebrae, do a search for "Avengers Infinity War" and "New Zealand" and see for yourself what you find. It is just factually false to say the movie has not been released commercially here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Tenebrae, we do not need your approval. Your insistence that the film has not opened is highly disruptive, if not outright vandalism. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It is up to each editor to verify any claims he or she adds to Wikipedia. If anyone is vandalizing, it's editors who refuse to back up their claims. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for trimming the plot section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Got reverted. If an edit war kicks off then someone please report this at WP:RPP and/or WP:AN3. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the plot section to a cohetent recount, one that is not written in an in-universe style. For example, why is it so significant that Hulk lands in the Sanctum Santorum? How will an audience who is not familiar with the subject know what or where this is? WP:FILMPLOT says the following:

"Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction or Memento's non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range."

The lengthy lists of characters eaaily push the word count over 700 words. Given that there are over thirty named characters in the film, we can apply the FILMPLOT exception. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

That is not for one editor to unilaterally decide. At least two editors, myself and Emir of Wikipedia, disagree with you. You are edit-warring to go against consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It's called editconsensus. A consensus can emerge through established editing practices, and that version of the plot had been accepted for 12 hours. Your "consensus" has existed for 12 minutes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus for breaking the rules of WP:FILMPLOT. No other editor here agrees with you. Indeed, one other editor tagged the plot as too long, and that was then, properly, addressed. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

That was not "properly addressed". For one, parts were written in an in-universe style. More concerningly, your grammar was terrible. You had one sentence with multiple phrases and clauses, three separate subjects and a hit-and-miss approach to verb-subject agreement.

Also, you cannot reasonably expect a consensus to form in 12 minutes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

We don't need a consensus to follow the rules. A consensus is needed if you're arguing for an exception to the rules.

And please: I had one run-on sentence that you fixed and I left alone. I wouldn't talk about poor grammar when you use "revert back" and an abundance of passive-voice construction. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one who positioned the Sanctum Santorum as being important to the plot when it is only in the film for five minutes. What is more important: that Banner finds Strange and Wong, or that he finds them in the Sanctum Santorum? How would the plot be any different if Banner found them at Stark Tower, the Statue of Liberty or Yankee Stadium? If it wouldn't be any different, specifying the sanctum is unnecessary. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Banner lands somewhere more specific than just "New York City." Stating the location explains without lengthy exposition how Banner and Strange/Wong interacted. Suggesting that Banner landed in "New York City" and had to track down Strange is not good writing. Good writing is specific. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Simply stating the location is in-universe because it assumes the casual reader is familiar with the subject. Good writing might be specific, but good writing does not assume prior knowledge in lieu of exposition. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

We say, "Hulk crash-lands at the Sanctum Sanctorum of Stephen Strange and his major domo Wong in New York City/" I'm not sure how that's expecting any prior knowledge comics by the reader. A "sanctum" is "a sacred place," so it's the sacred place of Strange and Wong. Would it be clearer to say, "...the Sanctum Sanctorum, home of...."? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, why do you insist on referring to Parker as "Peter Parker/Spider-Man" when every other characters with an assumed name—Stark, Rodgers, Romanoff, Barnes, T'Challa, Strange, Quill and probably half a dozen others I am forgetting—is only only ever referred to by their given name? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't insist; in fact, I've just left your most recent edit in that respect alone. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You repeatedly restored it to the article. I've had to remove it two or three times now. So either you think there's a reason for keeping it or you're not paying attention to what you're doing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You seem unfamiliar with the concept that people can look at their own work, reexamine it in fuller context, and change their minds. That can happen when people work quickly and on the fly. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with it. You will, however, forgive me for being skeptical in this case given that you engaged in highly disruptive editing practices because you had not seen confirmation of the film's release. A simple Google search would have yielded the confirmation you sought, but you demanded other editors present sources to you. We do not need your permission to make changes because you don't own the article. Given your behaviour, I think it's quite clear that you weren't paying attention to what you were editing.

Also, did it not occur to you that the film is a major release and that it's failure to open as scheduled in over a dozen territories would be a major news event? When you did not see those articles, didn't you realise that the film had opened? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

"A simple Google search would have yielded the confirmation". Then whatever editor was making the claim that the film had been released should have done that. We're all responsible for confirming our own claims. It's lazy and against the guidelines to insist other editors do your work for you.

"it's [sic] failure to open as scheduled in over a dozen territories would be a major news event". We don't deal in abstract hypotheticals. We deal in concrete facts. The guidelines are very clear: If you're making a claim, you, not other editors, are responsible for backing up that claim. And to suggest that editors wanting you to adhere to proper practice and guidelines is being "disruptive" is the height of gall.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You made the claim that the film had not been released to the general public. Where was your source to support that statement? Why are we obligated to provide sources, but you are not? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

No. The plot cannot go in until the film is released commercially. Therefore, it is contingent on whoever first put in the plot to ensure that the film had opened. That is basic Wikipedia policy: You make an edit, you back up your claim. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Which you did not do. You claimed the film had not been released commercially but provided no evidence to support it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You're asking another editor to prove a negative. No. One can't prove a negative. One can only prove a positive. That is basic logic; feel free to look it up. The fact remains: An editor claiming the movie opened early, without any evidence of such in the article, needed to provide evidence of it. And editors did, so it's a moot point and I don't understand why you're still arguing about it. It's beginning to be harassing. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm well aware that there were no sources to prove your claim, and that was the point. But that doesn't exempt you from the same standards that you demanded everyone else follow. If you had kept it on the talk page, that would have been fine. But you repeatedly reverted the article, which was disruptive and you knew it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Stop harassing me. I said, and any intelligent adult should know, that one cannot prove a negative, only a positive. It was up to the first editor who claimed the movie had been released, despite nothing in the article saying so, on whom the onus fell. Not me, not you, not anyone else. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Plot rewrite

@Tenebrae: I said I was happy to discuss this further, so could we please have a more in depth discussion on my changes? I completely understand that it can suck when people work on something just to have it seemingly undone so quickly by someone else who was not involved, but that does not mean they should be allowed to keep their version. I think it would be easiest if you gave some more specifics on why you didn't like my changes, and then we could go from there. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Give me a couple minutes. Overall, though, we generally don't make wholesale changes to versions arrived through multiple editors' consensus.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Here are side-by-side comparisons of the adamstom97 version followed by the extant versions:

• "A week after Thanos and his adoptive children ... retrieved the Infinity Stone of Power from the planet Xandar, they intercept a spaceship carrying the last survivors of Asgard."

or

• "Following the destruction of Asgard,(note) and having acquired the Power Stone from the planet Xandar, Thanos and his adoptive children ... intercept the ship with the surviving Asgardians to extract the Space Stone from the Tesseract."

I would say the statement that it's been a week (which I don't recall from the film, which I've seen twice) really isn't important. Would it make a different if it had been two weeks, or six days? I also think we need to give the reason why Thanos has intercepted the ship.

• "Before he dies, Heimdall uses the Bifröst ..."

or

• Heimdall uses the Bifröst..., then is killed by Glaive."

It's more plot-specific to say Heimdall was killed for his specific action than just died from a wound or any number of reasons. (I'm not wild for the passive voice in this sentence, but because the sentence also involves a third character, Hulk, the active voice would be a hard construction to use here.)

• "Thanos takes the Space Stone from Loki before killing him, and obliterates the ship."

or

• "Killing Loki and taking the Space Stone, Thanos departs with his children and obliterates the ship."

The first version is shorter and might be better. It does leave the lingering thought, to me, of "Why did he obliterate the ship with himself in it?"

• "Hulk crash-lands in the Sanctum Sanctorum of the sorcerer Stephen Strange in New York City, and reverts to his human form of Bruce Banner."

or

• "Hulk crash-lands at the Sanctum Sanctorum of Stephen Strange and his major domo Wong in New York City, and reverts to Bruce Banner. After hearing of Thanos' intention to kill half the universe's population...."

Specifying that Strange is a sorcerer is probably a good idea. I'm not sure why we would jettison Wong when he plays a significant, multi-scene part (unlike Parker's friend Ned). I also think by saying that the Hulk reverts to a named person, we've no reason to think that person isn't human, making "his human form" redundant. I also think it's important to state Thanos' goal, and how the heroes learn of it.

• "Maw captures Strange. Stark and Parker pursue Maw's spaceship while Banner contacts the Avengers."

or

• "Maw captures Strange; Stark and Parker pursue Maw's spaceship while Wong remains to protect the sanctum. Banner contacts the other Avengers."

I agree with adamstom97; Wong protecting the Sanctum has no bearing on the rest of the movie's plot.

• "In Scotland, Midnight and Glaive ambush Vision, whose consciousness comes from the Mind Stone, and Wanda Maximoff. They are rescued by Steve Rogers, Natasha Romanoff, and Sam Wilson, all former members of the Avengers. The group seeks shelter with James Rhodes at the Avengers' headquarters, where Vision proposes Maximoff destroy the Mind Stone."

or

• "In Scotland, Midnight and Glaive ambush Wanda Maximoff and Vision. They are rescued by Steve Rogers, Natasha Romanoff, and Sam Wilson, and seek shelter with James Rhodes at Avengers headquarters. Vision offers to sacrifice himself by proposing Maximoff destroy the Mind Stone in his forehead to keep Thanos from retrieving it. Rogers suggests they travel to Wakanda, which may have the resources to remove the Stone without destroying Vision."

Aside from my feeling this should remain a standalone paragraph, I think there are points in the adamstom97 version that belong. May I propose this melding:

• "In Scotland, Midnight and Glaive ambush Wanda Maximoff and Vision, who is integrally connected to the Mind Stone in his forehead. Former Avengers Steve Rogers, Natasha Romanoff, and Sam Wilson rescue their comrades then take shelter with James Rhodes at Avengers headquarters. Vision offers to sacrifice himself by proposing Maximoff destroy the stone. Rogers suggests they travel to Wakanda, which may have the resources to remove it without destroying Vision."

• "Gamora takes him to the planet Vormir where Red Skull serves as the keeper of the Soul Stone. Red Skull informs Thanos that he must sacrifice someone he loves, and Thanos is granted the Soul Stone after reluctantly throwing Gamora to her death."

or

• Thanos takes Gamora to Vormir, a planet where Red Skull, keeper of the Soul Stone, informs him the stone can only be retrieved by sacrificing someone he loves. Thanos reluctantly throws Gamora to her death, granting him the Soul Stone."

I think adamstom97 is correct that Gamora takes Thanos (or perhaps "Gamora accompanies Thanos") rather than "Thanos takes Gamora." However, I think we need to state Vormir is a planet and not a city or something else. "serves as the keeper of the Soul Stone" is eight words while "keeper of the Soul Stone" says the same thing in five words. I also think the second version is more succinct since it doesn't say "Red Skull" twice. Also, "is granted" is passive voice, while "granting him" is active voice.

The remainder has the same issue of succinctness versus a wordier description. I don't think we need to quote dialog from the movie. And there are other issues: Saying "Before Thor can kill him with Stormbreaker" doesn't specify that Thor seriously wounded him with Stormbreaker, thus demonstrating Stormbreaker may indeed have the power to kill Thanos, an important point. And I'm not sure why we'd remove the post-credits scene, which we include for all other MCU movies.

What do our fellow editors think? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the above assessment. I don't think we have to worry about being succinct *that* much, as the film is well over two hours in length, and the length of the plot summary seems acceptable to me. The issue is whether the wordier description provides relevant information that a shorter version does not.  cjquines  (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As my response to those thoughts, I first want to point out that my version is more succinct/less wordy, which was part of my intention from the start (I got the word count down quite a bit from the version I first started working on). I want to reiterate that I am sympathetic with those who have worked hard on this summary before I got here, but multiple people working on something does not mean it cannot be improved further and I believe all of my changes are improvements:

1. I know that in other MCU articles we mention its relation to other films with notes to further explain/support that, but it is not suitable here. The film begins with all of the heroes in different places based on how their previous films ended and it just doesn't make sense to try and recap all of those here. It makes even less sense to single out just one, Ragnarok, particularly when the destruction of Asgard has little bearing on the plot of this film. Does Thanos begin his quest because of the events of Ragnarok? The film does not indicate that. So the whole opening of the plot needed to be changed, and what is relevant to the plot of this film is that Thanos has already retrieved the Power Stone. We don't need to say that it was a week ago (which is supported in the film btw) but we should still begin by saying "After Thanos and his adoptive children..." It is also redundant to introduce that they are there to get the Space Stone when we are just going to describe them doing it within a couple of lines.
2. Heimdall was already dying, which is covered by us saying that everyone was being killed, so signalling him as an exception from the previous sentence just to turn around and say he is killed when he was already dying to begin with is just unnecessarily wordy.
3. I felt it was an obvious improvement to note that Loki is killed after the Space Stone is taken (it makes more sense and is what actually happened), and I feel like it is reasonably natural to just say that they obliterate the ship without the reader believing that they committed suicide. But perhaps that is just me.
4. The only mention of Wong in the plot summary is that he is at the Sanctum, and that he stays there. It has no impact on the plot, and we shouldn't be shoe-horning characters into the summary just so they can get a mention. As for Bruce Banner being the "human form", I don't think it is true to say "we've no reason to think that person isn't human" when the movie is full of aliens and we just described something quite un-humanlike. I wouldn't be against re-adding something about Thanos's goals, but I just wanted to avoid it too much there since in other places we are assuming that characters already know what is going on.
5. My problem with your compromise is the mention of Wakanda; it is redundant to say they want to go to Wakanda and then the next thing about them is that they are arriving at Wakanda. We should only be saying the latter.
6. I think I would be happy with the current version if the first part was changed to "Gamora takes him". The rest of the changes were just trying to be less wordy, but there isn't much wiggle-room here.
7. The direct quote I used was important, I feel, because it is important to note that Strange did what he did because it is part of the one future he saw where they win, but that is not explicit in the film so we can't really infer that ourselves here. Using the quote avoids OR while still converying that important point.
8. I know seeing a massive axe in someone's chest appears to be a major wound, but the film never really indicates that this is the case. There are no repercussions for this in the film at any point since the appearances of Thanos after that moment do not show him in any serious pain or anything. What is important in that scene is that Thor is unable to kill him, so that is what needs to be mentioned.
9. As has been discussed in several places (you may not have been aware of this though, so I'll try to give a full explanation) we do not just include stuff from post-credit scenes for the sake of it. From memory, the last discussion I had on this led to a consensus in that we first treat the scene as if it was just part of the film (is it important to the plot or just a joke?) and then if it is decided to add it to the plot summary, we only label it as being a post-credit scene if that fact is notable (i.e. if the scene actually has nothing to do with the rest of the plot and has been clearly added on as an extra scene). In this case, the post-credit scene is noteworthy (it isn't just a joke or something) but it doesn't not have to be labelled as a post-credits scene as it quite naturally fits into the rest of the plot where I mentioned it in my version. The fact that it is after the credits and what that means can be discussed in the production section, but as far as this summary is concerned it fits quite nicely with the mention of other character disintegrations. This is another case of avoiding redundancy—why mention that characters are disintegrating, then move on to other stuff, and then come back and say "back when people were disintegrating, these other people did as well, and..."

I hope those all gave you a better idea of where I was coming from. I wasn't just randomly changing things because I wanted to write my own version of the plot summary, all of my changes have justification and they add up to a more succinct and accurate summary. And I do not intend for this to be the final version either, as I'm sure it will change quite a bit over the coming weeks. But for now, I do believe my version is better and should be reimplemented so that work can carry on from that stronger foundation. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I think adamstom97 is correct that Gamora takes Thanos (or perhaps "Gamora accompanies Thanos") rather than "Thanos takes Gamora."

The film makes it pretty clear that Gamora does not go willingly. To say she takes Thanos implies she is allied with him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

She is guiding him there since she knows where to go and he does not, so "Gamora takes Thanos" is correct even if she was reluctant in doing so. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: First, thank you for your thoughtful and well-reasoned replies. Would it be alright to number your points in the 05:49, 27 April 2018 response? That way I think we could respond without copy-pasting the wording to which we're responding. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Just pinging again to see if you might want to number the points or if it's OK for me to do it.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Tenebrae, I missed your first ping. I think I have set up numbers correctly above. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Just a bump in case you missed my last comment. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Okey-doke! Gimme a couple minutes!   :)   --Tenebrae (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

1. The redundancy about the Space Stone looks like it's been addressed in the interim. Space Stone is just mentioned once. Power Stone retrieval now opens the plot.
2. We don't actually know that Heimdall was dying — Thor was injured and wasn't dying, for instance. In any case, the current plot doesn't mention him being injured or dying, just powerless to stop Thanos, and his death is mentioned —although for no good reason I can imagine, in passive voice ("being killed" — why not just be specific and say who kills him?)
3. The current plot garbles the sequence of events, saying Loki is powerless to stop Thanos from taking the Space Stone because he was been killed. No: Loki is very much alive when Thanos takes the Space Stone. And also, saying that one is powerless to stop someone because one is dead is ridiculous phrasing (though not not yours, obviously). I'll go in and un-garble this and if it still seems off to you, we can re-address it.
4. I agree about the Wong overwriting, and it looks like editors have trimmed that already. I still don't believe we need to specify Bruce Banner is human any more than we specify Peter Parker or Steve Rogers are human. Yes, the film is filled with aliens, but they have names like "Cull Obsidian" and "Ebony Maw." I don't think the average reader would have any reason to think a character with a prosaic, everyday name is not human.
5. Respectfully disagree. If they arrive in Wakanda without the reason for it being set up beforehand, then it seems like they just went somewhere arbitrarily, or for a reason that needed to be secret in the plot at that point.
6. Someone edited it to say just "travel to Vormir", which is both accurate and avoids the tangential issue of who-takes-who.
7. When Stark asks in how many futures do the anti-Thanos forces win, Strange says one. I guess the passage could read "and states there is only one in which the heroes win." I don't think there's inference in stating the corollary ("in which Thanos loses"), but personally, I'm OK with either.
8. You might be right regarding "Despite being severely wounded by Thor." To me, he very much looks seriously wounded, judging from his pained expressions and his halting speech. But that may be interpretive, since he's played possum earlier in the film. What do other editors think?
9. I think since the Fury/Hill scene comes literally after all the credits, calling it a post-credit scene is fair in this case.

So, those are my thoughts. Other editors, jump in here! --Tenebrae (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond Tenebrae. I'm thinking now that because of how much the summary has changed since this discussion began it probably isn't worth worrying about my old version too much now. Would you have a problem if I just started editing parts of the summary now as usual (I have been avoiding it to not appear to be edit warring)? I will take all you have said here into account and attempt to make smaller changes that can be reverted/challenged rather than a big change like I did previously. That will also hopefully help bring more eyes to specific issues since there hasn't been much interest shown here. I will start new, dedicated discussions for specific issues where necessary. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, yeah, we're all free to edit anything not currently under active discussion, and I think we've discussed everything pretty thoroughly! You're right, the plot seems to have stabilized and the edits all seem to be polish-up tweaking. Onward! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Proxima Midnight actor

This page says that Carrie Coon both voiced and performed motion capture for Proxima Midnight, and the source confirms she voiced and did facial motion capture, but the cast list on IMDB also lists Monique Ganderton as "on set Proxima Midnight" in the same way Sean Gunn is the "on set Rocket" and Bradley Cooper does the voice. Should this be mentioned in the article? I am not sure if it counts as acting but I also don't think it is fair to say Carrie Coon was the sole performer for Proxima Midnight. 2601:18A:C500:9583:2971:D8C1:DE0B:C7FE (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

No opinion on this, but just to preemptively shoot down the "IMDb is not a reliable source" argument, it's not just IMDb.[1][comicbook.com/marvel/2018/02/12/marvel-cinematic-universe-future-characters/#3] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

If it is reliably sourced then I don't see why it shouldn't be added. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I can confirm seeing Monique Ganderton in the credits, so I'm in support of this inclusion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Ragnarok

Hoping to get some more editors in a discussion I began among a huge wall of text above, this is about Ragnarok note in the first paragraph of the plot summary. I know we often do this to note where these films come in relation to others, but the only such timelines we have been given for this film are for the time since Civil War and Guardians Vol. 2, so this note is not justified in the usual way. That must mean it is particularly important to note, but I can't see how. All of the previous Phase 3 films have left their characters in ways that affect the beginning of this film (Strange protecting the Time Stone in New York, Parker turning down the Avengers and returning to school, T'Challa opening Wakanda's borders, etc.) and we don't have additional explanation or notes for any of them. We are just assuming that people know who the characters are and can follow along (sort of how the film does). So why does Ragnarok have to be special? If we remove the note and just say the ship is carrying "the last survivors of Asgard" then that covers what we need for the plot to make sense, and anyone unfamiliar with that will have to find out more in the same way that they have to find out more for all of the other characters mentioned in the summary. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? - adamstom97 (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2018

The plot's ending should state that Wanda Maximoff destroyed the Mind Stone but Thanos reversed time with the Time Stone and then took the Stone from Vision.. Hsb rash54 (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC) Would like to request a change when its said Thanos uses the Gauntlet, in the movie we can see he uses it but the Gauntlet sustains some kind of damage too.. I feel its worthy to be written in plot.. Only suggesting..

 Not done — Thanos recovers the Mind Stone; it doesn't really matter how he achieves it. Good writing might be specific, but we also need to observe the maximun word count of 700 words. There are several unresolved plot threads that are summarised without specifics (ie Strange giving the Time Stone up without a fight despite his willingess to sacrifice Stark and Parker); to go into this one may give undue weight to this one episode. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: FWIW, it's pretty heavy-handedly implied that Strange planned out exactly the string of events that would lead to their victory, and that plan required Stark being alive. He first said he wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice Starker, then he looked into the future and saw that there was only one possible way out of several million that they could win, after that willingly gave up the stone to keep Stark alive, then finally with his dying breath explicitly said there was no other way. Not saying this belongs in our uncited plot summary at this time, of course; just that it will almost certainly be mentioned in the summary for the next film. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: that's my point. The whole plot line is clearly set up in the film—my guess is that Strange subconsciously planted the idea of saving Stark in Thanos' mind so that when Thanos activated the Gauntlet, Stark was unwittingly spared, thus making his Thanos' killing of half the universe less than random—but we cannot detail it because of the word count and also because it's speculative. Likewise, I suspect Thanos' use of the Time Stone will come into play; he only used it locally to restore the Mind Stone. The exposition about the nature of the stones say that they are essential to exintence, so it is implied that a new singularity would be created to replace the Mind Stone, but Thanos didn't undo its creation when he restored the original Mind Stone. Again, it's (potentially) a key plot point, but we cannot cover it in the article either. Likewise, we don't even know that Strange is dead. It could all be an illusion for Stark's benefit so that when Stark goes after Thanos, Thanos cannot use the Mind Stone to realise that Strange is alive and going after the new singularity.

The point is that there are a lot of unresolved potential plot points that will have renewed significance with the sequel. We cannot over-emphasise them because we cannot know what is significant and what is not. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Meh. I think the nature of the mass death at the end of the film is really inconsistent. We're told that it's random and unprejudiced, which should mean everyone had a 50/50 chance of surviving, but then GotG1 had the Collector quite explicitly stated that Groot was the only known member of his species, so Thanos's humanitarian goal apparently doesn't lead him to avoid genocide by killing 50% of every species but leaving a sustainable population (even when, as with Groot, there's really no reason to believe killing him would free up food resources as much as any other creature), but that leads me to believe that it was completely random and Thanos did not choose who lived and who died: chances are this question will not be explicitly addressed in the second part and we'll just be left to assume they lucked out that Stark survived.

More on topic, I think if it can be sourced (and Strange's motivation for flip-flopping on whether Stark's life is more valuable than the Time Stone definitely can be) then it probably could be addressed somewhere within the article, perhaps in an "Analysis" section. Realistically speaking, the 400-700 word limit on plot summaries assumes the standard practice (a practice I don't personally like) of writing uncited plot summaries implicitly attributed to the works themselves. I'm not suggesting the plot summary section of this article be sourced and expanded, just that the guidelines need to be interpreted in light of themselves.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: eh, I was unmoved by the ending. The dead characters fell into three categories: those that are riduculously powerful (Vision and Wanda), those that Marvel have clearly run out of things for them to do (Winter Soldier), and major characters from four major franchises (Strange, T'Challa, Spider-Man and most of the GotG crew), two of which have already had sequels announced. Call me a cynic, but (ironically) I think it was the MCU's House of M.

Anyway, FILMPLOT says we shouldn't top 700 words except in rare circumstances. Despite the lengthy lists of characters, we have (at last count) manages to bring it in pretty close to 700 words. We've demonstrated that we can do it, which makes it harder to justify going over 700. The section might need a re-write a year from now in light of what is relevant to the sequel, but I have noticed the plot section has largely stabilised. I think we've got the best version we're going to get. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

(Eh. I think it was a cynical trick to make people think it's a happy ending when the next film resurrects everyone whose actors want to renew their contracts and kills off everyone else. The weird thing is they've written in an excuse to not have Downey come back for more films but not kill off his character, but will probably do the latter anyway. The supporting cast from Thor are not coming back because that "trilogy" has concluded, but they're not going to make the next Guardians film all about Quill's bitter/mopey/depressing quest for revenge for the death of Gamorra, so she's definitely coming back (probably in the exact same way as Android 18 from Dragon Ball - the Gauntlet and/or Soul Stone will break/fail/be taken from Thanos and the one he killed so he could have it would come back). But children don't watch release schedules or think about contracts and the like, so they probably think everyone's just dead and gone.)

Right now Marvel are explicitly defying their original announcement of this film as a "part one of two" but the ending made clear that the actual content of the film didn't change from being a part one. They probably won't step back their "official" line on this point even after part two is released, but secondary sources are already overwhelmingly going against them on this, so once part two comes out we should probably just do what the secondary sources do and treat them as two parts of the same film -- not familiar with how we dealt with Deathly Hallows, Mockingjay or the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but those might theoretically be a good model.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate, there is a chance that the two-parter element used to be even more explicit and they have significantly toned it down in the final product. Also, I think there is a valid argument to be made that the film does have a complete story, as much as a film in an interconnected franchise like this could. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It does have a complete story ... until the post-credits scene. If Captain Marvel is as powerful as Feige says she is (and if that is indeed Adam Warlock in the sarcophagus at the end of GotGv2), then that begs the question of why Fury didn't call upon her as soon as he got wind of Thanos seeking the Infinity Stones. From a narrative view, it falls apart there.

On the subject of being an individual story with a sequel or one half of a bigger whole, it's The Man with the Golden Gun in reverse. EON Productions clearly has two scripts that they merged together with minimal fuss (wasting Christopher Lee's talent); here, Marvel appear to have had one big story that they split in two, but haven't done enough to separate them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, it's probably the fact that I've seen every other film in the interconnected series that left me uneasy with the "ending" of this one -- every single MCU film up to this point has had cut out on an upbeat note, whereas this one had the bad guy smiling, one of the good guys trapped on an alien planet with a scared, crying child in his arms, and most of the other good guys realizing to their horror what had just happened. It's not so much unresolved plot threads (which The Incredible Hulk and Civil War both had in abundance) as the fact that this is tonally inconsistent with how these movies typically end: I will be incredibly surprised if the film that was originally slated as part two of this film doesn't end in a more typically "Marvel" fashion.

My response to the rest got really long and NOTFORUM-ish, so taking it to PM's talk page.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the NOTFORUM element, largely because this is the eighteenth episode of an ongoing story and there is narurally a question of how to handle the infinite number of connections between the films. The only other franchise I can think of is the James Bond series and that is very episodic, so the issue doesn't arise there.

And yes, the ending is downbeat, but so too was the ending of The Empire Strikes Back and that's an exceptional film (though mostly for technical film-making reasons). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

People often say that about Empire, but it really isn't true; the final shot of the film, with its inspiring music and Luke et al looking out into space is at worst bittersweet, and the music that plays over the end credits is no different than the rest of the Star Wars films. Most MCU films, on the other hand, close on either a pop/rock song or an upbeat heroic melody, while this is radically different: its closing sequences and end credit music feel more tonally in-line with the dark second-act revelation in the middle of one of the other MCU films. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks — your edits over-emphasise the use of the time stone. It does not matter how Thanos gets the mind stone, only that he does. Emphasising implies significance for the next film, which is speculative. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I see no-one has been able to justify the continued inclusion of this. All it does is repeat something something already established in the plot section (that taking the mind stone will kill Vision) and emphasise the method Thanos uses to get the mind stone; there is no detail on his crushing the Tesseract or being granted the soul stone through some mystical process. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, the mystical process is covered in the summary. It kinda needs to be, since the fridging of Gamora is an important plot point in itself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

We can probably make an exception there because it is the first time the soul stone appears in the canon. But we don't really detail how he gets the other five—the power and reality stones are acquired off-screen, the time stone is taken from Strange, and the space stone is acquired by crushing the Tesseract. The lengthy description of using the time stone to get the mind stone only really restates that taking the mind stone from Vision will kill him and by placing such emphasis on it, we imply that there is some special significance to the time and mind stones beyond completing the gauntlet. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"[Thanos's] children"?

[2] @Brojam: Is it? I have only seen the film once so far, but if I heard that I suspect it was in a context where it sounded "metaphorical" (similar to "children of God") and so I forgot about it. Anyway, if they are not literally born of his seed (and they clearly are not), isn't calling them "henchmen" better than calling them by the in-universe term "children"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Ebony Maw says something along the lines of "die at the hands of the Children of Thanos" to Doctor Strange. - Brojam (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, if "Children of Thanos" is a proper name, then isn't "his children" wrong? And isn't it just an in-universe name for an elite group of henchmen? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree, henchmen is the better term in the plot section. It’s explained a little better the cast section.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I, on the otherhand, would disagree. They are describe, both in the film and in production and marketing material released prior, as the Children of Thanos, which is a title. Since a title is given, it makes sense to use that title rather than to simply call them henchmen (especially when you consider the fact that half of them aren't even men). "His children", would be wrong, yes, but "his Children" (capital 'C') is correct. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 13:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

We don't have space in the plot section to explain the difference between children and Children. I assume most people would just think its a typo. Also 1 out 4 isn't half besides henchmen can describe both men and woman like policemen, actor, or mankind. Henchmen is both simple and accurate.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Should just add that theoretically, with infinite space, we could define "Children of Thanos" inline as referring to an elite group of henchmen, but lacking that we should just refer to them as henchmen. Expecting our readers to have prior knowledge of "both ... the film and ... production and marketing material released prior" for the wording we use to make sense to them is wrong on a number of levels. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to explain the difference within the plot section, as the note attached to the term did a sufficient enough job. There is also the fact to consider that Thanos considers the Children to be his children, and exclusively refers to them in familial terms (i.e. "my daughter", "your sister", "my children"), since he has adopted them. @TriiipleThreat: You also forget that both Gamora and Nebula are Children of Thanos, also (3 of 6). It is almost irrelevant that they serve him in a manner similar to that of a henchman, a term which I feel better suits both Ronan and Loki before their betrayals. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 14:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

We could annotate everything in the plot summary if we wanted to, but that's a really bad idea. He can refer to his henchmen as his children, but that doesn't mean they are not still his henchmen. The quotes you give just emphasize another problem: they tend to refer more to Gamora and Nebula, but within the plot summary when we used it it referred specifically to the subset of the Children of Thanos who are loyal to him; referring to the group of henchmen the heroes in this film fight by a term that also (in fact more prominently) covers other characters is problematic. Ronan and Loki never functioned as "henchmen" the way that word is normally used in Wikipedia plot summaries, as they were the primary antagonists of their films. (Ronan was really more of an "ally" in-universe anyway, and Loki never betrayed Thanos; he was defeated. But that's completely irrelevant.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you guys are over thinking this, especially for the plot section where we don't need that much detail. Calling them the "Children of Thanos" is inline with what the film calls them and gets the point across, and henchmen works just fine as an alternative if we want to avoid making it sound like they are his actual children (which they do not appear to be). - adamstom97 (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Might we replace "henchmen" with "lieutenants" or something else? "Henchmen" sounds like the guys helping the Joker rob a bank.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem with that. Honestly I was thinking less about the Joker and more about the bad guys Piccolo and Krillin fight before the big bad comes down and Goku has to step in in the Dragon Ball Z movies. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m fine with that as well if it makes everyone feel better. Although henchmen is how they are discribed by third-party sources. Actually the DBZ comparison IMHO is pretty accurate, none of them seemed that capable on their own except maybe Ebony Maw.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hulk

why Hulk was even on the image when he wasn't on the movie? Davidtran84 (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope. He appears in the movie onscreen even poster. 09:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Posters are misleading. I'm pretty sure I remember seeing a teaser poster that showed Ant-Man. As for our infobox image: we don't really have a choice. In 100 years or whenever the film enters the public domain, maybe we'll be able to use an iconic still from the film itself, but right now we are bound to a fair use promotional image, however inaccurate it is to the actual film. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Carl Tristan Orense: It's kinda off-topic for us, but the promotional materials for this film definitely lied about the Hulk's presence in the climactic battle.[3] Yes, he was in a very brief sequence at the very start of the film, in which he was immediately beaten down, but that is not what the poster, trailers, etc. imply. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Critical reception

In my understanding, it is a bit too disproportionately negative. Or rather, it's equally balanced. I understand that the film has received some criticism but not enough to warrant a paragraph about the negative reception that is as big as the paragraph about the positive reception. I am not sure if it's supposed to be perfectly balanced in Wikipedia articles as well, so I thought I should leave a note. 2402:8100:3981:9107:C82:D2F5:C988:3ABF (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The first paragraph covers the distribution of reviews. The rest of the paragraphs are not meant reflect that distribution but to cover the common points of praise or criticism found throughout many of the reviews.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Reviews are mixed. RT is not good for films that critics of two minds on but that they know people will see regardless of what they say. In these cases, discussing aspects of the film that critics liked and that they didn't like, rather than what we currently do in implying that some critics "liked" or "didn't like" the film overall. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Character descriptions in cast list definitely need to be updated or expunged

At the outset of this film, "the Avengers" don't exist as an entity so every entry that describes a character thus is wrong; calling Thor the king of Asgard is extremely iffy as he was never formally enthroned (Black Panther's finale basically hinged on the legitimacy of a monarch involving formal ritual, and the Thor films made it clear that Asgard is no different; we also probably shouldn't be assuming fictional countries work differently from real ones) and Asgard also doesn't exist at any point in this film. I've been saying for years that these unsourced blurbs needed to go (and we needed to stop attaching citations to them as though they were not unsourced), and here these are particularly egregious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I think Thor: Ragnarok's conclusion makes clear that Thor is the king of Asgard. Both Thor and Hela have a claim to the throne, and following the death of Hela, Thor is the only one with a legitimate claim – a claim which he acts upon by sitting in the "throne" aboard the Asgardian refugee ship. Thor also remarks that Asgard isn't a place, "Asgard is a people." Finally, the Avengers as an organisation do still exist, albeit bereft of membership following the events of Civil War, so it is not incorrect to label its members and former members as such. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 12:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Both Thor and Hela have a claim to the throne, and following the death of Hela, Thor is the only one with a legitimate claim – a claim which he acts upon by sitting in the "throne" aboard the Asgardian refugee ship. That's not how monarchies in the real world typically work, and it's not apparently how Asgardian succession works in the films. I have only seen the film once (stupid Japanese movie theatres...) so I don't remember if they actually said that Thor was the new king of Asgard, but given that within a few minutes of this film's opening Thor is literally the last Asgardian the title is at best meaningless, accurate or no. But it doesn't really matter whether these descriptions are accurate according to my or your opinion -- if reliable sources don't describe the characters as they appear in this film that way we probably shouldn't. And we definitely shouldn't be tagging citations onto them when the citations are really for the claim that the actor (not even necessarily the character...) appears in the film. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

How a monarchy work depends greatly on it's specific laws of succession - both Hela and Thor had a legitimate claim to Odin's throne (unlike Loki), and both exercised their claims. Also, it's worth noting that Thanos only wiped out half of the surviving Asgardians - whilst that may not mean much within the context of the story going forward, it does mean that he is still the king of a people. I think first and foremost we need to consider the title of the film - it is call "Avengers," and so it makes sense, to me, that they are still considered to be Avengers within the context of the story. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 15:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

both Hela and Thor had a legitimate claim to Odin's throne (unlike Loki) Having a "claim" is not the same as actually being king, and the claim that Loki did not have a legitimate claim is groundless; the first Thor film made it pretty clear that Odin could name his own successor whether or not said successor was his biological offspring. Conversely, it was never implied that Asgardian succession was egalitarian between men and women or that women could succeed at all -- Hela seized the throne by force, so her legitimacy was never addressed. Heck, Hela not apparently being the legitimate child of Odin and Frigg might also have been an issue. But that's all completely irrelevant, since calling someone a king just because you feel they are the last surviving person with a claim to kingship is OR. Thanos only wiped out half of the surviving Asgardians Citation needed? Nothing implied it was part of his grand plan - he was after the stone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Made up names or real names

I was just wondering if there is a reason why for the majority of the plot article Spider-Man is referred to as Peter Parker and Star Lord as Peter Quill, among others. It seems consistent throughout, but I was just thinking it might make sense to, if I can quote the film slightly,use there made up names. Just wanted to check if there was anyone who would rather have them stay as is or if I should change them.Thetetrisguy (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you.. it's weird to see the names used that way.. and it really bugs me on the justice league article that it refers to Batman as "wayne" for most of the plot synopsis... If they are in costume use the super hero name dammit. But i get that this is standard practice. Spanneraol (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Replace plot summary with brief description of premise

As the Avengers and their allies have continued to protect the world from threats too large for any one hero to handle, a new danger has emerged from the cosmic shadows: Thanos. A despot of intergalactic infamy, his goal is to collect all six Infinity Stones, artifacts of unimaginable power, and use them to inflict his twisted will on all of reality. Everything the Avengers have fought for has led up to this moment - the fate of Earth and existence itself has never been more uncertain. </ref>https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4154756/

^I feel like releasing a full plot before the release of such a big film can lead to many upset fans which is why i'm suggesting this instead. Rschwartz5 (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

No. Holding back on the plot because of spoilers violates Wikipedia policies—such as WP:SPOILERS. Withholding the synopsis is a form of censorship and Wikipedia is not censored. Once a film, book, video game or other media is released, readers can reasonably expect that plot details will be included in articles. If, as a result of that, the film is spoiled for them, then that's their fault.

Also, copying a synopsis from another website is a copyright violation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree with PM. This proposal was wrong in so many ways. Also I cut down on the length of the section title as it was way too long, especially for a proposal that was never going to go anywhere. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Avengers: Infinity War’s bravest moment only works because nobody takes it seriously

"Avengers: Infinity War’s bravest moment only works because nobody takes it seriously" https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/1/17307690/marvel-avengers-infinity-war-ending possible source about the ending --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Not overall seeing what makes that source so special: virtually every spoiler review and/or opinion piece I've checked says pretty much the same thing. It touches on what I said way up the page, in that we should include separate paragraphs on what various critics thought of different aspects of the film, including its ending and how its bite is softened by the fact that there are Spider-Man and Guardians sequels, and almost certainly a Black Panther sequel, already in the works. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Wakandan Battlefield

Can't we just state "in Wakanda" instead of "on the Wakandan battlefield"? I see someone left a note that was done because Shuri's fate is unknown but simply not including Shuri's name would do the same thing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, "in Wakanda" wording consistent with wording mentioning Wakanda in previous paragraph of Plot summary. Should the plot summary mention the six infinity stones earlier in the plot summary. They are mentioned toward the end of the plot summary, though they are the main purpose of the quest and mission of Thanos from the start. FutureForecasts (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Already reverted to normal. Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Jon Favreau not in Infinity War

Jon Favreau as Happy Hogan is not in Infinity War.

References

Sure. Not appears along with Renner, Rudd, Thompson, Bassett. Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Gauntlet Damaged

In the last scene, when Thanos activates the gauntlet and destroys half the universe, we see his gauntlet is fried, probably (and most certainly) non functional. Then how does he use the space stone to teleport away from the Thor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarthu65 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Because it was still functional... --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 15:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

To disintegrate every superhero...... Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

is Renner, Rudd, Thompson, Bassett and Favreau not appearing

That's because of full actors and actresses appear in the film However, Renner, Rudd, Thompson, Bassett and Favreau which not appearing in the theatrical release.

Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

They’re involved in the two parter but as evidenced were not involved in the first part. Rusted AutoParts 02:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

First full length feature fully shot IMAX film?

I'm seeing news articles that state that this is first feature COMPLETELY shot with IMAX cameras. There is a distinction because "Wings of Courage" in 1995 was the first dramatic feature, but only 40mins long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.214.103 (talk)

Plot section grammar/syntax change.

Small change needed at following line:

"Despite being severely wounded by Thor, Thanos able activate sthe Infinity Gauntlet and teleports away."

I'd probably change it to something like:

"Despite being severely wounded by Thor, Thanos snaps his fingers (maybe link to the Infinity Gauntlet plot section? Idk) to activate the Infinity Gauntlet, and teleports away."

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:85:4401:6420:5c45:f5f8:458d:842b (talk)

please add the MPAA rating

please add the MPAA rating — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawtyshouse (talk • contribs)

Grammar

The final sentence of the plot section reads, "In a post-credits scene, Nick Fury transmits a distress signal as he, Maria Hill and others disintegrate. The device displays a star insignia on a red-and-blue background." I am sorry to have to point this out to whoever wrote it, but the last part of the plot section does not make sense as written. Grammatically, "the device" refers back to "a distress signal", as though "a distress signal" could be a device that displays an insignia. Obviously that is incorrect; a device can transmit a distress signal and it can display an insignia, but it cannot itself be a distress signal. I realize that anyone who reads those sentences is likely to understand what they were intended to mean, but grammatically they are simply wrong. I therefore respectfully disagree with this revert by TriiipleThreat. My clarification was indeed necessary, inasmuch as it corrected the grammar of the plot section. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I see your point.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not seeing it; it may be poor writing, but it would only be ungrammatical if it said "It displays..." -- I read it just fine as referring to "The device [that Fury used to transmit the signal] displays...". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm correct about the grammar of this, honestly. Whether a sentence is grammatical or not can depend on its placement relative to other sentences, and in this case it does. There is nothing ungrammatical about the sentence "The device displays a star insignia on a red-and-blue background" taken in itself, but becomes ungrammatical if placed after the previous sentence in the way it was originally written. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Without the added wording the question essentially becomes ‘What device?’ as there is no connection with the previous sentence. However, I believe In a post-credits scene, Nick Fury transmits a distress signal as he, Maria Hill and others disintegrate. The transmitter displays a star insignia on a red-and-blue background would take solve this issue without increasing the word count.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No objection. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Josh Brolin to be credited first

I dont understand the sequence in which the cast is written. It says it is how it is mentioned on the poster. Is it even compulsory to follow the poster. The film was absolutely a thanos film and Josh Brolin being a senior actor should be given credits first and his name on the cast should be on the top — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarthu65 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox film#Parameters says: "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release." It's a good way to avoid editors reverting eachother or spending time arguing about who they think are more important. Josh Brolin only does voice and motion capture for a CGI character. If the film had actually shown him then I guess he would have been listed earlier. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Brolin and Chris Pratt got special credits at the end of the cast list to help them stand out a bit.. but your right the list should be in credits order. Spanneraol (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The method has always been done via the credits on the poster billing block. In this instance the names at the top of the posternwere used due to the amount of credited actors in the block. But in every other instance it’s always going to follow the billing block. Brolin was second to last credited on the poster so that’s why he’s credited there. Rusted AutoParts 17:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

White Wolf or Winter Soldier

Bucky is still credited as "Winter Soldier" in the credits of the film, with "White Wolf" nowhere to be found. I keep getting reverted when I implement this change, so I figured I'd bring it here rather than having the edit summary arguments I've adamantly worked to avoid. Do we have a good source that he should be referred to by the alias "White Wolf" rather than Winter Soldier, or any other reason to disregard his credited name? Sock (tock talk) 20:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sock: Per this source (which we use in article), it said that Barnes would be known now as "White Wolf" (hence including it in the Stan as Bucky part). However, I think it can go either way, per what actually happens in the film and I don't think it is super clear what "hero" name he is now known as. So maybe following the credits is best, and we can leave "White Wolf" in the prose part. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

That was my thought too. I didn't want to have the White Wolf mention taken out or anything, but I don't recall him being called that in the film by any of the characters outside of the Wakandan's who gave him the nickname. And it does seem more like a cheeky nickname than a proper superhero alias, which to me is backed up by the credits. This isn't really a change I'm gonna fall on my sword for, just figured it was worth bringing up so I wasn't in disagreement with anyone! Sock (tock talk) 20:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Pre-release sources are unreliable for the content of the film, as their authors had absolutely no idea abour said content beyond what they could glean from the producers' press releases and marketing. This is essentially no different from the thousands of "reliable sources" that claimed (and still claim, since this isn't "real" and so doesn't require correction to avoid libel suits and the like) that Ben Kingsley would be portraying "the Mandarin" in Iron Man 3. It could perhaps be attributed inline in the form Entertainment Weekly reported in March 2018 that Stan's character was no longer being referred to as "the Winter Soldier" and would instead be called "White Wolf" or some such. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Kenneth Branagh is not confirmed as a cameo

We have no confirmation from him or any cast or crew that he has a cameo in this movie. Until we get that, please stop adding it to the cast list. R9tgokunks ✡ 04:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Plot Improvisation

I am doing some great plot improvisations which stay true to the events of the film. Missing key events in the film are not written in the plot which I am adding but it always reverts back to the previous plot in a few minutes. Please help me with this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarthu65 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The edits you added were small, minute details that are not needed and are considered WP:PLOTBLOAT, we do not need every single moment that happened. Just a general overview is enough!--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I add important stuff like why hawkeye and ant man are missing. Also the plot mentions an inured Stark but who injured him and how is never mentioned. How is someone going to make sense out of the plot if key details are missing. Let me improvise please!— Preceding unsigned comment added by QueerFilmNerd (talk • contribs) 00:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

As stated above they’re ultimately unimportant and bloats the plot length from the maximum 700(?) word limit. Rusted AutoParts 17:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

(You're right aha, 400-700 words unless an exception is made) Yeah, overall the information is unimportant as why he is injured is overall not key to the plot overall.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

And how will you justify Thanos' actions unless mentioning what happened to Titan. The plot is inaccurate for the greatest movie ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarthu65 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Trying to "justify" (make just) the actions of the villain kinda misses the point, doesn't it? No sane viewer is meant to come out of the theatre thinking Thanos had the right idea, so our plot summary should not be written in a manner that a reader would think he was justified. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

We don't need to justify his actions, but they should still be explained as they are in the film. He doesn't just wan't to wipe out half of the universe's population for fun. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes explaination must be given for his actions. Please let me improvise that part atleast! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarthu65 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It is already given.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2018

In the final scene of the movie, Thanos finds himself sitting on a porch of a house. As he sits, he has an expression on his face, as if he is wondering about the consequences of his actions. Therefore, I suggest the following edit:

"After the use of the Infinity Gauntlet, Thanos finds himself at a house on another planet. Sitting on the porch, he appears to wonder about the consequences of his actions." Capnjeff1203 (talk) 08:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Even if that did happen (it didn't) it is not the sort of detail that belongs in an encyclopaedic plot summary. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Sequel Information: Update

The Russo Brothers dropped the Title of "Infinity War 2" in 2014 saying that the two movies would have completely different identities. Recently the Russo Brothers tweeted that the reason that the title is still "Untitled Sequel" is due to the fact that the next movie's title will give away a lot of information on what happens in the first movie (also found here: ). GodsHaveMercy (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This article isn't the Untitled Avengers film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The article talks about the Untitled Avengers film, previously titled "Infinity War — Part 2" but was dropped in "favor of an unannounced title". Not only have the Russo Brothers implied that the title of the sequel will give away parts of the first movie, but also Marvel Studios President stated its "because its a spoiler for what comes before it". The original article states that this sequel will be released in 2019 as the "(currently final) avengers film". GodsHaveMercy (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Again. That all has to do with the sequel film and this is about Infinity War and makes proper note of the sequel with current info. So I don't really know what you want added or changed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Can we add Igers comments about Avengers franchise in the sequel section?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/avengers-movies-will-continue-beyond-avengers-4-1109931 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.125.196 (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2018

Near the bottom of the Plot section, the entry:

  "Meanwhile, Thanos rests on another planet."

should be changed to:

  "Meanwhile, Thanos rests in the palace of M'Baku overlooking a Wakandan sunset. The expression on his face shows concern for the results of his actions."

as it is clearly the same setting used in the Black Panther film. 68.225.121.57 (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it was not "clearly the same setting" to me when I watched the film. Please provide a source. NiciVampireHeart 20:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. Upon second viewing, that is clearly another planet and not the Jabari fortress as I initially believed it to be. You can even see the armor Thanos wore in different scenes of the film on a scarecrow in the field in front of the hut. Thank you NiciVampireHeart for setting me straight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.121.57 (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

No mention of IMAX filming?

Kind of surprised there isn't any mention that Infinity War is the first movie ever to be shot entirely in IMAX cameras and the IMAX format (1:90:1). This is a pretty big deal and was heavily promoted by Disney and IMAX at least warrants a mention in the Production section. 16:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It's mentioned on the Production of Avengers: Infinity War and the untitled Avengers sequel page.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Once everything has settled down and the production article is sorted out, there will be room to reassess what should be summarised here. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Getting Your Thoughts...

Favre1fan93, Sock, Betty Logan Hey guys. You’re all the most active editors of this article (and many other tentpole releases) and we’ve all had interactions here and there so thought I’d get your two cents on this topic. As it stands now, the budget in the infobox is listed as “$300-400 million” because most sources from the last month list it as “around $300M” or “up to $400”. Deadline yesterday (here: http://deadline.com/2018/05/avengers-infinity-war-box-office-profit-russo-brothers-success-1202382804/) listed it at $316M, which aside from the British tax forms ($321 million) is only concrete number I’ve seen reported, and they’re usually pretty diligent before posting a figure (and will give a range if their sources indicate as such, like with Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle or Tomb Raider). I know Wiki’s rules technically call for any and all budgets to be ranged in the infobox but it also is an open forum and since it’s not like other sources are confidently listing $300 or $400 million as the budget (and $100 million is quite the range), I think putting it at $316 million should be discussed. Or not and I’m just OCD haha. Cheers! TropicAces (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)tropicAces TropicAces (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I suspect the $316 million and $321 million figure are actually the same figure (converted from the audited figure of £248 million). Because the conversion rates fluctuate you will get slightly different figures. It was pointed out above that not all the costs will have been factored in yet i.e. the 2018 costs will be submitted later this year or even next year, so it's possible we don't have the final figure. As I pointed out above though, the figure—if it changes—will be going up, not coming down. On that basis I would be happy to go with the $316 million since Deadline is a solid secondary source, or even "$316+ million" or ">$316 million" to indicate that the figure is a "floor" figure if editors feel it is necessary. I agree that with the information we have now that 300–400 is very fuzzy. Betty Logan (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

maybe put “$316–321 million”? That way the possible conversion range is covered, but I haven’t seen any concrete figure between the $321-400, just basically that “it may lie somewhere in there”... TropicAces (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

It might be useful to separate domestic receipts and international receipts, and list both. FutureForecasts (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I think TropicAces' last suggestion is our best bet personally. Including that range accounts for the conversion rate trickiness. I definitely agree that $300-400 is too wide a number when he have more specific, narrower fields. Off topic, but it's kind of amazing to me that this movie somehow cost less to make that Age of Ultron. Sock (tock talk) 15:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Sweet, I’ll give it until the end of the day to see if anyone (*coughs*) voices an objection to this new thought, then readjust the infobox. And to your point, Sock , I would imagine it’s a combo of a few things. First, Disney saw Ultron as something that needed to be a hit and on a grand scale, so they pumped loads of money into it. Second, much like how Last Jedi cost less than Force Awakens, some of the sets, costumes and production prices were already created from the first film, so that cuts cost. And third, Disney is just lying about the cost of Infinity War. All personal speculation based on my knowledge of the film industry... TropicAces (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

I'm fine with narrowing the range. As long as the correct sources are used to cite the range, I'm all for it. TropicAces, what ever you adjust, can you translate that over to the infobox on the production article? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 yup, I adjusted the cost in the infobox, as well as added a line in the Filming section along the lines of “the budget estimates were eventually narrowed to $316–322 million”. Glad we could trim some of the fat off this, hopefully a more concrete, universally accepted figure is eventually reported. TropicAces (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

Awesome. Can I get you guys to weigh in on the budget-issue introduced on the "List of MCU films" article (Talk-page)? Cheers! SassyCollins (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

As SassyCollins points out, it is weird that Infinity War seems to have cost less than Age of Ultron. But as Betty Logan, the figure will be going up, not coming down. I agree, because there is no way this cost less than Age of Ultron and, with only one business filing submitted in the UK, the spend amount will be going way up. On April 30th, just over two weeks ago, Variety used the $300 to $400 million range. And the $400 million amount has been listed in multiple other RS. The infobox rules on budget range are quite clear, when there are conflicting amounts, don't cherry pick....list both using a range. I am amazed some editors feel they know more than published reliable sources, including Variety. I am fine with using the $316 million or $321 million for the lower end of the range. But since common sense hinted at by Socks tells us there is no way this cost less than Ultron and reality (per the financials Betty is talking about) dictates cost will certainly go up, it's beyond me why we would not have a range that does not include the $400 million amount. Again, Variety saw fit to include the full $300-$400 million range. It seems inappropriate to me for editors to ignore the leading industry trade from barely two weeks ago and replace it with subjective opinion when they clearly flout established rules. Foodles42 (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's quite possible it will be over $400 million once the full accounts are in, which is why I suggested a ">" or "+" approach. The only concrete figure we have is the $321 million figure taken from the HMRC accounts, and Deadline's $316 million figure is consistent with that (allowing for currency fluctuations". The $300 million figure and $400 million figure are basically guesses or estimates. We know it's over $300 million from the accounts, and it could well be over $400 million given the final cost of Ultron. Commonsense doesn't necessarily mean that this will cost more than Ultron: the films are shot in UK and therefore a huge amount of expenditure are inn pounds; therefore a strong dollar can bring the dollar down while a weak dollar can drive the cost up. A strong dollar for Infinity war and a weak dollar for Ultron could theoretically make Ultron more expensive, but all of this is conjecture at this stage. I am just pointing this out so that we understand that the underlying assumptions could be wrong. Betty Logan (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Betty Logan, since Variety and others are still using the range, are you opposed to including it, per the infobox rules? The financials that Sylt talked about in Forbes were for the period ending June 2017, and post production VFX that the Russo Brothers said cost "hundreds of millions of dollars" continued into 2018, meaning the $320 million was the ground floor in June 2017. The $400 million given by Variety two weeks ago seems safe, if not conservative. And honestly, that is besides the point, we have valid RS giving us a range and the rules are clear we list the range--no cherry picking. Using only the $316-$321 million is cherry picking. I don't see how blatantly ignoring the leading industry trade (amongst other sources) is an acceptable practice. Is that a path we really want to start going down? Foodles42 (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with the 316–321 range. I have a bigger problem with the lower figure than the upper figure to be honest. We know it cost more than $300 million so I think we should move on from that because it is outdated information. I still think 316+ is the better option because we don't know that it came in under 400, but I can live with 316–400 as a compromise. Betty Logan (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Favre1fan93, Sock are you guys ok with a range of $316-400? Foodles42 (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I am. If this is to be the consensus, what amount should be put in the Box Office chart in the "List of MCU films" article? (This is presently 319m; the average of the 316-322m range) SassyCollins (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Works for me. I'd think we can use the range in the MCU films list, I don't think using an average is appropriate since that isn't verifiable. Sock (tock talk) 21:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. I will alter it to $316-400. Foodles42 (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with the range, but we should be careful that WP:CIRCULAR isn't happening. Yes, I know Variety is a trade an probably isn't looking at Wikipedia, but we did have the budget range for this film as "$300-400 million" for quite some time (pointing to reliable sources), so it is possible Variety is basing their reporting on that info. Just food for thought... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)