Talk:Captain America: The First Avenger/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Official costume"

As I'd written at Captain America in other media, with another editor commenting-out the image for now, we don't have proof that the "official costume" image is real. The claim is from an unbylined article from a non-mainstream online publication that gives no indication where the image ostensibly originated.

Given the large number of fan images that have circulated, and the propensity for hoaxes in fan communities, this in no way can be considered a reliable source. I find it odd that some minor site would have access to such production art when Wizard, Entertainment Weekly, Empire and other large, influential mainstream publications do not.

It may well prove to be correct later on. For now, a lack of provenance and the uncertain source make this claim suspect. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, it's not even official from the online publication, but is just a fan posting. Here is the disclaimer at http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/Poniverse/news/?a=18723:

"This posting was submitted by a user of the site not from Comic Book Movie editorial staff."

So in addition to the original reasoning, we can't use this image since it essentially comes from a forum posting. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You might be right. Have you talked to the downloader about it. Jhenderson777 (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess I could down through the history page and see who inserted it. Although any unpublished documentation the downloader could personally give me or anyone else would be OR. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It was an editor named Boycool42, a.k.a. Boucool42/Phil Coulson, who's been editing only since May 8, 2010. There's nothing on his talk page except bot notices about image copyright. He added the image, without any edit summary, at Revision as of 15:45, 7 June 2010. There's some disturbing imagery on his user page, so all things considered, and none of this changing the nature of the non-RS source, it's probably more encyclopedic to wait until something verifiably real is available. The movie's started or is about to start shooting, so there'll be paparazzi set picture if nothing else. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Then it is probably just fan art. I agree we should probably just wait. Jhenderson777 (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I got the image from the same reliable source used in this article. In the future, I would appreciate it if you don't talk about me behind my back. --Boycool42 (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry we didn't mean to do. This was all about the image not you. I was just wanting to hear your side of the story. Anyways Tenebrae I could be wrong but I think there is something in the article talking about an concept suit. And if the source is reliable then I would be OK with the image. Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If you trace back the article's source, CBM got it from JoBlo.com and in turn JoBlo.com credits AICN. Aint It Cool News has been used as a reliable source in the past in a number of articles. So IMO its safe to say the work might be credible. However it is still considered non-free media and I dont think there is enough critical commentary about the design (as of now) to warrant its use. It might make a nice addition in the future. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm for including the image (duh). Also, Tenebrae criticized my "disturbing imagery" and mispelled my username. --Boycool42 (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok sorry. We should all avoid personal remarks but keep in mind that just because he criticized an image doesn't mean he or we are critizing you. We would never do something like that. That's what's us Wikipedians are not about. Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Tenebrae did raise a valid concern over the image and after actually reading the AICN article which states, "These came to us via an AICN reader called Broly's Legend" I am a bit skeptical myself. I have no idea who "Broly's Legend" is or why I should trust him as a source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

ComicBookMovie.com cannot be used

Continuing on this thread, it appears that ComicBookMovie.com gets its content almost entirely from non-professional reader submissions. This makes it no different than a forum that posts fan snapshots of movie locales or gives "news" that may or may not be accurate. The site even runs a disclaimer that these are reader postings and that the site isn't liable for inaccurate or libelous news posted there!

Forum postings, no matter how they're clothed, are not reliable sources by Wikipedia definition, and ComicBookMovie.com reader-submitted posts cannot be allowed as reference citations. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

CBM is not forum, though they do rely heavily on volunteer contirbuters. All that means btw the way is that they are not paid for theyre services. The site's disclaimer states just that.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

DISCLAIMER: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under "safe harbor" provisions and will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy or copyright infringement. For expeditious removal of copyrighted material, contact us HERE.

Exactly: The site does not assume liability for what its readers post, which despite its format makes it a forum as opposed to a journalistic source -- i.e., one that edits and vets its content, helping insure accuracy.

If the site itself can't vouch for the accuracy of its postings, how can Wikipedia? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Thor (film)#ComicBookMovie.com cannot be used as a ref source for a reply.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Official synopsis"

Same thing as above. That site, ComicBookMovie.com, appears to be highly non-RS. First the blockquote of the synopsis on the site itself here doesn't even claim to be official, but just "what has been rumored to be, the film's official synopsis."

Secondly, that page itself says, "DISCLAIMER: This posting was submitted by a user of the site not from Comic Book Movie editorial staff." Postings on open forums and the like just aren't allowed under Wikipedia policy at WP:SPS.

I've put in a bare bones synopsis based on what the remainder of the article has stated with cites, just to keep the space form being empty. It obviously needs to be filled out, although so much can change between now, with production barely started, and when the film is finished that we probably can't verify much. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Parody

Could we include a section for parodies the film has already had, possibly including this file? --Boycool (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious to know what parodies exist for an incomplete unreleased film. Also someone dressed as Captain America is not a direct refrence to this film as the character has existed independantly for 70 years.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

So it's just a coincidence that Michael Cera wears a Captain America costume the same day there's a First Avenger panel? --Boycool (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, it was comic-con. People dress as CA every year.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

An assumption like that is pure speculation without a source saying so. Presumably Michael Cera himself. And I also noticed you stated that it was a parody in the Michael Cera article as well. Can you prove that besides it being a coincidence.Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This video tells how Cera auditioned for the role of Steve Rogers, and found it "predictable" that he only made it to "the top 500." Interestingly, Chris Evans and Cera costarred in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.

In addition, there have been dozens of mock trailers for this film on youtube, among them: 123. --Boycool (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Cera was clearly joking about auditioning. Are the youtube video's independantly notable? Are they criticed, commented on or referenced anywhere else besides youtube?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Youtube is not normally reliable. Per WP:YOUTUBE. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Cera joked about auditioning. In the most simple terms, he parodied the film. --Boycool (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Boycool42. I am just going to inform you, your parody section has been blanked by an IP editor. The main reason why I didn't revert it is because I am not sure of the section but you can put it back on there if you like. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm just not seeing what's notable or encyclopedic about this parody. Things get parodied every day in Mad magazine, The Onion, Saturday Night Live, Funny or Die, and God knows a million YouTube videos. I suppose a one-line statement of its existence may serve some encyclopedic purpose, assuming its RS-cited, but even there I have to wonder. Something is parodied ... so? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I know! I know! The main reason why I didn't undo it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, no, I understand; I agree with your reasoning throughout this thread. You're a very good editor; I like your work and I know when I see your tag on an edit that the edit is going to be astute! --Tenebrae (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. I appreciate it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Same caution as on any movie article

We need to remember this is an encyclopedia and not Wikinews. An encyclopedia gives information that will not be dated and which has long-term significance, such as actors being cast and actors' thoughts on why they took the role. But saying which magazine was first to show the costume is simply quickly dated news. It's a superhero movie. There's a costume. Do we need to break news of the costume appearing on a magazine cover? The more pertinent and encyclopedic point is simply to show the costume, when copyright-free images are available. The visual is what's encyclopedic. A magazine being first to show it is not. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification (comics/movies)

I just read the article's cast section and wondered wether it should be more clearly stated in the discriptions of said characters when people are using the comic history, or actually what they will be in the film.

Example Peggy Carter: A freedom fighter with the French Resistance during World War II and the love interest of Captain America.

And

Nick Fury: A sergeant in the United States Army during World War II who lead an elite special unit of U.S. Army Rangers nicknamed the Howling Commandos

None of this has been confirmed, Nick Fury was in WW2 in the comics but its doubted that he be in anything but the films bookend scenes which will take place in the present, and from recent still Peggy Cater has been shown to be apart of Project Rebirth.

This is a common problem found on all comicbook movie pages, i think the should atleast say "In the comics Nick Fury was... etc etc" until information on there actual roles is confirmed. --81.149.142.178 (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really necessary. As long as the character is bluelinked, readers can learn the details of the comics character. Not different from the countless movie articles where the movie is adapted from any other literary source — we generally don't go into descriptions of how the character is portrayed in the novel, short story, etc. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Until the films release or have reliable source stating otherwise we have know way of knowing how the final porduct will be adapted differently from its source material. So until then we stick with the source. The great thing about wikipedia is that it is always evolving and can be updated at any point.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Found confirmation that Nick Fury will not not appear in the WWII scenes:

We're keeping Nick Fury as portrayed by the great Sam Jackson just in the modern era for now.

— Kevin Feige, LIVE CHAT: Marvel Studios chief Kevin Feige answers your questions, LA Times. Retrieved 2010-12-11.

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

JJ Field as James Montgomery Falsworth / Union Jack

• JJ Feild as James Montgomery Falsworth / Union Jack, a British hero in WWII alongside Cap.

I find it odd that no other major media outlet has picked this up as fact with most reports calling it rumor or claiming IMDB as their only source. Thoughts?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The anonymously sourced Ain't It Cool News item doesn't seem to reach the bar of WP:RS. And as even one source, FilmWatch.com, puts it, "Well according to the often bogus IMDB [emphasis mine], Marvel has cast American-born English actor JJ Feild as...." Feild has no official site (there's a fan site called jj-feild.com, also anonymous), so, yes, let's leave it out for now. An encyclopedia can only have unquestionably verifiable information from transparent, credible sources. That's what makes this an encyclopedia and not a news-and-gossip site. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Heres another source; "JJ Feild's heavy burden for film". The Belfast Telegraph. 2011-05-10. Retrieved 2011-05-10.. I wonder if this warrants reinclusion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Citing The Hollywood Reporter

As can be seen by the "dead link" tags in this articles footnotes for The Hollywood Reporter, it's crucial that we add a WebCitation or some other archive link for Hollywood Reporter citations since they're only available to the general public at the original URL for a limited time. They then go into a subscriber archive with a different URL and may or may not be searchable. (You know how internal search engines are.)

An archive link is a snapshot of the page as it appears that day. If the URL changes or the article goes away, the cited information remains available. It doesn't seem useful to have "dead link" appear after every Hollywood Reporter cite a month or two after we give it.

Using http://webcitation.org takes less than 60 seconds once you've done it a couple of times. If we believe in Wikipedia as a lasting source of information and not a news site for the latest on this Marvel movie or that, it's critical that we archive our citations. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Crediting Joss Whedon as a writer.

I'm not sure why he is credited, even if it is masked as uncredited, as a writer on this script if the information provided has him saying himself that he didn't do that much to it. If he is uncredited it is because he didn't make a significant contribution to the script, the same way Ehren Kruger isn't credited as writer of Scream 4 even if he did rewrites on it. It's something to be mentioned in that section sure but it shouldn't be in the lead or the infobox as it implies a larger role than he had. I don't know the situation with Self either but if he too is uncredited then he is uncredited for a reason and shouldn't be in the Infobox or lead. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Effects

In this article, Joe Johnston explains how they accomplished the "skinny Steve Rogers" effects for the film. --Boycool (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, good stuff.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It is good and all, Boycool42, and I join TriiipleThreat in thanking you for letting everyone know.

But I'm curious, because a lot of people do this and I don't know why, so maybe you could tell me about this particular case: Why are we looking at the website that copy-pasted the actual, hardworking reporter's interview from the original source, here at Film Journal International? --Tenebrae (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I cant speak for Boycool but I assume that is where he saw it first. But everyone should be aware it is good practice to trace back your sources. I made sure to use original source when I added it. Tenebrae, do you think Johnston's comments should be trimmed and paraphrased instead of using that rather large block quote? I was a little concerned but had a hard time to do so since it all seemed relevant?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Those are pretty long quotes, so, yeah, some ellipses here and there might be good. It's tough when the subject is very technical. Maybe I'll give it a whack later when I have more time, or other editors might get there first. It's a really fascinating and important thing to include, though, I'll tell ya! Kudos to Boycool for finding it and for you to inserting and properly sourcing it! --Tenebrae (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I came by that article by complete chance and didn't think to look at any more reliable sources. --Boycool (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

On a semi-related note, in this interview Chris Evans says skinny Steve is 5' tall and 98 lbs. Not sure if that's an estimate or relevant to the article, but it could be interesting. --Boycool (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

RE Rici

For the English-language Wikipedia, when quoting a source in a different language, we must provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation. Please see WP:NOENG. Not a biggie; I've just commented-out the Ricci item for the moment until a translation of the pertinent sentence(s) can be added to the footnote, but I haven't removed it or anything.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Worth mentioning name change in Russia, South Korea and Ukraine?

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/captain-america-keep-us-title-207939

Its a piece about how it will be known as Captain America: The First Avenger in all but the 3 above countries, who were given a choice between the former or "THe First Avenger", the name being changed for political and cultural reasons. I think it is worth adding but I can't think where it would fit. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"Release" would be the place, but this article doesn't have that section. Cowboys & Aliens (film) has a pretty good example of how to create a release section for an upcoming film... Or just wait two weeks until the film is actually released. --Boycool (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to include that reference. We should go ahead and start a "Release" section, even if it is short. The reference is excellent for ensuring global coverage, details related to countries outside the US. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it a go, I'm still half-drunk but we will see what the result is :P Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in marketing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Premiere and Review

Info on the premiere also includes some marketing material from a quick read including ice cream flavours and such created for the character. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/18/idUS162389+18-Jul-2011+PRN20110718 And the Hollywood Reporter's review: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/captain-america-first-avenger-film-213287 Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Release dates

Since a lot of the movie was filmed in the UK, wouldn't that release date be relevant?Hellboy42 (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Filming locations are irrelevant, per WP:FILMRELEASE we only include the first release date and the release date in the country that produced the film (U.S. In this case).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I edited the page and removed the bit about the movie not being released in China. The movie was released in China but was pushed back to the release date of September 9, 2011. This was probably due to the release of the propaganda film "The Great Revival" in the summer of 2011, which resulted in many foreign movies having their release dates pushed back (including "Transformers 3" and "Harry Potter 7: Part 2"). I don't have a source for this information but I just got back from watching the movie in theaters and I live in Mainland China so suffice to say that the movie has been released in China under the name "Captain America: The First Avenger." SquattyPottyJockey (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

And I have removed the edit. One of the primary, core policies of Wikipedia is that information must be verified by a reliable-source citation. I'm sure you can understand how an Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia can't just suffice to "take somebody's word for it." Can you imagine what Wikipedia would be like if anyone could make any claim they wanted to without a verifying source? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Even if it has been released there, which I won't contest, the content should remain but be rewritten to highlight there was a possibility it would not see release in China but that this was not eventually the case. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

According to THR, the film opened in China this past weekend and made $8 million. Segers, Frank (2011-09-11). "Foreign Box Office: 'The Smurfs' Squeak Out Another Victory Overseas". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2011-09-12. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Triiiple comes through as always, and Darkwarriorblake is exactly right. What a team! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Plot

Saw the film last night at a press screening. I believe it's going to make its first public screening tomorrow at Comic-Con. Is it too early to write up a first pass at the plot? Would it be better to get something into a sandbox and place that into the article tomorrow after the screening finishes? --Tenebrae (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is verifiability. However with the Hollywood premiere yesterday and the San Diego opening tomorrow coupled with the fact that the general release is only 2 days away, I'd say its okay. Besides I rather a experienced editor like yourself write first draft and curtail most of the usual problems plot sections have when they are first written.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to say to my fellow editors this morning: Great trimming to the essential details on the plot! That is one great collaborative effort! Also on the footnotes, which wonderfully include anti-link-rot archiving. That's some of the best footnoting I've seen on Wikipedia — we should find a way to let Wikipedia at large see this and use it as a model. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A number of reviews have been posted on Rotten Tomatoes, and reviewers often include plot information in the reviews. I would use the reviews as a source for citing plot information. --TravisBernard (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, let me clarify. Plots are generally cited by the movie itself, per WP:FILM. What I meant is that the footnoting in general' in this article was extremely well-done.

I probably should have made that a separate comment from my one about the plot, to avoid confusion. My fault. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure Tenebrae did not see the film at a press conference. He just wants us to think he is important.-Mdriver1981 (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

What the hell? What kind of nasty, insulting thing is that to say? And point of fact: I wrote the first pass of the plot here on July 20: One day after the UK release and two days before the US release. Seriously, dude, what kind of uncivil post was that? Totally unnecessary and antithetical to the good of the community. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Skylenorman, 23 July 2011

Page lists character "Red Skull" as "The red Skull", and in some cases simply as "Skull". Please fix. Skylenorman (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Appears as if someone went through and already fixed this Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft Red Skull escapes in

Looks like this: http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwtrieb.html Mention it if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannibalrabbit007 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Another great article on the film's effects

CGSociety has a great article on the film's effects which I think might be worth including the post-production section. The article also contains some non-free images which we might be able to use considering the amount of rationale.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hogg, Trevor (2011-07-27). "Raising the Shield: The Making of Captain America: The First Avenger". CGSociety. Retrieved 2011-07-28.

Howard Stark Sr. VS Howard Stark Jr.

I know both of them are called Howard Stark but I think that the Howard Stark portrayed in the film should be Tony Stark's grandfather instead. Think about it, the events in the film happened 70 years ago. Assuming the Howard Stark in the film is about 30-40 years old (based on his looks) in 1941, then Tony Stark would have been born and that he would be over 70 to 80 years old now. But if the Howard Stark in the film is Howard Stark Sr. then it makes sense that in between these 70 years, there is a Howard Stark Jr. so that there would not be any chrono errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joonhon (talk • contribs) 07:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Plot issue: Discussing rather than reverting

A fellow editor has in good faith reverted an edit I made, which I'd like now to discuss here with him and other editors. The plot, near the end, says Rogers and the ship "remain undiscovered". That obviously isn't true: The very first scene of the movie shows them being discovered. I edited the line to read "remain undiscovered until the present day", as we see in the first scene. It's factually inaccurate to say they were never discovered. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we not call it reverting when no reverting happened? I changed something. I did not revert your edit. In the film, at the time they are in, the ship and Rogers remain undiscovered. They are not discovered. There are discoverless until modern times. Their search for them in their current time bears no fruit, it is fruitless, seedless, gooey and low in fat. They are the diet coke of being discovered. It is written as we see it in the film and in the film they find the cube and Rogers is lost, declared inactive. The next scene is him waking up in a 40's hospital, then going outside, finding it is present times, where he has now been discovered. At the point in the film where he remains undiscovered, he is undiscovered and the line is correct. You can maybe get away with changing it to "lost" but saying "remains undiscovered until the present-day" makes the following sentence pointless and the following sentence is important to the overall narrative.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I was being polite, and I was assuming good faith. Please don't try to say you did not revert my edit. Look up the dictionary definition of "revert." It means to return something to its previous state. You returned the disputed sentence to its previous state.

I don't know what you're going on about with the diatribe about food. Regardless, I'd ask you to explain how saying he is discovered in the present day makes the next sentence pointless — because the next sentence describes him being in the present day. What you are saying makes no sense to me.

As it stands now, it is factually inaccurate, prima facie, to say he remained undiscovered. We see that he was discovered.

I'd like to ask other editors to weigh in. Darkwarriorblake's post above is a long, rambling I-don't-know-what-to-call-it, and I think it's important we hear from third parties, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your changes before:

• "Seeing no way to safely land the plane without risking its weapons detonating, Rogers crashes it in the Arctic. Stark later recovers the tesseract from the floor of the ocean but the aircraft and Rogers remain undiscovered until the present day. Rogers awakens in a hospital room. Deducing that something is wrong, he flees outside into what is revealed to be present-day Times Square."

Your changes after:

• "Seeing no way to safely land the plane without risking its weapons detonating, Rogers crashes it in the Arctic. Stark later recovers the tesseract from the floor of the ocean but the aircraft and Rogers remain undiscovered thing missing. Rogers awakens in a hospital room. Deducing that something is wrong, he flees outside into what is revealed to be present-day Times Square."

So let us end the revert discussion, I made an edit I did not revert anything. We do not see that he was discovered, we see them find his shield at the start of the film, we never see anything to do with him in the present day until he wakes up in that hospital. As for the next sentence, it says that it is revealed he is in the present day. But we just told the reader he is in the present day, even though we never saw him discovered in the present day until he runs outside at the end of the film, introducing a factual error. Might as well head on over to Empire Strikes Back and add in "He remains unaware of his father's identity as Darth Vader until the next sentence".Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've have complimented you on your talk page in the past for your good editing, but I'm afraid I'm not following the long, rambling post above.

In any event, it doesn't matter. I've found a way to address this that should satisfy both of our concerns: He and the ship remain undiscovered at the time'. Presto. We're both happy and we both — not just one of — feel the passage is accurate. Good working with you. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

dissolved or transported?

Quoting from the plot on the main article "Schmidt physically handles the tesseract, causing him to dissolve in a bright light." I watched the Thor film previously and the same effect is duplicated in this film, the star constellation looks the same. The same type of air formation with the same pattern of light. The tesseract transmits his pattern up! I am pretty sure he didn't dissolve. Maybe we can re-evaluate the word dissolve! Govvy (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The visual is of him dissolving. It's unlikely he is dead but we can't claim anything but what is shown the same way we don't call the tesseract the cosmic cube as it is never called that, the same we don't say it is the same item that is in Thor because they look very different. Visually we are shown he dissolves in such a way that Cap thinks he is dead. That if you don't know about Thor, you're meant to think he is dead. Whether or not he is teleported requires information we do not have from watching the film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Tesseract is also a four-dimensional hypercube, in theory you can probably use this hypercube to plot a vector course point in a Grid of space! How's that for another question into the realms of Marvel! Govvy (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Again on choice of words, dissolved or disintegrated to point of resolved or reintegrated? Govvy (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you are asking there. In a sequel or The Avengers, if he turns up, you would say in that plot what has happened. At the moment, we are told he is dead by Cap and shown him dissolving. We, using external knowledge, know he has likely been transported to Asgard or somewhere similar that will allow him to turn up in the modern day without aging. Hell it's possible he even time traveled. But we are not shown any of that, we just see him disappearing piece by piece until he is gone and for the audience who haven't seen Thor, the implication is that he is dead.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Darkwarriorblake. In this movie, taking solely what we see onscreen, he appears to dissolve. All we can say is what we concretely see. We can't conjecture. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Phineas Horton

How about mention of the android that was the original human torch and later, The Vision, making an appearance at the fair at an exhibit of Horton's.[1] dollars to donuts we will have this creature in the Avengers movie. Im speculating, of course, but there will be tons of sourced speculation to draw from. PS shouldnt we also make a link between the "tesseract" and the Cosmic Cube?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems trivial at best as it had no bearing on the film. Also we cannot link to the Cosmic Cube per WP:EGG. Although comic book fans may recognize it as the Cosmic Cube, it is not identified as such in the film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Not advocating either way, but paragraph 3 of the Film Journal review here, an IFC.com article by Rick Marshall ("Captain America: The First Avenger": Five things that were missing from the superhero movie, 07/25/2011) here, and an IGN article by Scott Collura [Was the Human Torch in Captain America? Read on for spoilerish Easter-egg goodness:, July 28, 2011) here all third-party-cite the Human Torch or at least the costume, with the last giving a screengrab. Just putting out the data to let other editors decide if worth mentioning or too trivial. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

My point was only to ask if there was enough third party mention of these subjects, but i phrased it without that emphasis. Im not sure we are there yet, but i am calling attention to the possibility that it will be discussed in greater depth as time passes. PS im guilty of one example of lack of research. i didnt go to IMDB, and hadnt noticed that the cast and character list for the Avengers is there, with no mention of torch. of course, IMDB is not a reliable source, but it does look like the torch/vision wont be in the first film, so that makes this a less vital fact to write about. Oh, and i agree we cant "easter egg" the cosmic cube link. we could only mention that reviewers from the comic field have compared the two items, again if it becomes a significant subject of commentary.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Norton

Was the movie sponsored by Norton? There is a Norton promotion that uses this film. --94.3.243.157 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Norton did a cross promotion on their Facebook page to release some of the behind the scenes videos. Movies do stuff like this all the time, and it's definitely not notable enough to be included in the article. --TravisBernard (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

China's film quota

The twenty-film limit that China supposedly places on foreign imports is one of the most obnoxious and widely repeated myths in all media reporting. Yes, amazingly, the New York Times can be wrong -- I actually wrote to the them last year on this issue and even received a response thanking me for my correction, but it obviously didn't sink in.

Twenty is only the number of films that can be imported annually on a revenue-sharing basis, with part of the revenues going to the original studio. The agreement is fairly hardball stuff -- the studio gets around 15% and must distribute the film through the state-owned China Film Group -- but it's preferred to the alternative, in which one of the two local firms authorized to import films (CFG and Huaxia) pays a simple flat fee. For smaller-scale films this is OK, but for potential blockbusters it can mean large amounts of lost revenue. The makers of The Expendables missed out on a few million dollars because they were unable to get one of the revenue-sharing slots, hence their recent efforts to make the sequel as a Chinese co-production.

Anyway, the important point is that far more than 20 foreign films are released in Chinese cinemas each year. The number of allowed flat-fee imports currently stands at 40, which according to my calculator means sixty imports altogether (here's a recent source on those numbers -- there's a paywall, but the article text is still more or less visible and can be seen in its entirety by checking the source code). Had Captain America been denied revenue-sharing status, it could've been imported under the flat-fee system, however much it might've pained Marvel and Paramount. Heck, for all I know it was imported under the flat-fee system. The simple fact is that the NYT's crack entertainment blogger was blatantly wrong about China's import restrictions.

To close, here's a reasonably complete list of foreign imports released in China this year to date:

1/4 - You Are My Sunshine (South Korea) | 1/7 - Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader | 1/10 - Tron: Legacy | 2/8 - The Green Hornet | 2/9 - The Mouse With a Mouth (Belgium) | 2/13 - The Tourist | 2/25 - Alpha and Omega | 2/26 - I Am Number Four | 3/4 - Kiss Me Again (Italy) | 3/11 - Beneath Hill 60 (Australia) | 3/18 - Battle: Los Angeles | 3/22 - Killers | 3/29 - Temptation of an Angel (South Korea) | 3/31 - Goemon (Japan) | 4/1 - Red | 4/8 - Rio | 4/12 - Armored | 4/15 - Sucker Punch | 4/29 - The Eagle, The Next Three Days | 5/8 - Thor | 5/12 - Fast Five | 5/13 - Mega Monster Battle: Ultra Galaxy Legends - The Movie (Japan) | 5/20 - Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides | 5/28 - Kung Fu Panda 2 | 6/3 - Skyline | 6/10 - Na Igre 2 (Russia) | 6/24 - Animals United (Germany) | 7/2 - Coursier (France) | 7/10 - Unthinkable | 7/21 - Transformers: Dark of the Moon | 8/4 - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows, Part 2 | 8/10 - The Smurfs | 8/12 - Oceans (France) | 8/19 - Season of the Witch | 8/24 - Cars 2 | 8/30 - Source Code | 9/9 - Captain America, Sanctum

Rather more than twenty there, and there's still 3 1/2 months left in the year.

I'll leave the NYT reference in place for the moment, pending further discussion. -182.40.141.5 (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Done: I added one phrase, cited to The Hollywood Reporter, and tweaked the existing sentence to make it more general, so that it's correct without contradicting The New York Times source. You should thank User:TriiipleThreat for doing the work of coming up with a reliable-source citation, which is all any of us have asked for. So we're all good now? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It's factually correct to be sure, but it's gone from something that's just wrong (the twenty-film quota) to something that's "true" only in the most banal sense -- "there is consideration" that any foreign film might not be released in China; that's inherent to the entire concept of an import quota. There's nothing notable or significant about Captain America in this respect. I'm not going to make a federal case out of it, but this particular bit of "reporting" (which smacks more of uninformed speculation) doesn't seem worth highlighting here. -182.40.141.5 (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going by what you said — and I didn't check your cite links, though obviously I should — that there are, indeed, a limit to films released in China on a revenue-sharing basis. A limit's a limit, and at the time the NYT writer wrote the piece, no one know whether the studio was considering Capt. America for a revenue-sharing arrangement. As you note, what the Wikipedia article says is factually correct.

Is it meaningful and contextual, is the next question. I believe so, and other editors should weigh in, because the source is a fairly lengthy piece in a very major paper that's about the worldwide marketing, in this climate, of a movie about a physical embodiment of America. That's different from a John Grisham movie thriller, or a harmless Adam Sandler comedy.

And while the NYT, like any paper, is not above reproach — it runs corrections, like any other paper, though usually for name spellings and the like — I'm really not sure one could keep a job in journalism, particularly at a holy-grail sort of publication, if one were really writing "uninformed speculation." I'm sure he was writing with all the information available to him as a professional journalist; I've heard that China may not always make detailed information about itself available to the Western press.

In any case, your concern was that Capt. America was released in China. TriiipleThreat went out and hunted down the pertinent citation. I edited the passage and inserted that footnote, pitching in as a WikiProject Comics team-member. Are there are any other concerns we need to address, because this discussion is really taking up a long time for a single sentence about a single foreign-territory marketing. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A new source from THR, says it was released in China. But the same article makes the point we are making here, that they're amazed it did well overseas because it's a film about the embodiment of American patriotism going saving the world and it's a big budget film. That tehre is a limit on imported films, regardless of what it is, the reporter felt in the original source that it was worthy of mentioning because of the character. The distributors felt it was noteworthy enough that they had two different titles for countries to use for those that didn't want to advertise it as Captain America, a point the THR source makes as well. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-shocker-captain-america-235464 Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Nazi Hydra aircraft

In answer to a comment above, I added that the plane Schmidt first escaped in was a VTOL and that the final aircraft was a Horton-style flying wing, not merely a 'jet', as the craft also used propellers. Why were the items removed in favor of the less specific (and in the second case erroneous) original wording?

Thank you. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Becuase such a minuet detail is irrelevant to the plot, neither is the make of Kruger's get-away car. If jet is incorrect, why not simply call it an aircraft?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Originally, Red Skull escaped in a VTOL aeroplane, not a car. (This is noted above.) The second time, it wasn't merely an aircraft, but a flying wing. Besides specifics being at the heart of good writing, both VTOL and flying wings were important technological developments by the Germans and the USA. The film makers cared enough about the history, I believe it's incumbent upon Wikipedia to do it right and this way readers can confirm their use. If you would agree, I'd like to restore that part. Would you mind very much?

Thank you. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This is only a summarization and not needed to convey the plot. Please see the linked guideline about avoiding such minutiae and technical detail.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect– and I understand the point about not adding unnecessary minutiae– I believe you're missing what I'm saying, that good writing and editing requires specifics, which is not the same as minutiae or technical exposition. In other words, saying 'shot with a big gun' is less preferable than 'shot with a .45 revolver'. Do you see what I'm getting at? 'Aircraft' could mean anything or almost nothing. Conveying the technology in the same amount of space tells the reader what the Allies (and Rogers) were up against.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless it's intrinsic to the plot that someone was shot with a .45 (like a plot turn involving someone being shot with .45 but a crooked medical examiner stumping police by saying the weapon was a .38), then it's preferable to say simply gun, which conveys the essential plot point without throwing in an extraneous, distracting detail. The make of the Skull's aircraft has no bearing on the plot. Good writing isn't just about specifics; one can be overspecific. Good writing is clear and uncluttered.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Captain America: The First Avenger/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Searson (talk · contribs) 18:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Overall it looks really well done; just doing some MOS checks right now.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Very nicely done. This was a well-written article with very good sourcing. It seems almost ready to be a Featured Article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you kindly, a lot of editors have put in a lot of work on this article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Tesseract

Yes, the movie only calls it a 'tesseract', but we do our readers a massive disservice by incorrectly linking to just Tesseract when the device is clearly and noted in Reliable Sources as the Cosmic Cube. It's not actually a tesseract, it's just called one. Since we cannot refer to the Cosmic Cube in the Tesseract article, then we have to have some means of giving our readers the correct information. Dreadstar ☥ 19:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've taken this off my watchlist, so you folks can do whatever you like, but I'll hope for the best and that you'll find a way to explain to readers that it's a fictional tesseract out of the Marvel Universe and not a "real" one; just like Thor (Marvel Comics) isn't really Thor, or Henry Pym isn't the biblical Goliath; only moreso. Well, not yet, anyway.. :) Dreadstar ☥ 19:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No need to leave discussion, I was somewhat okay with it depending on the presentation. I do not think it belongs in the plot as it adds an in-universe perspective that the general audience is not aware of as they were not provide these supplemental materials. Perhaps with collaboration we can come up with a solution that we can all agree upon.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources I assume you are citing are people like you (and me) who use their comic knowledge to infer what the object is when the reality is that it has never been called that in any of the films and for all we know, does nothing along the lines of the cosmic cube. There is a Marvel Cinematic Universe article where these connections can be made when they are made in teh films, like it is never mentioned that the opening of Thor and the opening of Captain America take place in the same location. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, a source that is authorative on the subject (i.e. the filmmakers, etc.) stating the tesseract is indeed the cosmic cube is ideal.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Observation/suggestion:

If relevant, reliable sources can be presented, work it into the production section. Realistically there should be some source somewhere that meets Wikipedia's reliability standard that speaks to the comic book plot elements that were adapted or cameoed in the film. This is consistent with other like films.

It should not be in the plot or a related section - and the lead would be related in this case - either explicitly or as an Easater Egg.

- J Greb (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT says, "Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section." I would say that the presence of the cosmic cube is a kind of complication that can be verified by a secondary source. We could do a note-type approach where we link to a note, which will have the director saying it's the cosmic cube or whatever, and that note will have an inline citation. Kind of like what American Beauty (film) does in some cases. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. The plot element itself is fairly straight forward. It's when there is a desire to match-up the item with the comics and name it that it complicated. Citing and sourcing the "It's the cosmic cube." is fine. Doing it in the plot section, where the name is irrelevant, isn't.

- J Greb (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

British Army Peggy vs French Resistance Peggy

First, the article stated that Peggy was a fighter for the French Resistance, now the article and the movie state that she is a British army officer. Was the French Resistance thing changed during the movie's production, or it was just a misconception from Wikipedia's editors? Leader Vladimir (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sickly vs. diminutive

In response to Vranak's good faith edit, Rogers medical record states he has/had:

• Asthma
• Scarlet Fever
• Rheumatic Fever
• Sinusitus
• Chronic or frequent colds
• High blood pressure
• Palpitation or pounding in the heart
• Easy fatigability
• Heart trouble
• Nervous trouble of any sort
• Has had household contact with tuberculous
• Parents/siblings with diabetes

Besides the cited reference, I would say this would make the "sickly" description more accurate.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it wasn't just his stature that was the problem, he failed the medical exam entirely.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Genre and Cosmic Cube

Care to explain your revert? --91.10.20.87 (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

We typically only use the most general genre for the lead to avoid long indiscriminate lists like Captain America: The First Avenger is a period/action/comedy/romance/superhero film. See previous discussions concerning the Cosmic Cube.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

1. AGF next time.
2. If that's the custom. Looks to be a false dilemma, but anyway.
3. Then the tessarct can't be linked at all. It's clearly either the Cosmic Cube or nothing from that list. --91.10.20.87 (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It's called the Tesseract, there is a wiki page for tesseract, it can be linked to tesseract. This has been discussed a thousand times across multiple Marvel pages. It also isn't a period film, it is at BEST a sub genre but not a primary genre and doesn't belong in the opening. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no article for this, just a disambig. This link would only make sense if you aim to confuse the reader.

Again about the genre? Are you just looking for an argument? If not, what is the reason to bring this up again? --91.10.20.87 (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

PlotBloat?

I'm confused why my minor edit of Captain America the first Avenger was reverted (noting that Erskine told Rogers on two occasions to not let the project change him) but complicated words "sobriquet" and unnecessary words "clambered" have remained.

I feel the changes I suggested are important because a major theme was that the serum supposably amplified what someone was on the inside and Rogers didn't develop arrogance or anything as a result of the project.

I also changed "sobriquet" to moniker and "clambered" to climb. As schooled as I am, it's been a very long time since hearing the word sobriquet and nobody i've asked knows what the word means.

I appreciate your time. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandeyla (talk • contribs) 23:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to discussion. Per WP:FILMPLOT there is a 700 word limit for standard feature length films, Your edit needlessly pushes the plot beyond that limit. The rationale is that films are copyright protected material so we only state what is nessecary to convey the basic plot. Therefore we do not state every minor plot point or theme. The guideline expressly states to avoid such minutiae like dialogue.

Also it is better to use a word that accurately discribes the situation, even if it is "big" or uncommon in the vernacular.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Post-credits scene

Not saying the editor who removed this may not have a point, but this should be discussed here first. This is a scene that appears on the print of the released film after the credits. It apparently also later came out as a teaser trailer. So by literal definition it's a post-credit scene. Is it a trailer used as a post-credit scene, or a post-credit scene later used as a trailer? Does it make a difference in this context? Given that it appears onscreen for anyone who saw this film in a theater, we need to mention it one way or another. Let's figure it out. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it's different than any of the other post-credit segments. It's a little nod to future events and then it is followed by a trailer. It isn't interspersed with cuts of the trailer, its Captain America related segment then trailer. It should be in the plot. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The same scene does appear in the trailer for The Avengers so it would appear that the scene is actually apart of that film and is not apart of the narrative of this film. So I would say it doesn't belong here. The difference between this and Marvel's other stingers, is that they all featured original footage unique to that film. We do not include trailers for other films in film articles, I don't see a difference between trailers appearing before or after a film--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess one thing to look at is, did the trailer for The Avengers appear sometime afterward, or was it released around the same time? If the former, it sounds as if it might be that the post-credits scene then became part of the trailer, but was originally produced as a post-credits scene as most of the other movies have.

This seems to be a matter of semantics, but it may be that we have something that's neither fish nor fowl, and we may need to find some alternative way to address its presence. One possible guidepost: Is it attached after the credits on the DVD release? A dedicated (i.e. true) trailer would appear in its own section. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The trailer I was referring to with the same scene was not released until sometime afterwards, however The Avengers had already been filming for a couple of months by time of the release of CA:TFA so theoretically footage from The Avengers could have been included in this film. I guess time will tell to see if this same footage does in fact appear in The Avengers and any RSs to confirm or deny would certainly help.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Okey-doke. Since we seem to be uncertain of its provenance, I'll write something that mentions the fact that its there but may be something other than a post-credits scene.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to say the new thing is daft. All the Marvel films have had stingers after them. That the Captain one leads into an Avengers trailer is because it was the last Marvel film before the Avengers, the Captain America bit is clearly related to fact it is a Captain America film. This is seriously being overthought based on one user's edit. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

What is being debated is if the entire thing is a trailer including the set up where Fury approaches Cap in the gym because the same footage appears in the second theatrical Avengers trailer.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

For now, I would strike the sentence; "It is uncertain whether this is a true post-credits scene or footage from The Avengers (2012 film) used as a teaser trailer". I really do not like dealing in uncertainties, however the preceding sentence is fact. We can determine later (once we have more info) if that paragraph needs to be removed entirely or re-credit it as a post-credit scene.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Footage from one film appearing in another doesn't preclude it from existing in another. Otherwise the Saw films would make even less sense. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to agree — these needn't be mutually exclusive.

Not sure why the wording is daft since it addresses and encapsulates all the points raised here, but, of course, reword in any way acceptable. Given that the footage demonstrably exists, was released as part of the film and as part of a film series that in every or nearly every case included a post-credits scene, we can't pretend it's not there. We need to address it in some form or another. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

If it is agreed that The Avengers footage is in fact advancing the plot of this film, then perhaps we should just return to the original wording.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think its a stretch to say that the point is just to tie the film into the Avengers and then is immediately followed by the Avengers trailer. I mean the Hulk one doesn't have anything to do with the Hulk, its just there to tie hte universe together. I have no doubt the footage may appear in the Avengers for people who didn't bother to watch after the credits, but I do believe it is part of the film. I mean its short and lame, but they all have been. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Its one thing to summarize the footage but I don't think we need to add any exposition about the "point" of the footage.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Triple on this one. I think we can only state what we see on the screen, and note that (in this circumstance apparently unique so far to the series), it's uncertain how to characterize this footage. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought we were coming to the agreement that the footage is a part of the film regardless of the fact if it also a part of The Avengers so noting its ambiguity wouldn't be necessary either?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it was fine as it was before Hellboy's edit. The latter part is clearly an advert and there is no gain in repeating it's events, the former just moves Cap beyond the end of the film where hes brand new and sets up his invite to the Avengers, like Iron Man being invited, and the Cube being given to Selvig. I mean before Hellboy noone has questioned that it was a suitable explanation for that scene or that it was in fact a stinger and not directly part of the Avengers advert. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Also I would like praise the editors in this discussion, rarely do I come full circle in my opinion in one short thread. Kudos.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

[Spoiler] confirmed on commentary

On the commentary, it is directly confirmed that Bucky survives the fall from the train. This is stated during the train scene, as well as during the rescue scene when Rogers sees Bucky for the first time again (it is stated that Zola's experiments on him gave him the ability to survive the fall). Should this be included somewhere? The plot, cast section, sequel? Or maybe even a footnote similar to what is done at the Avengers article. --Boycool † (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, the plot already says to "his apparent death", I think it's something that would be clarified in a sequel if he turns up. I guess maybe you could add a note? Just not sure how relevant it is. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree Darkwarriorblake, and footnote it with a quote and time stamp. This does not appear in the film so I don't think it belongs in the plot section. The cast section is focused to the actors and their roles. Also we do not know if this will be used in a sequel.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll provide the quote and time stamp when I get a chance to hear the commentary again. --Boycool † (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Joe Johnston, Shelly Johnson, and Jeffrey Ford. 1:04:05-1:04:49. It's kind of hard to listen to since the commentators keep talking over each other or laughing, but here's what I could pick out:

[Steve wakes Bucky after Zola escapes] "There's poor Bucky. God knows what's happened to him here... It was some form of the rebirth process, because he does survive that fall. And the trip down the frozen river... He was strapped to that table and Zola did some really nasty things." --Boycool † (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

So what do you do to add it a quote as a footnote? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Link the footnote after "Barnes falls from the train to his apparent death" in the plot summary. Then:

"It has been confirmed on the audio commentary that the experiments performed by Zola enabled Barnes to survive the fall shown in the film.<ref>{{cite video |people=[[Joe Johnston|Johnston, Joe]]; [[Shelly Johnson (cinematographer)|Shelly Johnson]]; [[Jeffrey Ford (film editor)|Jeffrey Ford]]|time=1:04:05-1:04:49|date=2011|title=[[Audio commentary]]| medium=DVD |publisher=[[Paramount Pictures]]|location=''Captain America: The First Avenger''}}</ref>" --Boycool † (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's get rid of the passive voice and use the active voice: "[So-and-so] said on the audio commentary that the experiments..." If we're unable to tell who, we can say, "Speaking together, with some crosstalk, Joe Johnston, Shelly Jonson and Jeffrey Ford said on the on the audio commentary that the experiments..." --Tenebrae (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Although, for consistency with Coulson in The Avengers (2012 film), the talk-page discussion favors saying "death / died" and not "apparent death / apparently died" since, as a couple of editors, myself included, have pointed out (and a dissenting editor concurred), the manifest content of the movie shows a death or (a la Die Hard) a non-survivable fall, and that in no other movie plots do we say "apparent death" in such a situation. I think to cover all sides, we say "falls to his death" (as the movie depicts) and then do a footnote with the above outside information, as we do at The Avengers (2012 film) with the Thanos outside information.

One reason to have consistency is to help avoid contentious debates in the future when similar situations occur; we can point to WikiProject Comics de facto editorial guidelines and save all ourselves a lot of agita. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The second active footnote option seems the best. It sounds like Johnston is the one who says that Bucky survives, then one of the others says that Zola did unspeakable things, and someone else just keeps laughing. --Boycool † (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking this as consensus to include the information in the article. Revert if I'm wrong. --Boycool † (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Leander Deeny like Andy Serkis

See history of the page...just a moment that I create the article. --Kasper2006 (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Andy Serkis was an actual on screen role disguised as someone else for three films and the his motion capture was a big part of that. A stand in might be mentioning in the effects section (briefly) but not in the cast. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The entirety of Serkis, including the all-important face and facial expressions, was used in Serkis' films. A faceless body double is no different than a nude double used in a scene, and no more notable. It seems to parallel Hulk body double Steve Romm in The Avengers (2012 film) (see), so if I might suggest, Deeny similarly should be mentioned and cited in a sentence at the end the Evans section.

Also, Kasper, it's great you found a source, but that Italian-language fan site actually cited an English-language reliable source, Hollywood.com, at http://www.screenweek.it/link/83071. We always go to the original source if available. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Would it be synthesis to say that Deeny's work was mostly used when Evans was sitting or lying down, or when a minimum of physical acting was required per this quote (included in the article) from Joe Johnston, "The second technique involved grafting Chris's head onto the body double. This technique was used mostly when Chris was sitting or lying down, or when a minimum of physical acting was required"? Johnston stated that several techniques were used to create the skinny effect and the body double technique was least utilized. Saying Deeny portrayed Skinny Steve really seems to diminish the work of Evans, who did the majority of those scenes himself.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually I really just think we should include (Leander Deeny) in parenthesis after the words "body double" in Johnston's quote in the post production section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe something a little more than "body double," since as Hayley Atwell said, this was a theater actor who had to match Evans' breathing precisely, as opposed to what's usually referred to as a body double who appears in a scene but is wholly independent of the actor. Again, I'm thinking the Steve Romm example, which would help create consistency across these articles for when this issue inevitably comes up again. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the Romm example is a little simpler because he was just the model, the visual effects artists based their CGI work on, I don't believe he did any stand in work or acting. This I think might take some more finely crafted wording.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

How about: "Theater actor Leander Deeny doubled for Chris Evans in some shots as the pre-transformation, Steve Rogers."?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that nails it. I was in agreement with TriiipleThreat's 14:12 comment; I had been simply thinking more prosaically of physical placement within the article (end of the main actor's paragraph) and weight (a phrase or at most one sentence). I might phrase it this way to make clear he wasn't a Chris Evans lookalike: "Theater actor Leander Deeny was the body double in some shots for Steve Rogers' pre-transformation physique." (I use "physique" at the end so we don't say "body" twice, and also since it more precisely says what we mean.) What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, I'd be okay with adding this to the end of Evan's entry in the cast section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely incredible the fact that an actor who plays the leading role in a "blockbuster movie", almost in a quarter of the film, it's censored. --Kasper2006 (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

In no standard definition whatsoever of "leading role" does Leander Deeny fit: not contractually, not in common parlance, not in industry parlance. By no stretch of the imagination did Chris Evans not play the leading role. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, as stated above, Johnston said a body double was only used for scenes when the character was sitting, lying or minimum acting was required.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Ciccio, yesterday I saw for my first time the movie, and I saw a very interesting actor 5 feet tall, and I spent my time to ask to my self: "how he seems in his face to Chris Evans"...after I discovered about the fact that this actor is Leander Deeny. Imdb tell me that he have a role in the movie, but Darkwarriorblake and TriiipleThreat told me: "che ca##o dici?" (we said in Italy) ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope, I was more civil than that, if not my apologies.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll add Kasper's contribution as edited by two other editors. Also, it looks like that "screenweek" link was a mirror of the actual Hollywood.com link. which I have since found and will add. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Cut short. We can add the information with this reference: Uncovered: 'Captain America's' Skinny Steve Rogers -- Leander Deeny? Reuters is Reuters! ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The source is fine, still it is inaccurate to say or suggest that Deeny's work was the sole (or even in a majority of the scenes) effect used to create skinny Steve Rogers.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that you have censored (with a revert to my edit), a "fundamental" fact of film production. And this goes against all rules of Wikipedia. --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, your edit was inaccurate and based on unreliable sources. But not to worry, that is what discussion is for and we are working it out. We could have gotten here a lot faster if you used Bold, revert, discussion cycle instead of re-reverting.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Very Wrong. I did not a "re-revert" but indeed. I realized that you don't wanted him in the cast and I moved him below. You were presumptuous and you have been made ​​two revert without showing little respect and little love for the Wikipedia project, choosing to censor important news. --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not important news and your accusations are reminiscent of another user recently who accused people of violating the Freedom of Information act for not including what he wanted. Wikipedia contains notable information, it does not contain a complete cast and crew for instance. Why are you not fighting for any of the people who put a hell of a lot more work into the film than this guy? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with my two colleagues, Kasper. The information you kindly brought up has made it into the article. A couple of longtime editors phrased it and cited it in accordance with longstanding Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I ask you with all respect to please be less emotional and more collegial with your fellow editors. The information you suggested is in there, and the citations are good. This is done. Let us please move on. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I apologize, I pass and I leave the discussion. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"Fucked" vs. "F----ed"

Much as I hate to say it, and as unlikely as "farked" may be," Entertainment Weekly wrote "f----ed" and we need to quote EW verbatim. Any change we make to EW's wording, however logical we might think it is, is an assumption on our part. That assumption would be the linguistic equivalent of saying "Thanos" at the end of The Avengers. I'm afraid I'd have to agree with Chaheel Riens on this one; I hadn't looked up the actual cite before. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Captain America 2

I suggest that Captain America 2 be given its own page because it's a new movie.

173.57.39.183 (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Anonymous

It does not meet WP:NFF because it has not yet begun filming and currently there are not enough sources too meet WP:GNG.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that its sequel title is Captain America: Winter Soldier. I've included this on this article and the MCU page. Charlr6 (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Incubator for Captain America: The Winter Soldier

This is just a notice that an article for Captain America: The Winter Soldier is being incubated at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Captain America: The Winter Soldier until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thats good. If I find anything in the future I'll add those in, unless added in already. Charlr6 (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Rosie the Riveter

User:TriiipleThreat reverted my edit correcting the closing credits image from Rosie the Riveter to "We Can Do It!" because the source calls it Rosie. Although I appreciate the desire to reflect the source material, this just doesn't make sense. Let's assume that the same source misidentified James Montgomery Flagg as someone else (BTW, his poster comes from WWI, not WWII). Would we insist that the paragraph say "...such as Joe Bloggs’s Uncle Sam recruitment poster..." because the source says so? No, of course not. So why do we insist on saying that the poster shows Rosie, when it doesn't? Yes, it is often misidentified as Rosie, but as an encyclopedia, we have a duty to dispel falsehoods. (Note: I was the one who originally had File:We Can Do It!.jpg moved from File:Rosie the Riveter.jpg because it was misnamed.) —howcheng {chat} 18:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat is one of the more conscientious WikiProject: Comics editors, and I completely see where he was coming from. In this case, I would say that while the source material's text says Rosie the Riveter that the image shown on the same page is clearly that of "We Can Do It", word-balloon identifier and all. And as the "We Can Do It" article notes, that image is often informally called "Rosie the Riveter."

(I'd be curious to see the table of contents of the Smithsonian issue of which this was the cover, to see if "We Can Do It" is actually the title given there; text in a painting isn't necessarily the painting's title.)

Given this information, why not say, "and J. Howard Miller's "We Can Do It!" (a.k.a. "Rosie the Riveter") poster from World War II." ? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That works for me. In terms of the name of the poster, a quick search of Google Books shows that "We Can Do It" is indeed the commonly accepted name of the poster. —howcheng {chat} 20:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Pinewood Studios

Any reason why there is no mention of this film being shot here. As confirmed by:

• Pinewood Group
• Total Film
• Movie Locations.com
• Captain America Movie Site

So surely this would make it a joint venture between UK/US? If not, why not? MisterShiney ✉ 22:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If it isn't mentioned that it shot at Pinewood that needs rectifying, but if its a UK/US production? The rules are weird and arbitrary. Dredd is a British/South African production according to its own credits (it'd be nice if other films followed their example) because its a film based on a british comic with a british writer/director/producers, but was made in South Africa with a South African crew. According to the BFI, its USA only, but sometimes BFI does make mistakes. Have you looked at the credits? Normally near the end. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Now that seems like a perfectly legitimate reason to watch this this afternoon lol. MisterShiney ✉ 09:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you know when filming took place there? It could help us place it the most appropriate location.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The total film article was written in September 2010, as was the Captain America Movie Article. So I am guessing around then. The Film Locations site seems to say that it was almost entirely filmed in the UK. MisterShiney ✉ 18:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

As the number and length of Wikipedia's policy, guideline and manual of style pages expand, I'm having trouble finding the guidance on this. I seem to recall it involving what nation's company primarily financed the film and the nationality of the producers, studio and distributor, but wherever that was / is, I can't find it. Maybe someone else knows where it might be? The information at the page on film infoboxes quotes some outside reference source saying, essentially, that a film's nationality isn't always easy to pin down, but nothing there explicitly states a Wikipedia guideline or style. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Though if it's any help, many U.S. shows are shot in Vancouver, Canada, yet they're still considered American TV shows, e.g. The X-Files, Battlestar Galactica (2004), Smallville, etc. etc. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the majority of the film was shot in the UK and it states as much in the article, but that on its own doesn't necessarily make it a UK production. Tenebrae is right, it has more to do with where the film's financing originated. The Pinewood Studios info is still relevant, I just wish we had more info so we can place it better in the article. Just because the article was written in September doesn't mean that filming took place in September. According to the article, production was taking place in Caerwent that month (though filming at Pinewood could have been taking place simultaneously). And again, the time frame is not a prerequisite for inclusion, it just helps with better placement.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah I know, I am just opening it up to discussion. I am not like some editors... MisterShiney ✉ 16:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's true: This bunch of us in this discussion are calm, reasonable, talk-it-out veteran editors, and I wish all of Wikipedia could be like that. I mean this more as a compliment to my colleagues than any back-patting of myself. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)