Talk:Thor: Love and Thunder/Archive 1

Archive 1

Filming start confusion

I just added a source from Deadline that said it begins in March but in a The Hollywood Reporter article about the same Furiosa news, it says Thor films in January. Should probably reinstate the “early 2021” but I bring it here to discuss first in the event more stock is put in one over the other or something. Rusted AutoParts 18:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Huh. That's definitely a head scratcher. Variety and The Wrap weren't any help. Neither included any Love and Thunder bits. January or March could definitely be considered starting months, as they are around a year out from the release date. Maybe we include both? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

That could work. Like in a “is expected to begin filming in January or March 2021” way or “is expected to begin filming between January and March 2021” way? Rusted AutoParts 19:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we should just keep it as "early 2021" with the old source until another reliable source backs either date up, or one of the sources corrects the dates to match the other. El Millo (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to state "Filming is expected to begin in January or March 2021", just to be on the safe side and cite both, given they are in the "early 2021" time frame and including months is more preferred than a non-specific portion of a year. If others are okay with this, then I can adjust the information accordingly as I have it prepared. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and boldly added in both the January and March months for when filming is expected to begin given no one seems strongly opposed to this, using both sources in the filming and pre-production sections; the latter of which discusses filming being set for the beginning of 2021, rather than using the "early 2021" wording that was used prior as January and March are at the start of the year. I'm open to discuss this further if need be. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I edited the pre-production section to use the first instance of when we knew early 2021 filming (back in July), which then doesn't need this new info there. But I'm fine with the lead and filming section having both. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I forgot it could be covered then. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this "January or March" wording. I guess it is fine for now since this is a draft and we should know for sure by the time we move the article to the mainspace, but the fact that one source says January and another says March means at least one of them are wrong and so we are deliberately including incorrect information here with this approach. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

That relates to the opinion I gave earlier. Until we have confirmation of which, if any, of these dates is correct, we should just keep the "early 2021", which we know is correct and would still be correct were any of these two dates be confirmed to be accurate. This "January or March", while representative of the reliable sources available at the moment, seems somewhat unencyclopedic to me, and unnecessary given how recently this information has been published and the existence of a different, earlier source already accepted as correct and that includes these two possibilities presented by conflicting sources, which are reliable enough to the point which we cannot confidently claim any of them to be more likely to be correct than the other. El Millo (talk) 07:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I do feel that since the Deadline report gave more insight as to the status of production and reaffirming the film is in pre-production, it could be taken as more accurate, stating in a separate line in-between the Furiosa news "Hemsworth is star of Marvel’s Avengers and Thor franchise; the latest sequel Thor: Love & Thunder filming next March in Australia and in pre-production currently.". The Hollywood Reporter just states "Hemsworth is due to begin shooting Thor: Love and Thunder in January." at the bottom of the article. I'm more inclined to follow the Deadline source, but they have been wrong before (i.e. Joker 2019 sequel), so it might just be best to wait and see about when filming begins and keep both months just to play it safe, given they are both in the early 2021 area. I'm in favor of including two months rather than an ambiguous time for when filming is expected as it is more specific, but as mentioned above, this does mean one of the sources is wrong. I think we can easily wait and when filming begins, we can update the information accordingly and remove the source that turns out false. Trailblazer101 (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Start of filming

With the Guardians actors getting into Sydney, it looks like filming should be starting fairly soon, even next week possibly. I'd say we a week to 2 weeks out from it, given any potential quarantine protocols traveling actors have to enter, but on the flip side, Hemsworth and Portman are already there. Just be on the look out everyone! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Tessa Thompson was on Jimmy Kimmel last night saying she will travel to Australia and go into quarantine. Since the quarantine period is supposed to be 2 weeks, I'm guessing that's when filming will begin. - Richiekim (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Right. I'm thinking probably around January 25th is when thing's will be starting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Dave Bautista posted on Instagram he's one week down on his quarantine, so yeah around the 25th is looking like it could be when this can get moved. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Chris Hemsworth confirmed on Instragram that filming begins this week. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

So if we don't get anything on the exact day, are we all good moving this on Friday January 22 using this as the source to do so? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! - Richiekim (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm on board for that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The other Guardians

Something to look out for, since Daily Mail isn't exactly RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems like Bautista and Gillan are heading to Sydney. Here's Digital Spy on Gillan, but that isn't a resounding confirmation either, speculating off her Instagram. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe this source for Bautista and Gillan? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that is better, but it would still be good to keep an eye out for a different source to replace it with when we get one. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll add with {{better source needed}} included. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Also it appears Sean Gunn isn't just back as Rocket as he's seen on set wearing his costume — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:602:61A0:252C:FD94:5DA2:8940 (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Goldblum on billing

Why are the Guardians cast members listed on the billing, and not Jeff Goldblum, who was on the billing in Thor: Ragnarok? I have been adding this, but the edits were reverted several times because it seems someone is wanting to decide who goes to billing and who not on their own. AxGRvS (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Until we get a proper billing for this film, we should base the list off of past billings for the series (plus additional actors who are new to the series and have been billed elsewhere in the MCU). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

But Goldblum was billed on Thor: Ragnarok, why shouldn't he be billed here? —El Millo (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, that's what I have said. Thanks El Millo. AxGRvS (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that was my point. Given Goldblum being billed on Ragnarok, we use the past film series' billings as a basis until one for Love and Thunder is revealed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I thought you were agreeing with not including him. I'll put him back in. —El Millo (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Production Listing

So with the recent edits showing Baz Iodine is cinematographer working on the film as opposed to Shawn Maurer, I feel this makes my opinion that Production Listing not being a very strong source is true. It’s either incorrect or outdated a lot of the time. I’ve seen it used to source many filming starts and it felt like each filming date on the given project began much later. I’m not calling for it to be fully deemed unreliable, but at the very least it be recognized as iffy with better sources preferred. Rusted AutoParts 16:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll have to agree that Production Listing is showing to not always being accurate, listing past creatives, start times going by with no news, and shooting locations not always being known to have been used. Some sites like CBR and Pursue News have used some filming info seen on Production Listing in their reports (as seen on the Quantumania and The Marvels articles), but those credit Production Weekly (likely via their paid magazines). The fact that Prod List has been wrong on cinematographers is off-putting, and I've been finding it increasingly more reliant to search around talent agencies for cinematographers, editors, and composers nowadays, due to Marvel's secrecy and the pandemic. I don't think Prod List is totally unreliable, but I do view some of their information given, especially those that don't get updated much, if not for long periods of time; i.e. production starts, shooting locations that never happened, could just be removed from articles, like on DS2. Maybe this could be taken on to a wider discussion, but for now, pinging others for their thoughts: @Adamstom.97, Favre1fan93, Facu-el Millo, TriiipleThreat, Richiekim, and Starforce13: Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we should probably be removing those details if we have not had any further confirmation that they are true. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The Kea source says that Iodine is "working" on the film. The wording is vague enough to mean that he's not the official DP of the film (similar to Rogue One and American Sniper). He also says he's working on the film until the end of 2021, but principal photography is slated to end soon. I think we should wait for a better source than an obscure local New Zealand publication. - Richiekim (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I have not seen this source before but I didn't think it was a problem. I did have the same concern that it doesn’t really say he will be cinematographer for this film though. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Production Listing has appeared to be inaccurate, or presenting out of date info from what has been true, so I agree with us removing its use on recent articles. I also agree with Richie and Adam's hesitations regarding calling Iodine the cinematographer, when all we know is he is working on the film in some capacity. Since he has vast knowledge of filming in the Volume from The Mandalorian, he could be in a consultant type role. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree the interview doesn't say he's the cinematographer. It just says he's working on the film. In the intro, the article also lists other films he worked on like Rogue One but he wasn't the cinematographer. So, we should remove the cinematographer info until it's confirmed by an independent, reliable source that isn't based on the interview or Production Listing.— Starforce¹³ 16:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I meant to respond to this sooner. I too agree Production Listing is showing to be inaccurate and/or outdated, so yesterday, I updated articles that used it as a source and removed any info not confirmed by separate sources. As for Iodine, it's not clear if he is the cinematographer or serving in another role related to the ILM visual effects, so best we either state he is working on the film through the end of the year for post-production or not include him until we get clarification. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if we can say Iodine is working in post-production. We can simply state he working on the film through the end of 2021. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and adjusted wording regarding Iodine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Jason Aaron.

The Mighty Thor starring Jane Foster was only ever written by Jason Aaron, so he should be mentioned in the opening paragraph in the line mentioning the film is inspired by his run. 94.237.76.31 (talk) 06:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I dont see a problem with mentioning him in the lead.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Filming end

[https://geekycraze.com/thor-4-reportedly-wraps-filming-in-sydney/amp/ Geeky Craze], MovieWeb, TheDirect (unreliable but worth mentioning), Comic Book Resources (CBR) and Screen Rant have been posting throughout today that Love and Thunder has wrapped filming in either Sydney (Article naming) or Australia (per article itself). I'm just giving a heads up before planning to get a message out that Love and Thunder may have finished filming. – ChannelSpider (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

All of these are referencing an unverified Instagram post from a hair designer, and technically he doesn't say that filming has finished. Also, are you suggesting that Sydney is not in Australia? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

No I'm not suggesting Sydney is not in Australia. I was confused. – ChannelSpider (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Turns out Marvel Studios on Twitter just confirmed Thor 4 wrapped filming. – ChannelSpider (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Nebula as Avenger?

Ok User:Trailblazer101, Just to sum it all up real short. Yes Nebula and Rocket were Avengers in Endgame like Scott and Carol. But after Endgame, everyone just went off. The Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania page, Ant-Man is listed as an Avenger and in The Marvel page lists Captain Marvel also has an Avenger. Just because they disbanded doesn’t mean their not anymore. Kinsley Bottom (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

If she was considered an Avenger in Endgame, then she is still an Avenger. So, the question should be whether Guardians became Avengers, not whether they're still Avengers. Disbanding the team doesn't take away the title. Otherwise, we wouldn't be calling Wanda, Vision and Sam Wilson avengers either. If a character undergoes a certain development in one film, we don't usually need to confirm if they're still what they became in the last film. So, I'm confused by this back and forth. Am I missing something?

That said, if we're not identifying other Guardians as Avengers here, we shouldn't do that for Rocket and Nebula either regardless of whether or not they stayed on earth. I don't think they ever became officially Avengers and that's what we should use, not whether they still are. — Starforce¹³ 00:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Rocket and Nebula were Avengers for five years while the other Guardians were gone, so per our logic at other articles it would make sense to list them as Avengers here. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if they were considered Avengers, then it's ok to list them as such. We shouldn't need to justify that they're still Avengers. — Starforce¹³ 01:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I just questioned it as it kept getting added but wasn't sure if that's what should be done as they're also Guardians. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if it's what we should do, but it is consistent. The fact that we don't always try to match these character descriptions to the story of the film when they were in a previous film has been an issue before, but I think it should be addressed by the task force as a general issue rather than make this specific instance inconsistent. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2021

"Valkyrie is no longer the first LGBT character in the MCu retroactively since it was revealed Loki was in episode 3 of his show." 96.23.214.181 (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Winderbaum - producer or EP

Hey Facu-el Millo, I saw Trailblazer101 found the proper url at the Phase Four page (here). However, Winderbaum himself says Yeah. I'm producing Love and Thunder... while Anderson of /Film in his question after this says You mentioned you're executive producing Thor: Love and Thunder. so I believe Anderson is adding the "Executive" to this, when Winderbaum is in fact a full producer (as confirmed by his bio in the What If press kit). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation Favre. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with Favre's assessment. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed until further info appears, unambiguously confirming his role. —El Millo (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree – ChannelSpider (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"King" Valkyrie

Can we really consider an unreleased LEGO toy set as a reliable source for giving Valkyrie the title "king"? -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 13:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It may not be the best way to source it. However, recent Marvel Legends figure sets have given her the same title of "king", as discussed in this article, which we could use instead to source the information. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I thought they explicitly used King for her in Endgame… CreecregofLife (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: Have the Marvel Legends figurines been released, or is it just leaked screenshots of potentially beta units? @CreecregofLife: They did, but there was a lot of edit warring because of ambiguity. It was eventually discussed and agreed to refer to her as "ruler" (until such time that a reliable third-party source uses the "king" title). -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 14:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Merchandise (at least in the MCU's case) is named based what Marvel Studios provides to the vendors. They wouldn't give them "King Valkyrie" if that was completely inaccurate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Marvel's official website confirms Valkyrie is king. - Richiekim (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I updated the sourcing in the article to use that article for it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you please explain why Valkryie is "king" despite being female? Can female rulers like Victoria be called "King"? Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It’s the title she chose to keep when bestowed by Thor. It’s that simple. You are trying to make way too big a deal out of this, saying they’re wrong for what’s in their scripts CreecregofLife (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

We are talking about fictional god-like aliens, they are not required to use the terms "King" and "Queen" the same way that real-life British monarchs do. The question here is what does the film actually use, not what do we think is correct. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Jaimie Alexander credited in main cast

Is there any reason that Jaimie Alexander is credited as part of the main cast in this article, when neither the poster nor the official billing have her credited like that? Or I may be mistaken; just wanted to confirm. Hummerrocket (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Probably based on her being main cast in the previous two films CreecregofLife (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Her name is between Tessa Thompson and Taika Waititi in the billing block. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. I was answering on the premise that they truly were absent, following their belief. Then I was going to check for myself--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Bast

I see someone has added Bast to the list of cast. Though there is no official confirmation that it is Bast in neither the article or from the photo. Or am i missing something? --Refuteku (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The source used is also just assuming it's her based on past rumors. -- Zoo (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Premiere Date

According to this source, the premiere will take place in Los Angeles, California on June 23rd. The site usually seems to get its date and locations right so maybe this can be used here. https://www.averagesocialite.com/la-events/2022/6/23/thor-love-and-thunder-premiere-la -TrixieCat123 (User talk:TrixieCat123) 16:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Avengers Socialite is an unreliable source, even if what they report may ultimately become true or accurate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

2024

I'm not sure about using this source to support the film being set in 2024, since they are just guessing that Thor and Jane broke up in 2016. By their own logic it is more likely that she had recently broken up with him in Ragnarok in 2017, which would set this film in 2025 (when it is likely to be set based on most of Phase Four being released in chronological order). Obviously we would need a source to support all that, but I'm just saying that the source we have is only guessing and likely guessing wrong. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

It seemed like a relatively fresh break up in Ragnarok, so just based on that, a 2025 setting seems likely. -- Zoo (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I had hoped to mitigate this for the time being by using "around 2024" since I did understand that TheWrap authors were speculating on this. We know it's post-Endgame for sure, so 2024 or 2025 are likely. But we know for certain it's eight years since Thor last saw Jane, which as the Wrap points out, they were still together by dialogue in AoU, but broken up by Ragnarok. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

We could just state, for now, that it is set eight years after Thor and Jane last saw each other prior to Ragnarok, which is set in 2017. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn’t “Post-Endgame” be 2023 or 2024? Or are we going 2024/2025 because someone somewhere explicitly stated it’s post-Hawkeye? CreecregofLife (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Since it isn't clear what year exactly the film is set, I don't think we should be guessing or following someone else's guess. Because we don't know whether they broke up in 2015, 2016, or 2017. Any of those years are quite plausible. We should just keep it as "eight years after Thor and Jane broke up". InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Do we need the detail at all? Keep it vaguer? CreecregofLife (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The eight years is in explicit relation to when Thor last show Jane, so that should definitely be kept in any adjustments. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Right, but do you agree "2024" or any other year is speculation and should thus be removed? InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Given how I worded it as "around 2024", that's not explicitly stating it is indeed then, and is using the source to support that possibility, so I think it is fine as is until a new source comes about. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Speculation by reliable sources is not to be trusted. Remember that time when an RS said zombie Wanda from What If...? was in MoM? Well, it turned out they were wrong, she wasn't even a zombie in that scene. Also, "around" is not equivalent to "possibly", so this wording suggests certainty. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Or any of it pertaining to the exact doppelgängers introduced in What If CreecregofLife (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2022

Screenplay by Taika Waititi Story by Taika Waititi & Jennifer Kaytin Robinson ZacharyJohnston (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done The credits are correct how they are. -- Zoo (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

https://directories.wga.org/project/1202732/thor-love-and-thunder/ On WGA, they're credited as Taika Waititi and Taiki D. Waititi & Jennifer Kaytin Robinson -TrixieCat123 (User talk:TrixieCat123) 06:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Added footnote on this double credit, the same way it is at Eternals with Chloe Zhao. —El Millo (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning this actress at all?

Just saw this on Variety. I'm reading through it, but can't make heads or tails if she filmed something that was ultimately cut, or wasn't even in the film to begin with. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. Perhaps mention her once we have clarity? — SirDot (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like her scene(s) was/were cut which seems to be why she didn't pay her agency. -- Zoo (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

My interpretation was that she was hired by Waititi for a small role (and he didn't go through her agency which is why they didn't get paid for it) but it got cut. I think it is worth mentioning. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Adam's interpretation of this, and that it can be included. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Release Dates in Infobox

@Draco9904: Is there any consensus about how release dates in the infobox should be handled? Because it seems odd to have a release dates section of the infobox that doesn't have most of the release dates. ~Sol of Arctic Circle System (talk) 07:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

If it’s just 1 country that’s listed as Country of Origin for the film, then the release dates in the infobox only need to be the date of the premiere and the official release in the country of origin. If there’s multiple countries involved in the production, then those countries’ dates must also be listed. In some cases, if it comes out first in other countries, that will be acknowledged in the Release section. It’s a case-by-case situation, but the first country to get the film prior to the main country of origin may also have its release date listed in the infobox. Still, the premiere date and the official US date are the most important in this case. Other release dates should be acknowledged in the Release section, only if significant (first countries to get the film or any significant delays in a country). Draco9904 (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah giving Malaysia special preference while even the countries that share its date with the country of origin don’t get mentioned is pretty weird. It’s fine in the prose, as there’s still a chance it would have been acknowledged in some fashion whether something unusual happened or not, but I’m not sure the infobox should have it CreecregofLife (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Other countries weren't added because I wasn't done checking release dates for other countries yet. I still need to finish doing that. I apologize for the confusion. ~Sol of Arctic Circle System (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there any discussion where this is established? ~Sol of Arctic Circle System (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Template:Infobox film#Release dates: “Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings.” And then it explicitly states that other release dates found to be notable are for the body. Admittedly this is technically not discussion, but I think it serves appropriately. CreecregofLife (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. ~Sol of Arctic Circle System (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Probably took more hoops than I needed to get it, going through the Wikiproject and MOS pages for Film before getting to the template page. Probably because the WP pages are more likely to have shortcuts than template pages CreecregofLife (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Reviews

Here is a Screen Rant article I found that very well rounds up the reviews for Thor 4. It includes the link to many reviews, such as WaPo, Rolling Stone, EW, LA Times, and more. Feel free to add these in the article. From the general gist of things, Bale, Hemsworth, and Portman’s performance are being praised, but the tone imbalance (the serious subject matter vs the humorous nature of the film) seems to be a recurring criticism. Make sure the tonal imbalance is articulated in a WP:NPOV manner, Dcdiehardfan (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dcdiehardfan: Thanks! I was already working on the reviews and did Variety yesterday. Was searching for a review roundup yesterday from EW since they did that for Multiverse of Madness but seems SR did that. — SirDot (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Plot

"However, this turned out to be a ruse for Gorr to take Stormbreaker, which he intends to use it on the Bifrost" This should be "...which he intends to use on the Bifrost" not "which he intends to use it on the Bifrost" 96.235.168.127 (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Early Theatrical Screenings

@SirDot: Regarding this edit, I am aware early theatrical screenings of movies are a fairly common occurrence, but how exactly does that make it irrelevant to a section explaining how the movie will be released? ~Sol of Arctic Circle System (talk) 06:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Every MCU film has early theatrical screenings in the US a day before yet we don't mention it. — SirDot (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so let's mention it where we can find sources for it. Problem solved. ~Sol of Arctic Circle System (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Add The Numbers source to the infobox

I am bad at adding the citing so can someone add the citing for The Numbers? Their value includes the us box office so far. They are showing a combined 77.6 million dollars combined between international and domestic box offices Db9780 (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Db9780 The article has been updated with the {{Cite The Numbers}} template and box office details from domestic and international grosses as of this date. Thank you Db9780 for this discussion. Centcom08 (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Budget

I noticed there seems to be some edit warring in this article regarding the films budget. Figured I would start this conversation here, as I don’t really know which sources that are provided would be more reliable. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 02:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Spf121188, thank you for starting this discussion. I've not yet seen any major Hollywood traders that report the film's budget (except a critic from IndieWire mentioning $250 million). Shiraj chandra is the one editor I've noticed who keeps on changing the budget. The editor added a Screen Rant source (see here), but, when you read it, the source author is only assuming. If major Hollywood traders haven't reported the film's budget then the Asianet Newsable source the editor added (see here) will become questionable. Not sure if Asianet is a reliable source. Centcom08 (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I assume we will have to wait for the Variety post, which is a reliable source for movie budgets. Wheezythewave (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Variety reviews usually mention budgets, but the L&T review doesn't mention it. — SirDot (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

You're right. Rebecca Rubin who covers box office doesn't mention it this time. I'm guessing alternatives are Forbes and Deadline. Some writers worth checking out are Anthony D'Alessandro. Chris Knight from National Post also confirmed here [1] that the budget is $250 million. Wheezythewave (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Asianet is a pretty reliable source. The 250 million dollars only comes from one single editor. So it's pretty unreliable. Can't we just put a rough estimate.for example: $185-250 million dollars. This could be the estimated range edit until more reliable sources could be found. Shiraj chandra (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

How concrete a mention was the $250m? Without seeing it myself it comes off as an estimate based on where MCU movie budgets are right now in some sort of snide remark, but I could be completely wrong CreecregofLife (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@CreecregofLife The Numbers stated $250 million for the film's budget so I guess the IndieWire article is true. Centcom08 (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Variety just confirmed that the budget is $250 million. [2] Wheezythewave (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2022

The names should be changed around in the following section. “Admitting defeat, Thor manages to convince Gorr that all he wanted from Eternity was not to destroy the gods but to get his daughter Love back.”

I.E. “Gorr manages to convince Thor” Zayzoe0913 (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

 Already done Aaron Liu (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Budget (2)

The budget is incorrect. Scott Mendleson from Forbes said it was a critic exaggerating. Please remove. Also the Numbers is usually.wrong. 2603:8080:D701:1CA3:DDFC:9A6E:A42:C149 (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Which Scott Mendleson article exactly, please provide a link. Also the Numbers is usually.wrong. How can you be so sure it isn't Box Office Mojo or someone else getting it wrong? If figures vary {{Infobox film}} says to include both.

It has been suggested that Disney may have amortized some of the costs and production tax breaks over the films SCaTLoTTR and T:LaT (Variety.com reported on the subsidies[[3] for filming in Sydney way back) but due to Hollywood accounting we must always be sceptical of the claimed budget figures. (We cannot be sure if the budget figures represent the number the film went into production and was greenlit at, if the figures are the amount actually spent or before or the cost after tax breaks, and we cannot be sure if the cost of reshoots has been included or not. Short of a lawsuit[4] we almost never get to know the real figures.) -- 109.79.70.46 (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

incomplete type of film

the film is action, science fiction and even drama lacks the dramatic term 151.95.177.34 (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The following are great sources when determining genre: AFI, BFI, and AllMovie. If we search on previous Thor films, the consensus appears to be "fantasy" and "adventure", which are supported by at least 2 sources, while "action" is supported by at least one. However, it appears that "superhero" has been used to describe many of the MCU films on Wikipedia, I assume by previously-established consensus. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the lead and not the categories. Per WP:FILMGENRE, only the primary genre should be noted, which in the case of all MCU films is superhero film. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thor Girl

Gorr’s daughter played by India Hemsworth is named Tarene, not Love. Mareksison (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

There's no source for this claim. The film itself calls the girl Love, and all reliable sources back that up. —El Millo (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Gorr calls his daughter Tarene once at the start Mareksison (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that didn't happen. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources would've mentioned that, and none do. —El Millo (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Ratings

Is 68% really mixed reviews. Most reviews called it positive. Most of the film was praised, only 1/3rd of the critics criticized it. By that figure it should still be considered positively reviewed. Shiraj chandra (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Shiraj chandra

Rotten Tomatoes is one of the film aggregators we go by. Metacritic is the other, which gave it a lower score (link). Since the two disagree, we cannot pick a winner. We also need to take into consideration the average score on RT, which is 6.6/10. That's definitely a score that straddles the edge between average and above average. Most importantly, we would need to point to conclusions drawn by reliable, secondary sources; not conclusions we came up with. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I found more sources which describe the reception as "mixed" ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]) than "positive" ([11], [12], [13]). InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Wrong box office. Value

Change the box office number to about 147.million. look at google for reference 2607:9880:1850:1EB:7D47:FD83:DC52:8640 (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: That's not the way this works. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit War Prevention: Screen Rant source about praising Christian Bale and Natalie Portman's performances

User P3Y229 added a Screen Rant source (see here) discussing social media reviews about Christian Bale and Natalie Portman's performances (well, not all of them mention the actors). I remove this because the source shows just tweets reviewing the film, which I think not really appropriate under the Critical response section of the article. Centcom08 (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Heavily unnecessary because Bale and Portman being praised is in the critics summary statement at the end of the lede anyway. Early reactions don't matter in that case. — SirDot (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Something being in the lead doesn't mean it shouldn't also exist in the body. WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, so there is justification to retain examples in the body such as this one. Doesn't have to be that particular source, of course, but there should be ample support for the lead statement. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

That was my initial reaction as well when I saw that. But taking a deeper look, these are all industry critics that are approved on RT. So at least the tweets they singled out are from reputable insiders. Like SirDot said, the source only reinforces the notion that Bale and Portman were generally praised. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure there are Bale/Portman praises in the reviews cited in § Critical response (except Variety's) that haven't been added. — SirDot (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but we must remember that the reviews in this section are individual reviews that were randomly selected by Wikipedia editor(s). They do not necessarily represent an overall consensus among critics. So we need sources that are assessing overall critical reception to support any kind of summary in the article lead. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I initialy added the Screen Rant source and readded it with a clarification after it was removed. GoneIn60 said "taking a deeper look, these are all industry critics that are approved on RT. So at least the tweets they singled out are from reputable insiders. Like SirDot said, the source only reinforces the notion that Bale and Portman were generally praised.". He further added that "we need sources that are assessing overall critical reception to support any kind of summary in the article lead." Taking this into account I propose to add the Screen Rant source in the lead i.e. at "particularly those of Bale and Portman". It would resolve the issue of the critical reception section as the "section" with "individual reviews that were randomly selected by Wikipedia editor(s)" and would "upport any kind of summary in the article lead.". Is this a workable compromise? --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Centcom08 and SirDot: It appears this is not yet resolved. Looks like the Screen Rant source in question was removed, and edit summaries like this one are misleading. Again, the Critical response section must contain sources that assess overall reception; individual reviews are not enough as explained above. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm now confused as to why my edit summary is misleading. I removed the edit made by the editor who added with critics comparing it unfavorably to Ragnarok because it is not sourced in the Critical response section. Centcom08 (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Although you are correctly removing unsourced material, you are also implying that what's in the lead is properly sourced. That's misleading, because there are no sources in the Critical response section that support the summary statement in the lead. If you disagree, please point out the source that supports it, thanks. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Now this made me even more confused. So you're suggesting to keep with critics comparing it unfavorably to Ragnarok in the Lead section? Because my edit summary is only related to that quote, nothing else. Centcom08 (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting that. Let me be as blunt as possible... The statement, "The film earned praise for its light-heartedness and cast performances (particularly those of Bale and Portman), while criticism was aimed at its inconsistencies in tone and screenplay" is an unsourced claim. If you disagree, please describe what sources in the article support this statement. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 09:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we should ask the editors who added or made revisions to that quote (I only added reviews in the Critical response section and of course, other editors have seen it and made their summary of them for the lede). My only concern for this discussion is the inclusion of the Screen Rant source in the Critical response section of the article and now the discussion went upward to the Lead section, making me even more confused as to what I have to say here. Centcom08 (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

In your removal of the Ragnarok claim, you said, "Lede should summarize what is in the Critical reception section...". I agree with that, but it also implies that you believe the portion you didn't remove, which is the rest of the statement I just quoted, is properly sourced. Let's not cherry-pick the most recent addition; let's discuss the entire statement.

I understand this thread was originally focused on the Screen Rant source, but now that you removed it here and here, there are no sources remaining in this article to support the lead's claim. The Screen Rant source wouldn't have been enough on its own anyway, but at least it supported the portion of the claim regarding Bale and Portman's performances. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 10:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Kindly add the Screen Rant source. Have a great day. Centcom08 (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

That's quite alright. Time to focus on the big picture. Please weigh in below if interested. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I added the Screen rant source in the lead following the comment "Kindly add the Screen Rant source." by Centcom08 --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break: Lead claim

Note: The {{discuss}} tag in the lead directs here.

The statement in the lead about overall critical reception is not properly sourced in the Critical response section of the article. As described in the above conversation, individual reviews selected by us are not sufficient. Drawing a conclusion based on our selection of reviews is a form of synthesis; we need secondary sources that have done that assessment for us. Until then, the summary statement in the lead should be removed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe this Screen Rant source that was linked at the § Reviews discussion above would suffice. Was that source never added into the article? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It was not. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thor: Love and Thunder is banned in Malaysia

Could someone reflect this Malaysian ban on the "Release" subsection? Lightyear was also banned in Malaysia earlier this year, and was reflected in their own article. Here are some sources talking about it. 1, 2, 3 and 4. 121.128.209.94 (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of the American Family Association as a source for the critical response section

Hi! I understand that the last paragraph of this section's all about the response to Waititi's comment, but it still doesn't seem like a reliable or informative source, and the phrasing puts it on the same standing as sources regurlarly covering movies without clear context. Delete the last phrase of the paragraph? Unepagedanslabrise (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, in context, it's not about their reliability but about their notability. DonQuixote (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Fox News is also a notable organization but we still can't use their opinions in place of actual reliable sources. If what AFA said was notable enough to be included, it would have been covered by reliable third-party sources. Using hate group websites as sources for their own opinions is nothing but spreading their message... and therefore very misleading in this context. This shouldn't be debatable - I've gone ahead and removed it. — Starforce¹³ 17:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@DonQuixote @Starforce13 While this may not apply to that particular scenario, I found better sources to use than the ones we have currently for better coverage on this subject. Right now, I'll leave them all here and will leave it up to you on how you want to potentially integrate the information in the article. If more is needed, feel free to ping me.

[14] [15] [16] [17] [18] Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)