Talk:Production of Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame/Archive 1

Archive 1

Casting subsection

I know we generally don't use this one, but on this article, it might be a benefit to lump all casting info together. Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No, because they generally read like a laundry list and they give the impression that casting is outside the other stages of filmmaking.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it is better to just add them as they come, like we usually do. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hyphen in the title

This seemed like the best place to discuss this. The Russo announcement from Marvel added hyphens in the title: Avengers:Infinity War – Part 1 and Avengers: Infinity War – Part 2. I'm not saying we jump the gun, but should be wary of more Marvel articles on the films to see how they mention the titles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat, Richiekim, and Adamstom.97: Thoughts? The Marvel.com IMAX release uses this as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be the way they are going now, so I think it would make sense to add them in as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and adjust this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Camera info in Filming section

@TriiipleThreat: In regards to you wanting to move the info elsewhere, as an example, at Civil War, the info regarding them shooting on the IMAX 2D cameras came on April 13, before the April 27 shoot date. And that info fits better there, opposed after the Zemo info above it if we went chronological. Additionally, my understanding and workings of these articles is we go chronological will all the info as it comes out, unless it is highly relevant to another section (in which case those would then be chronological for those sections). For instance, at the GotGVol2 draft, it was recently announced that Bates was coming back to score. I added that to the music subheading because it was a lot more applicable there, then sticking it at the end of the pre production section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The information IMHO goes towards the preparation of filming not the filming itself therefore it belongs in the pre-production section. Same goes for location scouting. These are major aspects of Pre-production, not simply listed there for chronological reasons. I am sure we'll have more technical information about the actual camera systems used in the film once the film is released to fill out the section, just as we had with every other MCU article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Location scouting I can definitely see as development/pre-production. And I can see the camera use as maybe both. The announcement of which camera is a prep thing, but it's also valid to have in the filming section because that's what they are going to be shooting on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Filming to take place in Atlanta?

This may be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, but worth considering. On Jimmy Kimmel last night, Downey said he and Evans were returning to Atlanta to shoot Marvel films again, which Evans responded would be in winter months, opposed to Civil War's summer months. (This correlates with the info we have that filming will begin in late 2016, already on the page.) Here's a Newsarama article that sort of connects the two (filming in Atlanta and for Infinity War specifically), as well as the YouTube video embedded. The material in question happens around the 3:00 minute mark of the video. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Defenders integrity

Some info from Anthony Russo. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Move to mainspace?

I feel like this can be moved. It definitely passes WP:GNG, and WP:NFF would not apply to this article, because we are covering the whole production process. What does everyone else feel @TriiipleThreat, Richiekim, and Adamstom.97:? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

My only thought was whether we should wait for pre-production or not. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion one way or the other, but I'll play devil's advocate and say that this could be seen as a loophole around WP:NFF and thus violates the spirit of the rule. - DinoSlider (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I can see waiting for pre-production to start. And playing the other side of your devil's advocate situation Dino, the two film articles would not enter mainspace until filming began to satisfy the rule. If I remember correctly, before The Force Awakens started filming, the article was Production of Star Wars Episode VII. So I do believe it is allowed. Because even if the filming would not start (which is highly unlikely), the title states it is covering the production process, so that would include it being developed and not then subsequently failing to start filming (That's what makes it acceptable). But if we have conflicting thoughts about moving before filming starts, I can always drop a line at the Film project just to double check and clarify. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I am happy with the new Pre-production break, and wouldn't be worried if we moved the page to the mainspace now. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you agree with my decision to break it there? I felt them saying they were breaking the films was a good indication they were in the pre-production process. Before we move to the mainspace, can we discuss all our page redirects? IE, I feel pretty much everything regarding Infinity War (the films page table, the AoU and Avengers "Sequel" sections, all the redirects, etc.) should direct here until the individual part pages can be created. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

My only concern is that if we move to the mainspace before the Part I article, people may wish to turn it into a default article for Part I by adding cast lists, and other typical film article sections.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we'll be okay. If it seems to be recurring, we can add a few hidden notes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we will be able to deal with that sort of thing if it comes up, we have plenty of times before. Maybe a FAQ at the talk page will be useful at some point as well? I do think that this is the best place to break for pre-production. Everything directly before is confirmation of the Russos and the writers, and a few explanations from Feige and the like, while this is the first real indication of them really getting into preparing the films. I'm sure that will ramp up once we get closer to Civil War / Civil War is released anyway. As for the redirects, I do think that this will be the best place for everyone to come until the actual film articles pass WP:NFF. Also, I think we should link here from the short sequel sections, just with a see also / further info instead of the usual main article.- adamstom97 (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Cool. My thoughts exactly. I added the db-move template to the mainspace article, so we just have to wait for the admin to delete and move and then we'll be on our way! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done. I have to say, when I saw this on the list, I thought I'd just be deleting a TOOSOON film page. Well done on this, it looks really good. GedUK  13:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Ged UK. We try to be thorough and ensure we are up to snuff in order to decide to move a draft related to the MCU to the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

67 Characters

Much has been made of Joe Russo's comment about the number of characters they are working with for Infinity War and it has even made it on to this page. I did not revert the addition, but I think it deserves a second look since I think it is a little blown out of proportion. Below is a transcript of the pertinent dialog that takes place at around 8:45 in this video

Anthony Russo:  I think one of the most unique aspects of that is, you know, Sharon Carter.  Rarely has a character ...
Joe Russo:  Peggy Carter.
Anthony Russo:  Excuse me, Peggy Carter.
Joe Russo:  We have so many characters we're dealing with.  We're breaking ground on Avengers: Infinity War. We have a board with like 67 characters on it.  You gotta forgive him.  His brain is fried.

From here, they simply move on. The panel is, after all, about Civil War. All of the articles on this subject are simply interpreting this sound byte. This wasn't an interview. It was just an off the cuff remark to make light of his brother's mistake. Even if we assume that he didn't just pick the number randomly, we don't know if that is a list of characters they are going to use, want to use, or simply have available to use. They could also be tracking the whereabouts of characters that are not in the film for reference. Also of note is the cited article's omission of the word "like." It may have been a filler word, but it makes it feel more like a made up number to me. Personally, I feel all of the articles about this are simply speculation and don't belong on this page. The current wording in this article ("working with at least 65-plus characters across the two films") seems to draw a conclusion that I'm not sure I agree with. What do others think? Am I being a little overly sensitive to speculation? - DinoSlider (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you are a little. However, I think it is at least a good indication to represent the scope of inclusion for the films. So the wording could possibly be redone to represent the material as not definite, but rather just an analogy and representation of the scope of the films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, 67 is such a super specific number, that you don't just throw out if you're generalizing. Saying for myself, if I was just generalizing, I would have said either "a ton" or "50" or even "a million" in that instance. 67 is so specific, that there has to be something to it, figuring that they've been working with and an know exact counts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with this last point. I almost always pick random numbers floating in my head to emphasize points. I also hear it from others often. Admittedly, I have a math/analytical background and perceptions are based in life experiences. I guess my original (rambling) point was that all he said was they had a board with characters on it in the context of developing Infinity War. We can only guess what that means. For now, I'm fine waiting. - DinoSlider (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I mean we can reword it, possibly in a way that one can read it either has a hypothetical, grabbed off the top of the head number or one that would actually be close to the final number. I'm sure that's possible, and would satisfy both, so readers can take what they want from it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that. I'm just not sure how to change it right now. Perhaps some clarification is forthcoming. - DinoSlider (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The use of word "like" indicates an approximation.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

How about this: "The Russos also revealed they were "breaking ground" on the films and, indicating the scope they were working with, Joe said they had a character board "with like 67 characters on it." " ? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that is a better representation of what was actually said. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. - DinoSlider (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Great. I'll go ahead and adjust. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarification from the Russos. "We were being figurative when we said [67 characters] and people took it as literal but there's a lot of characters." Also a lot of good info in that article. - DinoSlider (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Awesome DinoSlider. I don't have the time now to add/change anything based on the article you provided. I'll get to it later if someone else hasn't already. Good find, and thanks for being persistent with how we presented this info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I actually was able to work a bit on the article. I added "jokingly" before this info. Feel free to adjust as you see fit, but I felt that was a good change. I also added a hidden note explaining how 67 wasn't a literal term. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

What is the official spelling?

Although the current logo spells Part 1 and Part 2 with Roman numerals, this edit by TriiipleThreat indicates something else. I don't propose to get into an edit war, but it would be great if someone gives a suggestion. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't speak for TriiipleThreat's rationale, but Marvel currently lists them as Avengers: Infinity War Part 1 and Avengers: Infinity War Part 2. They have Arabic numerals, but no punctuation between the words War and Part. - DinoSlider (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The current format was discussed here. If there is any new information, I think we should discuss it before we go changing anything. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Star-Lord/Thor confirmation

The Russos confirm Star-Lord and Thor for Infinity War. Wouldn't know where to place this. -- S ^talk/_contribs 04:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Cancel, I notice someone already beat me to the punch. -- S ^talk/_contribs 04:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Strange and Captain Marvel confirmed?

This article (which I'm adding to the article for the multi-perspective stuff) says "In addition to the teases of including Doctor Strange and Captain Marvel... in Infinity War..." Is this enough to add, or should we wait for some more concrete info? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It sounds very vague, so personally I would wait. -- S ^talk/_contribs 02:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I think we could only use it to say that they were hinted at being in it, and definitely not for Cumberbatch if they didn't mention him in the interview. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that. Mention the tease of the characters, but obviously no Cumberbatch. Adding now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Retitling

Just to get ahead of this should the films be retitled, this page should be moved to "Production of X and Y", since the films will still be filmed back-to-back. It shouldn't be that difficult of a transition.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, because even though they might have new titles, and everyone has said they are independent films, they are still connected in a sense as one larger arc. And it would be too difficult to nix this page and move the production info back to each individual article, because they are being done back to back. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and it will essentially be the same information since its still just one large production.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Cool. Sounds good all. We'll cross the bridge of moving the articles when it happens. Maybe at SDCC this year, if Marvel has a panel. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the best rationale for keeping this page instead of merging it back to the individual films is because the films are being shot concurrently, not back to back. See the quote from the Russos in the Filming section. - DinoSlider (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Filming at Pinewood?

Is this source that Richie added over at Spidey Homecoming able for us to use to source the films being shot at Pinewood Atlanta? I think we all know that that's where it will be done, but I didn't know if this was a stretch and WP:SYNTH on my part. Per that source, they say the "Russo brothers will be back in the Atlanta area in November to co-direct two more Marvel movies: Avengers Infinity War Part 1 and 2... Marvel is shooting "Guardians of the Galaxy 2" at Pinewood Atlanta now. "Spiderman Homecoming" is next." Is it too much of a leap to take this wording and add it here? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it only says the Atlanta area for these films, and then brings up Pinewood separately. We'll need something a wee bit more for here, in terms of Pinewood. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Writers tease involvement of Guardians of the Galaxy

Here's the source if you want to include it on the page. Npamusic (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC) Npamusic (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Music section here

Should we include it on this article? My feeling was that this article would only house the Development, Pre-production, Filming, and Post-production sections, with the individual articles having the remaining "normal" sections we have on the film articles. So Music wouldn't be here, because I guess in theory the two scores could be different. We could still mention Silvestri in the infobox and then the pre-production section, as that is when the info was revealed. What's everyone else's thoughts on this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing - if this is just the expanded version of the production section from those other articles, then there wouldn't be a music section here. But adding the reveal to the pre-production section and naming Silvestri in the infobox makes sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and make that change now. Will obviously continue discussing if someone disagrees. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft, Cast section and film renamed

Is there a draft of the actual film page instead of the Production page? Should there be a cast section on this page, because the cast is pretty big now. Part one's new name is The Avengers 3 and Part two is still Part Two. I'm trying to find the reference for the new name. I will post it when I find it. Please respond soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batman3095 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

It's my understanding "Avengers 3" is a place holder until the final name is decided upon. It's unlikely they'll go with a numeral, since they skipped the "2" and no other MCU films have done that since Iron Man. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we are waiting until they actually rename the films (and no, Part One's new name is not Avengers 3). For the draft articles, see the top section of this talk page. And we don't usually put a cast subsection in the production section of a film article, so we aren't going to here. There will be cast sections for the film articles, and there is casting information here. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I see no area at the top of this page were I could visit the draft page - Batman3095 (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

They are linked at the end of the section #Article locations, but here's Part 1 and Part 2 regardless. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

This will not be a two part movie

Since the Russo brothers have said the "part 1"/"part 2" names will be changed, it seems the lead ("Avengers: Infinity War is an upcoming two-part American superhero film...") is out of date. I'm not comfortable reformatting it myself, since the whole article seems based around these films being two halves to whole. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

See the retitling section above, we'll edit the article accordingly once the names are released.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

So even though the directors said it's not a two part movie, the lead should still say it's a two part movie because...? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Because despite the directors announcing their intentions, the films have not been renamed yet. Until the names are changed they are still titled Avengers: Infinity War Part I and Avengers: Infinity War Part II.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

And even if the new names are different and will be somewhat distinctive, they are still being produced back to back, and will still have a "part 1/part 2" feel to it, ie two films to make a larger whole. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think this article must would be split in another article for the fourth untitled Avengers film, according to the last report.OscarFercho (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OscarFercho (talk • contribs) 03:44, 30 July 2016

@OscarFercho: This article is just about the production of the two films, which are being done together. Each film has an individual page (currently here and here) that will be named appropriately. This subject is currently being discussed here. - DinoSlider (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify for everyone, nothing is really changing. We've known since April 2015 that the films are going to be distinctive films, not really a "Part 1 / Part 2" situation. However, they are still being filmed "back-to-back" (which in this case, based on what the Russos have said, is really on top of one another, with one day Infinity War, the next the sequel) and will have the overarching storyline/elements that will make them two films of a larger whole. So this article is still okay as it is, just needing a retitle once FKA Part 2 gets a title. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm okay with everything, while still being a back-to-back filming I understand. Thanks everyone.OscarFercho (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Does this article still need to exist?

Now that it's been determined that Infinity War and the unnamed sequel are now two distinct films, does this article still need to exist? The Russos themselves have stated that the two sequels are different enough that's it's misleading to labeled "Part 1" and "Part 2". I think the separate film articles (currently in draft stage) should be sufficient. - Richiekim (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

See above. Yes, they are seperate films but they share the same production. This isn't meant to replace the individual film articles, just the production section to avoid repetition. The individual articles will still contain information specific to those films: plot, cast, marketing, reception, etc.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Richiekim and TriiipleThreat: Adding a bit more to what I said before above, the two films have been crafted and will be filmed at exactly the same time so in the long run, they'd still have a lot of overlap between the two production sections if we didn't have this article. And pretty much all the info we've gotten so far on this article has applied to both films. However, since they titles are going to be different now, I think we could possibly add more to the individual film articles' production sections than we planned if we get material that is very much related to one film over the other. Pinging @Adamstom.97: too so they can see my comment and respond too on it if they wish, so we can all be in the same mindset for each of these articles moving forward. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this article is just for stuff that applies to both films so we can avoid having two similar production sections at separate articles. There will obviously be stuff that only applies to one film or the other, and that can go at the individual articles. Like Favre said earlier, nothing has changed really. We will be referring to the films by different names, but that's it. For now, the plan seems to be the same as it always has been. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Sure.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Infinitystones as MacGuffins

It´s a minor thing, but if "The specific nature of a MacGuffin is typically unimportant to the overall plot." it seems wrong call them MacGuffins in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

For all the films leading up to this, with Infinity Stones, they have always been referred to as MacGuffin's of those films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the perfect examples of MacGuffins are Popeye's spinach and Aladdin's lamp. And the infinity stones may be equal to them. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure either example fits our definition of a MacGuffin: A "goal, desired object, or other motivator that the protagonist pursues, often with little or no narrative explanation". Popeye's spinach and Aladdin's lamp empower them but do not usually serve as the object of their desires or their main motivator. The classic example given is the small falcon-shaped statuette in The Maltese Falcon (1929) and its adaptations. It drives the entire plot, motivates all major characters, and turns out to be elusive. In the novel, the actual, valuable statuette is always missing and out of the characters' grasp, in some adaptations the characters mistake worthless replicas for the real thing. Dimadick (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to describe spinach as Popeye's deus ex machina. But the infinity stones are definitely MacGuffins as they are desired by Thanos for what they grant. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Article locations

Just as an FYI to everyone, given the variety of formats for the film titles with various punctuation, as of this post, the articles for each part are intended to reside at Avengers: Infinity War – Part 1 and Avengers: Infinity War – Part 2. The drafts for each article can be found here and here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Given the recent name changes, the drafts for Avengers: Infinity War and its sequel can be found at Draft:Avengers: Infinity War and Draft:Untitled Avengers film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Avengers infinity wars and untitled avengers sqeuel

I heard that both part 1 and 2 were removed, will avengers 4 be able to have a different title if there one story includes six infinity stones for both movies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popular05 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the fourth film will be titled Avengers: Infinity Gauntlet or something else. But despite the producer's claim that both Avengers 3 and 4 are two distinct films, they will be shot back-to-back, and I am certain the fourth film will happen immediately after the third, similar to Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End happening immediately after Dead Man's Chest, and The Matrix Revolutions happening immediately after Reloaded. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Filming starting in January now?

Don't know if this applies to the whole production, or just Downey. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It only applies to the company, not to Downey himself. As the article says, Downey Jr. will... keep his day job as movie star — Marvel’s Iron Man heads to Atlanta, Georgia, to shoot “Avengers: Infinity War” in January. — Gestrid (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Just sounds like Downey won't be starting till January. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood the question. (It's midnight here.) Listen to Adam, not me. — Gestrid (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

But in this interview, Feige seems to confirm that principal photography begin in January: "Feige confirmed that January will see the start of production on both Ryan Coogler’s Black Panther and on Joe and Anthony Russo’s Avengers: Infinity War, both setting up stage at Pinewood Atlanta". --Escudero (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done added this to "filming" section. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions

There is no Cast section right now. Why not add one with pictures of the major cast members included? And maybe also add some pictures of figures important to the film like the directors or others in the appropriate sections. Perhaps a picture of Josh Brolin with a caption reading something like "[...] Thanos has been the major force behind... since..." Hula Hup (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is only about the production. The cast listings will be at the individual pages. For now, the drafts are Draft:Avengers: Infinity War and Draft:Untitled Avengers film, but they will be moving to the mainspace as soon as filming begins. - DinoSlider (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Filming has begun

According to Atlanta Filming, principal photography for Infinity War began two weeks ago. - Richiekim (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this source reliable? Not trying to call him/you out, but Marvel usually puts out a press release when they start filming, and this is two months ahead of what we expected. Is it possible actors are in Atlanta but not really filming yet? Just meeting? Working the directors/producers/writers/set designers? -RM (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that source is reliable, but it does make sense. This source on the page quotes the Russos as saying, "We start shooting both of them later this year in November and we're primarily going to be based in Atlanta again. That’s where we’ll do out stage work and some exteriors. There will be locations from around the world involved as well. We actually relocate to Atlanta in late July to finish up pre-production there. We don’t come back to L.A. until the following June." However, this page was changed because this source claims that Feige said both the Avengers films and Black Panther would start filming in January, even thought they only quote him for Black Panther, "We're racing towards the start date in January." - DinoSlider (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I am also inclined to believe this, but we do need a reliable source before we can do anything. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

It's entirely possible, but I don't know why Feige would mention a January start if it wasn't true. He is generally very truthful to at least the time frame for films starting. Still, we should make sure the two individual drafts are ready to go in the event we have to move them soon. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that Feige was only talking about Black Panther when mentioning the January start date and the author misinterpreted his remark. Unfortunately, he does not quote Feige enough to tell one way or the other. - DinoSlider (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

That could be very possible. However, if Marvel does a press release, it is always like 10-14 days after filming actually starts, so we could be looking at something coming out this week before American Thanksgiving on Thursday. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Filming start date possibly revealed

Potentially January 23, 2017. See here. The source seems a bit questionable to me, but the date does seem plausible. As always, something to keep our eye on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Development - corrections

I read the source materials and I found a certain inaccuracy in the quotes in the second paragraph. There we have: --- with the film described as "the culmination of everything that has happened in the MCU" since Iron Man was released in 2008, bringing "an end to certain things, and in some ways... the beginning of certain things."[8] --- The text before the quotes suggests that they are from Kevin Feige and are about the film Black Panther, while actually they come from Anthony Russo and are about Avengers 3 and 4. Miroslav T (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify the part you were concerned with. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Liv Tyler returning?

The new source added regarding the shooting in Scotland says it is rumored that Liv Tyler is coming back to reprise her role as Betty Ross. Anyone know where this info might be originating from? I know we had some reports about Gillan appearing, so I understand that. But the Daily Record is saying this "has been rumored" info, not that they are reporting the rumor, which makes me think they are pulling this info from somewhere. I did a quick search and couldn't find anything about this, outside this report and a subsequent Reddit thread about it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This does seem a bit out of left field, and I don't see any older mention either. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Has filming started?

See the opening line from this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It depends on how reliable you consider comicbook.com. I'm personally am becoming very doubtful of them. You think this would be bigger news if it was true. Or perhaps they're doing some second unit filming since he did say "shooting", not necessarily principal photography.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I take this in two ways - either Wood told them that they were shooting, or they just assumed that because of what we have previously heard about them shooting around now. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It's possible it could be a situation of "pre-shooting" too like we had with GotG Vol. 2, or second unit as you mentioned Triiiple. I'm a little leery of it too for the reasons you mentioned Adam, hence why I didn't obviously proceed with anything. I think something more concrete would be preferable. It's super frustrating right now because we all know something is happing, we're just waiting for the right info to pull the trigger on everything. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

For what's it worth, Heres a discussion about comicbook.com at WP:RSN.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I feel Comicbook.com can be reliable, but it is definitely a site that rides the fence between reliable and unreliable at times. I felt a couple of years ago they were mainly unreliable, but have felt their reliability has gotten better more recently. Just my 2 cents. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources aren't always reliable, while even time and tide can't help some unreliable sources to be deemed reliable. In my country, "film historian" G. Dhananjayan won a National Award for writing a book which, unfortunately, doesn't really pass as reliable by Wiki standards. On a more related note, should we wait for Marvel to release a press statement, along with a cast list? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: It's possible we could get verification regarding the start of filming through someone's social media, before Marvel does their press release. Additionally, a cast list is not going to be featured on this article as it is centered on the film's production, and such a listing isn't appropriate. Of course, the individual articles will have these, and will be updated accordingly depending on how much info Marvel is going to reveal to us. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

What happens to this article after filming starts?

A bit unrelated - but with a page like this, normally when production starts, we create the actual film article. However, this is about the production of two different films, one of which doesn't yet have a title and much less is known about it. So out of curiosity, what's gonna happen here? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing, this is the main page for the films' production like Production of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I just remembered the Avengers production page being swapped out for the Avengers film page. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Filming to begin for Avengers: Infinity War and it's sequel on Monday

https://mobile.twitter.com/colliderfrosty/status/822910797244305408 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.120.181 (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Rob Keyes says Black Panther is filming, Avengers starts soon. Frosty says Avengers on Monday. Both are verified accounts. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Another confirmation: https://twitter.com/Variety/status/823272215227428865 Mike210381 (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that's good enough for us to move forward now.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Same. Draft moves can happen tomorrow. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Holland source

Wanted to get other's thoughts on the Comicbook.com source for Holland. Their wording directly sources the fact the info came from the magazine interview, not because of the fan Twitter account (though they do mention photos of the interview were posted there). They then go on to translate the relevant part of the interview. However, it is unclear if they are directly translating, or using the photos the Twitter account posted, which would then make it still unreliable per WP:FRUIT. Wanted to see how other's read this source. Also, of course, have no problem just waiting another week for a better source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It reads to me that Comicbook has translated the text from the image on Twitter. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Adam. The information is more than likely true, we just need to wait for a more reliable source. It's not like this twitter source is going to be the only source to ever report that Holland is in the movie. We can even use the offline print source once it's available.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That was my thinking, but just wanted to make sure other read it that way too. Thanks guys! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Seriously this is a joke IT. IS. RELIABLE. - EgyptianGamer He had an interview and confirmed it himself (Tom Holland) *facepalm* — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgyptianGamer (talk • contribs) 07:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

How are you certain that the interview was not fabricated? Unreliable sources often have a disgusting habit of doing so. This is a classic example. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if there is one thing we can all learn from the 2016 United States presidential election (pizza anyone?) is that fake news is all the more prevalent. It's better to be safe than sorry and remember we are in WP:NORUSH.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I doubt if Collider's "Movie Talk" section ever includes illegally obtained information. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

That same "Movie Talk" team had to do a retraction last month because they did a trailer review of a fake Assassin's Creed trailer. - DinoSlider (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the "Movie Talk" is not a good enough source. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Even the best sources get it wrong once-in-a-while, reliability is dependent on their overall reputation for accuracy. However in this particular case the hostess says "via comicbook.com" which as we know sources that unverified Tom Holland Italian fan twitter account.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay. So here's the online version of the Italian Vogue interview with Holland. Not surprisingly, the part that the fan Twitter posted is no where to be seen (that for reference). The content is actually completely different. In the online version, it goes from the Hemsworth info, to talking about Holland filming The Current War with Cumberbatch, then it goes on to the Denis Villeneuve info. In the "print" source from the Twitter image, it goes from Hemsworth, to the supposed Infinity War info, and then the Denis Villeneuve stuff. So this just shows an example of how things can be (supposedly) doctored. Or maybe Vogue did have another version in the actual print magazine, but we won't know unless we get our hands on that. Or just continue to wait. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Good sleuthing Favre!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I figured by now an online version would have to be up. But it was definitely interesting that the quote wasn't just redacted, skipped over. The content was completely different. And who knows. Maybe it is a similar situation with Brown revealing that Phylicia Rashad is in Black Panther, that after all the coverage the print source quote from Holland got, Marvel requested Vogue to not include it in their subsequent online postings. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Sub-sections

Favre and I both feel that this article could do with some sub-sections, to help break up the big sections we have at the moment and maybe better organise all the different information we have. However, neither of us really know what those sub-sections would be at the moment. Does anyone else think this is a good idea, and have suggestions for what possible sub-sections could be? - adamstom97 (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind sub-sections but we shouldn't have subsections just for the sake of having them. They should fit the flow of the prose and come at natural breaks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we have the same mindset Triiiple. The pre section could use some, if we can figure out one that is appropriate, since it is a very large amount of text. One potentially could be "Writing" somewhere, as we've used that one before. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Evans' future as Steve Rogers

Doesn't look so bright IMO. --Kailash29792 (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't really give us new info, just that he will be done with his original contract, which we knew. The wording is a bit suspect to me if Esquire means that's it forever, or just through that contract. Plus, the most recent info we have at Captain America: Civil War#Future has info from Evans that he is open to more and getting a new contract. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Evans does not explicitly say he's done with Cap after his contract is up in the Esquire article. - Richiekim (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

New York filming

So I think we've previously determined this site is not reliable, but it has revealed that filming will occur for both films in May 2017. Also that Brie Larson, Paul Rudd and Chadwick Boseman will appear, with Bradley Cooper also voicing Rocket. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Well like what you and the others said, we'll just wait for actual confirmations from Marvel or Boseman, Larson and Rudd and also Bradley Cooper, but I think Rudd is very unlikely to appear in the films because he's filming some other movie and then Ant-Man and the Wasp which will start in July which will be hard for him to film his scenes in the films, maybe they can get a body double to film his scenes in the Ant-Man suit like Doctor Strange and he (Paul Rudd) can film scenes where he's not wearing the suit in my opinion. - EgyptianGamer (talk) 29 March 2017

...or perhaps Hank Pym will wear the suit instead of Scott Lang in a Dark Knight Returns-like situation. Besides, Ant-Man and the Wasp starts sooner than expected. --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It's very unlikely Hank Pym will wear the suit, and we don't know if he's gonna appear in Avengers 3 & 4 plus didn't Pym say that he's done wearing the suit in Ant-Man? - EgyptianGamer (talk) 29 March 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 13:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Set photos seem to confirm...

that the Black Order is in the film. This is obviously an unreliable source, but if any reliable ones report on it (taking into account WP:FRUIT), that's something we can probably note, that the characters are going to appear. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we just wait for announcements from Marvel and the actors themselves to confirm stuff like this. - EgyptianGamer — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgyptianGamer (talk • contribs) 13:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

We never have to wait for Marvel or actors to confirm if we can find reliable sources confirming the info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Rethinking these articles

With the news that the two films are actually being film one right after the other, not concurrently as previously believed, does this article need to exist? Can we, in theory, break up the content between what is Infinity War related and what is the sequel's? Worth possibly considering, since the two productions are now separate in regards to filming and post, despite having a similar development and prep period. And also given this, should the sequel article move back to the draft space, since it is not in production for another couple of months per WP:NFF? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a difference. It was always listed as a Back to back film production (which it still is) as stated in the lead section. Also like you said the Development and Pre-Production sections won't change, although the filming section needs to be reworded. As for the sequel article, I thinks it fine to exist as WP:NFF isn't a hard line rule.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It actually didn't take much rewriting at all.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

While my first thought was to split this info back to the other two articles, I don't necessarily think we need to actually. While the filming all together was the big reason we made this article, I think there is still enough crossover in the development and pre-production stuff that justifies having this here. I'm also not that worried about the fourth film having an article, as removing it at this point just seems unnecessary (it's not like it is a terribly premature article or anything). - adamstom97 (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: What you did here and on the untitled article, looks good. I also want to double check our refs for the actors we have in the untitled film, given the production shift. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Production date conflicts

I just came across this interview with Feige from the Toronto Sun. This was from the Homecoming NYC press junket, which was around June 24/25. Feige says, We’re on day 73 of 90 on Infinity War right now and then we shut down for three weeks and then we start filming untitled Avengers. Assuming day 73 was June 23, and no weekend shooting, that would put the end of Infinity War around July 14, which we have. The next part is tricky. We have info stating the untitled film will start July 17, but Feige contradicts that, saying they're shutting down for 3 weeks (to appear at SDCC?). So how should we best present this? I feel we should keep the info on Infinity War ending, then replace the start date of the untitled film with simply "after a three week break, filming will start" and no hard start date, and finally keep the supposed December end date. Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should get hung up on exact dates until filming occurs. These dates are just best guesses. Schedules change all the time due to conflicts, scenes taking longer or shorter than expected and other unforeseen events.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

True, but I feel we should add in Feige's comments and those are in direct conflict of the info we have. I'm going to try something out. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Then why don't we change those dates to more of a general time frame.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I've just added something that I think works. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

In the video in this article, Joe Russo says that Avengers 3 wrapped "a week ago" and that he would start back up on Avengers 4 "in two weeks" so there is your three week break. - DinoSlider (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Jeremy Latcham quote

I was just wondering if it would be better to move this to the section, or completely remove it altogether, because Latcham is no longer with Marvel Studios and this quote was from right after Age of Ultron when he was still with the company. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you are saying here, but looking at the quote I think it could probably be trimmed right down at least. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if my point wasn't clear. The point I was trying to make, per the new synopsis of Infinity War which also lists the EPs for the film, Latcham obviously is not listed, because he is no longer with Marvel Studios, so in this article we have a prominent quote box attributed to "Producer Jeremy Latcham" which is not the case anymore. So I felt we should either change the attribution to "Former executive producer" or something similar (but if we did that might open potential other issues of why we don't mention why he is a former EP), or use another quote in the quote box and move Latcham's to prose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see too much of a problem since the quote does come from around Age of Ultron when he was at the company, and it's not like we don't have quotes from people no longer involved in other articles' development sections. I think making the situation clearer in the attribution is all that is needed really. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Coulson

@Favre1fan93: I know why you added the quote from Loeb about Coulson here, but I don't think it actually belongs here yet. Maybe at the main MCU page? We could keep it hidden here as well, until we have something more concretely linking it to these films. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thinking on it some more, I think it might be better at Marvel Cinematic Universe#Crossovers to feature films section. I'm going to move it there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Filming section - use of IMAX camera

The previous wording is as follows:

"The Russo brothers announced that both films would be shot using IMAX/Arri 2D digital cameras, thus marking the first time that a Hollywood feature film was shot entirely using IMAX cameras and its exclusive aspect ratio. The films were captured on the Arri Alexa 65 with IMAX then digitally processing the footage."

There are several problems with this.

• This is neither the first time that a feature has been shot using IMAX cameras nor the first Hollywood feature to do so. For example, The Young Black Stallion from 2003 was produced by Walt Disney Pictures and filmed entirely with IMAX 65mm cameras. Avengers: Infinity War is however the first feature to be entirely shot using IMAX digital cameras.

• The first sentence mentions use of the IMAX/Arri camera, the second mentions the Arri Alexa 65. Only the first is correct. The IMAX/Arri is a customized version of the Alexa 65 - they are not identical.

• "IMAX cameras and its exclusive aspect ratio" - there's nothing "exclusive" about the aspect ratio of the IMAX/Arri camera itself. For example, the Red Dragon also has a native aspect ratio of 1.90:1. What is exclusive to IMAX in the case of Avengers: Infinity War is the presentation. The film underwent DMR processing for IMAX projectors and it will only be projected in the full 1.90:1 aspect ratio in IMAX cinemas. In every other venue, the picture will be cropped to 2.39:1.

Since the referenced Hollywood Reporter article muddies the waters slightly by mentioning the Alexa 65, I've added a ref to the IMAX press release on which it's based.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry Wom (talk • contribs)

Thank you for providing the additional ref to clarify the changes you were making (which I see now were correct, but you did not have the source/wording to back it up initially). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Plot summary states Loki and others are killed in Part One not discussed

The Cast/Development section is currently using the Cast list from Part One without noting the "killed" cast members in Part One. My edit has indicated that the Cast section should include some edits that some of the Cast members were killed and may not be appearing in Part Two. User:Triiiple is reverting even though the first paragraph of the current plot summary of Infinity Wars is stating that Loki is "killed". FutureForecasts (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

That’s not the way this works. You made a bold edit, it was reverted, and now you’re expected to discuss, not revert the revert. The film is a work of fiction, there are many ways the character can reappear if he/she was “killed” in a previous film.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Requesting comments from other editors. Should some edits be made to recognize that some of the killed cast members from Part One may not be returning for Part Two? For example, should Loki be listed as returning in Part Two, without any reliable sources indicating this after the release of Part One, and his being killed in Part One? FutureForecasts (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

We can't guess what is going to happen based on a different movie. That doesn't make sense, and is completely un-encyclopaedic. We must go off reliable sources, like we usually do, and that is what is happening here; the A4 list is not based on the IW list. On your specific example, Loki is listed with a reliable source saying he will be in the film, so maybe should have a closer look before making bold claims to the contrary. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2018

{{subst:trim|1=

Avengers and Guardians Of The Galaxy Robert Downey Jr. Chris Evans Mark Ruffalo Chris Hemsworth Jeremy Renner Scarlet Johansson Chris Pratt Anthony Mackie Dave Bautista Seabastin Stan Karen Gillan Paul Rudd Vin Diesel Bradley Cooper Pom Klemietieef Evangeline Lily Don Cheadle Paul Bettany Zoe Saldana Elizabeth Olsen Tom Holland Chadwick Boseman Bendict Cumbermatch Brie Larson

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Steve's entry point

According to this source, in one of the drafts Steve Rogers' entry scene was when he tackles Corvus Glaive, but in the final draft his entry point was drastically brought forward because Marvel executives objected to such a late entry. Is it worth mentioning though, in an already convoluted article? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think here, but I'm going to try adding it to the IW article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 8 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:SNOW closure. (non-admin closure) Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Production of Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame → Production of Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame – This situation of describing two different works in a single series, in a single title, is incredibly rare, and the only instance of it that I know is the Pokémon series, where the games' articles are titled Pokémon: Let's Go, Pikachu! and Let's Go, Eevee!, Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire, Pokémon Black 2 and White 2, ect, for individual reasons. So, as this type of situation does not have an explicit remedy in the manual of style's abbreviations guide, I can't ascertain whether or not the manual of style would theoretically say that this would be a better format of the title. All I know is that this title format feels better, as silly and much of a non-argument as that may be. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: It’s still early but I feel people commonly use the whole title “Avengers: Endgame” as opposed to simply “Endgame”, and as such the page should remain where it is.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Agree with TriiipleThreat.—KeymixGame (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: TriiipleThreat and KeymixGame are correct. I oppose the move as well. CAJH (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and create redirect, until people start referring to the two movies as Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame instead of Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame. Juxlos (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I think there is confusion here. Nowhere did I say that I think that Endgame was a common name, I'm just saying that this title format would help truncate the name appropriately by not writing "Avengers" twice in the same title, much like the titles for the Pokémon games avoided writing Pokémon, the series name, twice. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 13:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Still since it is commonly referred to as “Avengers: Endgame” and its what people in this short amount of time are used to reading and hearing, simply writing “Endgame” in the article title sounds jarring.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per previous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:6DF9:CF69:96D8:F52E (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per the other previous ones. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 02:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous comments; "Avengers: Infinity War" and "Avengers: Endgame" are two complete and separate titles. (On another note, it's snowing...) -- Alex^TW 03:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.