Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Six

Avengers 5

Only THR said that the movie is now called Avengers 5, for example both Deadline and Variety still call the movie The Kang Dynasty, it is ok to do this change only with one reference? What about the other reliable sources? 95.237.210.20 (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Deadline and Variety do not say that the name hasn't changed, they just don't have the news that it has, so they do not contradict the THR source. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Variety clearly said: "Variety has reported that Marvel executives, led by studio chief Kevin Feige, discussed the possibility of having to pivot away from Kang to focus on another major villain. Now, with Majors’ departure official, Feige and his team have some formidable creative decisions ahead, including whether to recast a new actor as Kang or cancel “The Kang Dynasty” outright and reconfigure the remainder of the Multiverse Saga", so there is no official confirmation that they cancelled the movie title, and THR said "The Kang Dynasty, but is now being referred to as Avengers 5, according to sources", but wich sources? No one from Disney of Marvel officially removed the title, including the official site--95.237.210.20 (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Nothing in the Variety quote says anything about the title changing or not changing. THR does. And we don't need Disney or Marvel to tell us something for it to be true, we trust the information that we get from sources like THR. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:VNT. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Marvel.com says it's The Kang Dynasty - https://www.marvel.com/movies Lado85 (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Marvel.com does not always update content and information with what reports have revealed. Again, see WP:VNT. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

TheInSneider

Why are you using TheInSneider in Marvel Cinematic Universe related pages when TheInSneider is an unreliable source? The Media Expert (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

As a veteran trade reporter, Sneider is a WP:SME. What makes him unreliable? Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

He reports gossip and rumors most of the time. I wouldn't use his personal blog as a reliable source. Spanneraol (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

As with any sourcing, context/what is stated does matter. But Sneider is a subject-matter expert as allowed by WP:SPS, so his reports (the same as any of the trades would do) are allowable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think i'd call him a "subject-matter expert" and the trades have editorial oversight which makes them reliable and his personal blog not so. There is a reason he was fired from the trades. Spanneraol (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

That does not impede when he has legitimate reporting, which is what we have been using in our articles. We've specifically refrained from using and removed any of his statements that seemed more of the rumor mill. We use discretion and have discussed which of his reports are actual reports and what he says are more speculative. We cannot omit a single source of information because of the blog nature and reputation the subject has, which is not how Wikipedia works. Where is it stated he is labeled an unreliable source by the Wikipedia community? Not all journalists get everything right all the time, mind you. Deadline was wrong when they reported Joker 2 was happening before it actually was, and sometimes things don't pan out, though we as a community garnered consensus to use his reports with what he directly says (especially given some sites misinterpret from his podcast).I don't see this changing anytime soon and there is nothing wrong in our use of his site per the policy mentioned above. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

There's a fine line between "scoopers" who are never acknowledged by reputable sources when their "scoops" are confirmed, and someone like Sneider who is usually credited. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Moving Thunderbolts

Thunderbolts is now May 2 as per here, before Fantastic Four. So looks like everything regarding Thunderbolts here has to move to the Phase 5 page. — SirDot (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

We should see if any news sites pick up on this. I'd say we give it a bit, but yeah we could go back to the notion of the previous SDCC where Thunderbolts was said to be the last Phase Five film, and FF was starting Phase Six. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

We had moved Thunderbolts to Phase Six based on our own assumption Fantastic Four would still be the first film of that Phase (instead of them just switching phases for example). Moving Thunderbolts back to Phase Five would put us back in line with reliable sources. —El Millo (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The only reason I reverted an IP's prior move was because I thought we should discuss this first. I agree we could probably move Thunderbolts back per the sources in that draft calling it the last film of Phase Five, though that could have changed given we don't have an updated phase order from Marvel themselves and we're not sure if the trades got those bits from the outdated SDCC order. The Digital Spy ref we are currently using is still not the best for this order, but there is WP:NORUSH and no harm in waiting for further clarification. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately outside of publications making decisions themselves now, I don't think we'll get an updated Phase indication from Marvel themselves until SDCC. So if nothing useful comes out in the immediate, let's go back to how it was with Thunderbolts as the end of Phase Five. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I concur, as well. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI, here is CBR doing what I assumed, making the call about Thunderbolts now starting Phase Six with info I don't believe has come from Disney or Marvel through any official means. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that looks like an assumption to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I also agree. I don't think Thunderbolts was ever confirmed to be Phase Six, aside from that Digital Spy ref. — SirDot (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Any objections to moving Thunderbolts back to Phase Five, and retaining Fantastic Four as the start of Phase Six? Haven't really seen any publications like THR make these claims that Thunderbolts would stay Phase Six. @SirDot, Facu-el Millo, Trailblazer101, and Adamstom.97: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I support moving it back to Phase Five now as opposed to later given it was never confirmed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be moved back. I was never in favor of it moving in the first place. Yes the date changed, but there were never reliable sources saying it was phase six, other than old ones saying F4's original date started the phase, which was before lots delays. -- ZooBlazer 18:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I support moving it back. Having Thunderbolts as the first film of Phase Six is kind of a big assumption. — SirDot (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I also support moving it back. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I have moved it back now. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Trail. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Cameron Squires Fantastic Four

Could someone remove mention of Cameron Squires as a writer on fantastic four? The playlist article cited mentions him as a writer on Star Trek 4, not ff, and no trade article has mentioned him working on ff. 2601:40E:8103:9180:924:53D:4283:4007 (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The interview specifically states that Squires worked with Friedman on a draft of The Fantastic Four for Shakman after also working together on Stark Trek 4. A lack of trades mentioning this does not mean it is somehow inaccurate. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Did Shakman provide any specific news or names about “Fantastic Four”? Yes, a new writer on the film: “WandaVision” scribe Cam Scquires worked on a draft of the film with “Avatar: Way Of Water” co-writer Josh Friedman. Shakman also worked with Friedman on the script for the “Star Trek 4” movie that never materialized. “I came on [to “Star Trek 4”] and worked with Josh Friedman, who I’m working with on “Fantastic Four” now, and Cam Squires, who I’d worked with on “WandaVision,” and we worked on a draft together, which was tremendous fun.

Shakman only stated that Squires worked on Star Trek 4, which had been previously reported. The article writer appears to mistake this for Squires having worked on FF with Friedman, when Shakman actually meant that the two of them wrote a Star Trek draft together as reported. Again, Squires has never been mentioned as a writer anywhere else. Deadline listed the films writers a few months ago- “Matt Shakman (WandaVision) is directing from a script by Eric Pearson, Josh Friedman, Jeff Kaplan, and Ian Springer. Peter Cameron (WandaVision) has also done some writing on the project” It would be strange to make such a comprehensive list and leave off a writer. 2601:40E:8103:9180:924:53D:4283:4007 (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel like this may be a WP:Verifiability, not truth situation. I myself had questioned Squires' involvement when this Deadline article did not mention him but did note Peter Cameron, and I had reached out to Deadline at that time for clarity but did not receive any. I'm not sure if The Playlist staff would respond to a question about a months old article or not, though it is worth a try. This wouldn't be the first time what sites have said has been misinterpreted as signaling another writer was involved when it wasn't the case. It feels to be quite the mistake when The Playlist positioned their statement of a new writer so prominently in that section, though it is entirely possible that the source itself misinterpreted Shakman's comments here, which do admittedly seem to be a bit cagey with the site's wording. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)