![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Here's the source. 71.188.21.140 ( talk) 14:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know if Alexis Denisof is returning to portray "The Other" from The Avengers? 98.110.8.213 ( talk) 03:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Here's the source. I personally don't know where this would go, obviously in the 'music' section, but I'm not at liberty to edit the page because well, I'd probably not put it in the right context. 71.188.30.244 ( talk) 22:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
This seems like a reliable source, and they state that the budget is reportedly 150 million, so I'll put that as a placeholder unless someone finds a conflicting source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.79.120 ( talk) 00:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
It states Guardians cost $170 million to make at this link: http://www.thewrap.com/guardians-of-the-galaxy-tracking-for-60-million-opening/. Just look for where it says "This is a big bet for Disney, with a production budget of $170 million dollars." So, I guess we can add that as it's budget on the wiki page for Guardians. Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.188.167 ( talk) 00:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
James Gunn has confirmed 2 me via comments on Facebook @ this link, https://www.facebook.com/alessio.pasquali.75/posts/264968863694788?comment_id=265418683649806&offset=0&total_comments=4, that Guardians of the Galaxy is indeed 2 hours and 1 minute long. Look at the second comment that he says to me when he says "Yes, the movie is a little over 2 hours long." That proves he confirmed it. Why don't any of you believe me? Even James Gunn said it was true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.188.167 ( talk) 19:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, guys. James Gunn has again confirmed, on his Twitter page, that Guardians is indeed really 2 hours and 1 minute long at this link: https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesGunn/status/485172106418610176. Can we please add this into the page, now, that the movie is 121 minutes long and use the Twitter link as a source, and put an end to this debate? Please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.25.36 ( talk) 21:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Good news, guys. The running time of Guardians is officially classified. Here's the link for proof: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/guardians-galaxy-film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.188.167 ( talk) 20:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
This link http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/will-john-c-reilly-join-the-marvel-universe-for-guardians-of-the-galaxy claims Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely worked on the script (which is credited only as "Written by. JAMES GUNN and NICOLE PERLMAN"). The person who writes this blog doesn't say where this information came from, and it appears nowhere else that I can find: not in Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline.com or any other reliable source. Whoever "Drew" of Hitfix is, it's clear he's not someone doing original reporting but simply re-reporting what original-reporting sites say — and from what I can see, adding a rumor or "something he heard". If Hitfix is the only place claiming Markus/McFeely worked on the script, and since he doesn't say where he got that supposed iformation, then this does not seem like it reaches the threshold of reliability. -- 209.122.114.237 ( talk) 18:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why this page uses that odd ref format? Koala15 ( talk) 04:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Quill's ship is named the Milano, not the Minora as stated in the article, as per Director James Gunn's twitter: https://twitter.com/JamesGunn/status/494193606794547200. Additionally, the prison is called the Kyln and Ronan's is the Dark Astor, both spelled that way in the comics and on screen in the movie.
68.195.11.127 ( talk) 02:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Not done: Nowhere in the article does the word "Minora" appear, and the prison is said to be the Kyln three times. I can't find anyone that refers to Ronan's ship as the Dark Astor; Google shows chocolate and theatres. Please be more specific with where the issues are, and provide a source for the spelling of Astor.
Sock (pka Corvoe)
(be heard)
(my stuff)
20:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following statement to the end of Vin Diesel/Groot's section under "Cast":
"Diesel also provides Groot's voice for several foreign-language releases of the film.Puchko, Kristy (July 30, 2014). "Listen To Vin Diesel Voice Groot In Five Other Languages". CinemaBlend. Retrieved July 31, 2014." 69.136.149.237 ( talk) 06:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Done Thank you for the source! I made it the second sentence, after the "Diesel voiced and mo-capped" (paraphrasing) area.
Sock (pka Corvoe)
(be heard)
(my stuff)
20:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Sonicgum15 ( talk) 03:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Put in the Marketing Area that on July 4, 2014, a special preview of the movie was shown in the Captain EO theater at Disneyland and Epcot. 209.134.127.183 ( talk) 05:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the reception heading, please change the following wording for readability (things to omit, things to add):
In July 2014, pre-release tracking suggested that Guardians of the Galaxy could gross over $60 - $70 million or more during its opening weekend. [158] Box Office Mojo estimates that the film could gross over $82 million or more.
50.139.120.19 (
talk)
15:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the cast section, link Denarian Saal (Peter Serafinowicz's character) to Supernova (Marvel Comics), his comic counterpart. 69.136.149.237 ( talk) 02:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the plot section, the Other is killed by Ronan unprovoked during Ronan's audience with Thanos. 121.213.21.235 ( talk) 04:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Addition to the sequel information: Director James Gunn confirmed that in the sequel "there should be at least one more Guardian from the comics" during a Twitter Q&A: http://www.eonline.com/news/565485/guardians-of-the-galaxy-director-james-gunn-s-twitter-q-a-with-e
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please let's change this line:
In a separate interview for The Dark World in November, Feige added that a third, unknown Infinity Stone would be seen in the film,[112] later revealed in June 2014 to be the Power Stone.[113]
To this:
In a separate interview for The Dark World in November, Feige added that another, unknown Infinity Stone would be seen in the film,[112]
Basically removing the whole last part. Feige never said there were only three Gems, he said they had only officially revealed three Gems. Meaning the Scepter could very well still be the Mind Gem. As for the article proving the Orb from Guardians of the Galaxy was the Power Orb, that is simply untrue. The article expresses only the Opinion of it's writer, and his source is a line from the movie he most likely misunderstood. Please change it, it's causing a lot of arguments in certain, very nerdy, parts of the internet. Exodus111 ( talk) 23:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Does Cosmo have any cited relationship to Laika? I am unfamiliar with the Guardians of the Galaxy franchise, but given the CCCP... kencf0618 ( talk) 03:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Should comic creators who were credited in the film (near the bottom) be added anywhere in the article? We don't normally do this, but figured I'd ask just in case. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 04:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I think this article [1] has some pretty good stuff in it if anyone wants to use it. - adamstom97 ( talk) 07:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
So long story short, in the Development section there's this quote that reads "...cosmic side of the universe." and for the sake of them liking the capitalized U in "universe", some editors are making that quote into "...cosmic side of the [Marvel Cinematic U]niverse.", which I find ridiculous, having that bracket enclose just one letter from a word. I proposed leaving it as "[Marvel Cinematic] universe", the U being lowercase not being that bad IMO, but I got reverted by a second editor, so I leave it to you to decide. -- uKER ( talk) 16:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Gamora reveals that she has betrayed Ronan, unwilling to let him use the orb's power to destroy entire planets such as Xandar.
Gamora reveals that she has betrayed Ronan, and will instead sell the orb, thereby giving herself a chance to finally escape Thanos and live an independent life.
184.153.154.25 ( talk) 07:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
ie--at that point not even Gamora knows about the powerful stone the orb contains.
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It has been confirmed that the cocoon in the Collector's home is the regenerative form of Adam Warlock. In the post credits scene it shows in the background that the cocoon has been broken. This is of extreme importance given Warlock's role in the comic book infinity story arc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.225.14.75 ( talk) 14:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The Music section currently ends with this sentence:
By August 2014, the soundtrack, titled Awesome Mix, hit number one on the Billboard 200, becoming the first soundtrack album in history to not feature any original songs.[132]
However, if you look at the citation, the album is actually the first soundtrack album in history to hit #1 on the charts while not featuring any original songs. There have been numerous other soundtrack albums with no original songs -- for example, the hit soundtrack album for "American Graffiti," which peaked at #10 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/41_Original_Hits_from_the_Soundtrack_of_American_Graffiti). 68.173.32.194 ( talk) 05:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that part of the scenes in Xandar have been inspired by the Liège-Guillemins railway station. 92.147.133.120 ( talk) 11:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
In the box office section it says " IMAX accounted for 17% of the total gross with $1.9 million, which is the second biggest August pre-release in IMAX format behind Iron Man 3." Iron Man 3 was released in May, so I'm sure how it could have the biggest August pre-release. Mussobrennon ( talk) 00:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The critical response section seems long but I'm not criticizing. I enjoyed watching the review for families of the "Movie Moment Mom" for Fanango, Tara McNamara, she's great [2] -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 06:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why certain people are so against using the characters real name and continue to remove my correction. There are numerous sources that confirm that it is Howard The Duck and not just a generic anthropomorphic duck there it should be recognised. Wikipedia is supposed to be a realiable fact page therefore the correct information should be noted
80.47.128.195 ( talk) 22:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Cosmo is credited as a dog named "Fred" during the credits, so it can be stated that he is, indeed, Cosmo. Additionally, the Marvel Art of Guardians of the Galaxy book explicitly refers to the dog in the film as "Cosmo". As for Howard the Duck, James Gunn has identified him as such in interviews and on Twitter. I will endeavour to find sources for it.
80.193.1.164 (
talk)
16:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
According to WP:FILMPLOT, post-credits scenes and joke scenes are considered inappropriate for the plot, so what's the point of including it? -- McDoob AU93 19:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how this is a case of
WP:IAR. You're interpreting FILMPLOT differently than the majority of editors I've personally seen, as I've never seen someone argue to exclude a post-credits scene. I'm not saying you're wrong, and I respect your interpretation, but I don't think an interpretation is synonymous with a rule, making it basically impossible to "ignore" a rule.
Sock
(tock talk)
23:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Christopher Fairbank in the cast listing - he played the Broker (www.imdb.com/title/tt2015381)
ThomasAnderson ( talk) 17:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The movie is popular around the world, and in the USA.
Headline-1: Box: ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ rules lackluster Labor Day
QUOTE: "The Marvel film topped the domestic charts for the third time and benefited from crowds hoping to stretch out the waning days of summer, grossing $16.3 million over the Friday, Saturday and Sunday period and pushing its U.S. total to $274.6 million. It will likely end the four-day holiday with $21.2 million in stateside ticket sales from 3,462 locations." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 17:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Quill, Rocket, Groot, Gamora, AND Drax all worked togeher to escape the space prison. Please make the necessary changes. 72.161.217.235 ( talk) 16:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Corrected that for you. Here's a source if unsure ;) 2601:C:780:234:21A2:1F9A:CA7C:402F ( talk) 20:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Poor subtitles in Chinese release leads to mixed reviews. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 02:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Corrected that for you. Here's a source if unsure ;) 2601:C:780:234:21A2:1F9A:CA7C:402F ( talk) 20:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Poor subtitles in Chinese release leads to mixed reviews. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 02:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Should we note that it is the third highest grossing mcu film? source - adamstom97 ( talk) 04:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
A. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Weekend-by-weekend analysis and country-by-country analysis is thus unnecessary, since all domestic/overseas weekend grosses and country-specific opening weekends/total grosses are available at Box Office Mojo in well presented tables. Noting a country or a specific weekend is only worth when there is something notable about it (for example, the film was number one on that weekend, broke a record in the specific country or the country is one of the highest-grossing territories for the film).
B. There are guidelines here suggesting we should approach the box office in a retrospective way. So stating "record" after "record" with a date tagged to each one is an undesirable historical approach to the matter. This is what box office websites do. They mention anything notable about a film that happened during the weekend or a specific day. But in retrospect some stuff are not important relative to others.
C. Rankings are done by chosing criteria: biggest film achievement among films in a specific year, biggest film achievement among films of a specific genre, biggest film achievement amongs films released by a specific studio, etc. This applies one criterion at a time. When you start applying 2 or more criteria at a time or when the sampling period is small, the record becomes less significant. e.g. biggest opening weekend during summer 2014 (summer is only four months which is a very small sampling period). D. Consistency: if it is decided that we should mention where the IMAX gross of the film ranks among Disney films, we should also do the same for its opening day, opening weekend, total gross etc. Why mention one and not mention the others?
1.Guardians of the Galaxy became the fourteenth movie of 2014 to gross over $300 million, which it did in 10 days. 2.By October 16, 2014, the film had grossed over $700 million, becoming the third Walt Disney Studios release of 2014 to do so, and the fourth Marvel Studios film to do so, behind The Avengers, Iron Man 3 and Captain America: The Winter Soldier.
These two are completely arbitrary. Why is reaching $300M and $700M so important that they need whole sentences to describe them. And if they are important, why is $400M, $500M and $600M not important. Particularly, why is notable that it reached $300M when THIRTEEN OTHER FILMS have done that too?
3.which was the biggest August pre-release in IMAX format, as well as the second best pre-release showing for a Disney or Marvel film, behind Iron Man 3. This is applying two criteria at once. If we agree that we should rank the IMAX gross among Disney films, why not rank its opening day among Disney films, its opening weekend among Disney films, its total gross among Disney films, its Labor Day gross among Disney films etc.? Sometimes we need to draw a line. I believe doing this for opening days and weekens is OK, but not anything else.
4.passing Transformers: Age of Extinction as the top grossing film of summer (May–August) 2014. This record is unnecessary to mention since the film is also the biggest film of the year (which implies it was first in the season in which it was released).
5.In the fifth weekend, Guardians of the Galaxy was number one once again,[202][203] becoming the first film of the summer to be the number one film in three weekends. Why add a whole sentence for each and every weekend in which the film was number one, instead of saying: "The film was in first place on its fourth, fifth and sixth weekends." Also, "the first film of the summer to be #1 in 3 weekends"? The smaller thhe sampling period, the more trivial the record becomes. If it was the first film in the last ten years to be #1 in 3 weekends, that would be notable. Why is a period of four months for this record notable? We could just say "The film was #1 for 3 consecutive weekends". Period. There are many that have done that in the past so even a ranking would be trivial (it is #45 [3])
6. Guardians of the Galaxy in its sixth weekend was number one for a fourth time,[205] becoming the first Marvel film to be the top film for four weeks, surpassing Captain America: The Winter Soldier and The Avengers, both of which were number one for three weeks, Instead of ranking it among all films that were #1 for 4 weekends, it is ranked among Marvel films. Not even superhero films as a whole. Why not rank its opening day among Marvel films as well. We should also rank its opening weekend among Marvel films. The list can go on forever. Ranking the "opening weekend" with all these criteria (studio, year of release, genre) may be justified, but "number of weekends in first place" shouldn't be combined with any other criteria because it is too trivial.
7.On September 12, 2014, the film passed $300 million for its domestic gross, becoming the first film of 2014 to do so. Are we really gonna celebrate the fact that it was the first film to earn $300M in 2014, when there are already about 50 other films that have achieved this in previous years? Mockingjay Part 1 will also earn $300M. It will be the second film of 2014 to earn $300M. Is this less important? Just because Guardians was released earlier during the year doesn't mean there's something special about it.
As for the overseas section, weekend-by-weekend analyses and the arbitrary mention of random countries is not a standardised approach. We should choose the biggest countries (the three biggest... the five biggest... I don't know... it has to be a reasonable amount) and talk about them. With a mere $2.3M, for example, Japan is totally insignificant, because that gross is not a record in any way. Same for Italy, its openign-weekend was not a record and it was very small ($3.4M). As I've already said, we can't keep mentioning specific information for the box office performance just beacuse were highlighted in the media. The media do that because at the time, there is nothing more notable to report. Wikipedia is not like that. It does not choose the most notable things that happened to a film each week and add them to the article. It looks back at the whole run of a film and decides what is notable and what isn't.
I may have left some of the above info in my updated version of the box office section, but I still think we should discuss them. Thank you. Spinc5 ( talk) 22:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment I think Spinc has made some valid observations. Generally, when we provide information we should be able to tell the reader why it is significant. That's really the key idea behind determining what to include and what not to. If a film is the biggest film of the summer season then you can argue that is significant, but why is grossing "over $300 million" more significant than grossing more than $200 million, or $400 million. And why is ten days significant if Transformers did it in half that time? The idea is to give a global overview and then pick out other notable markets i.e. the home market; the biggest "foreign" market; the markets where it set significant records etc. Pertaining to concern "C" I also agree we should not apply arbitrary criteria to contrive new records either. To address Spinc's points individually:
As a response to Erik, I would like to say that the opening weekend of Guardians in Japan broke no records (not in the MCU, not for 2014, basically nothing). In Italy and Germany (which are mentioned in the article), it's the same picture. But you know why they were mentioned in the article. It is simply because each of those markets was the only one to open on that specific weekend. On the weekend of August 29-31, Guardians opened only in Germany and Austria. On September 12-14, Guardians only opened in Japan. On October 24-26, the only opening for Guardians was in Italy. Box office websites had to report something so they came up with as many comparisons and rankings they possibly could for those markets (e.g. for Italy: 29% above Captain America: The First Avenger, 8% above X-Men: Days Of Future Past, and 13% below Captain America: The Winter Soldier) This is WP:RECENTISM and trivialism in its greatest form. South Korea opened to $4.8 million which is bigger than Italy or Japan. But it opened on the weekend of August 1-3, on which many other bigger markets opened (Russia, UK, Mexico, Brazil) so the box office websites already had more "impressive" numbers to talk about.
As a response to Betty Logan,
1. That may be an important record for the studio, but not for the film.
2. see no.1
3. The problem is, as you've said, that we don't have official records for IMAX. So what if it's the second-best Disney film? What if there are 20 other Warner Bros or Fox films that have made more? It would rank 20th all time, which is pretty insignificant. Unless we find its all-time rank, this record is meaningless.
4. Box Office Mojo has seasonal records but that doesn't justify including it in Wikipedia. Should we thus go back and find the biggest film for every season of every year (best winter film of 2014, best spring film of 2014, best holiday film of 2013, best autumn film of 2013 etc). The sampling period is only a few months and provides no insight into whether this movie made a respectable gross or not. Statistically, due to the variation in release schedules etc, I think looking at anything smaller than a year would make no sense. For example, Monsters vs Aliens was the biggest film of spring film of 2009. But for the year, it ranked 11th. Is this really a record worth mentioning? If we don't do it for all seasons, we shouldn't do it for any of them.
5. Even if it was the only film to achieve three #1 weekends during the year, it wouldn't be worth mentioning as a record, because about 50 other films have achieved this in other years in the past. We could just say, "it was in first place for three consecutive weekends".
6. If you believe that "number of #1 weekends among Marvel films" is important, then we should rank its midnight gross, its opening day, its opening weekend, its opening week, its total gross, its number of theatres in which it was released, its number of weekends in the Top 10 among Marvel films and the list doesn't stop there. Besides opening weekend and total gross, I don't see why the rest are significant.
7. Exactly: recentism. MEANINGLESS recentism. Spinc5 ( talk) 01:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright. So I finally had some time to comment here. Please view the content in my sandbox that address many of the concerns. I believe this is an acceptable end result, given the info available to us, and what we can chose to include in the section. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 21:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
VFX is the very heart, the deep core of GotG, it is MPC's and Framestore's labour of love that created such an incredible universe yet I was astonished to see one small paragraph describing the effects, surely that is a mockery? Twobells ( talk) 21:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
GoTG is a British-American co-production not solely a US-centric film, also, the sets, visual effects, sound..well everything except some minor fx work was all done in the UK. Twobells ( talk) 17:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Going back to the left margin. I just reverted the changes, there's no consensus reached here. Still haven't seen anything which makes me change my earlier opinion. I think the material about the operations in Britain should go into the production section. I'd also like input from other editors who have put in work on the article, such as Favre1fan93, Adamstom.97, and Sock. I think we should wait to hear from some other editors before making any changes on this issue. Onel5969 ( talk) 19:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
None of the sources in the lead explicitly state that film is British purely or partially. Also we cannot use IMDb as a reliable source, see WP:IMDb/RS.--- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 22:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that instead of describing the orb as coveted, some reference should be made to its nature. I believe that referring to it as a "powerful and coveted orb" does this by using a single word. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 00:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 06:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
– Now that it's been months since the film was released, the trends have become apparent. By all evidence, Guardians of the Galaxy (film) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here and the thing the vast majority of readers are looking for. It received 1,890,566 views in the last 90 days, several times more than the other two topics combined ( Guardians of the Galaxy (2008 team) received 279,899 hits while Guardians of the Galaxy (1969 team) received 107,249). The disambiguation page itself received 197,457, which is a lot of readers to be sending to a dead end. Both comic series are relatively obscure, a fact that was widely discussed in the sources [4] [5] [6] and was noted by Marvel's own studio chief; [7] it's even a running gag in the film. It's time to get our readers to the article they're looking for. Cúchullain t/ c 20:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Should we still include this here, given that Gunn as stated it isn't actually part of the MCU and doesn't really tie in to this film beyond using the same characters? - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 21:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I recently read through WP:SIZESPLIT for the first time after a debate involving The Grand Budapest Hotel, and I learned that the recommended kilobyte count for splitting an article is around 50-60 kb, with 100 kb having the comment of "Almost certainly should be divided". While SIZESPLIT is neither policy nor guideline, it is built on consensus. Seeing as this article currently sits around 185 kb (!), I think we need to seriously consider either removal of less important content, or a splitting of articles. This is likely an issue across MCU articles, but this is frankly above and beyond readable prose size. I admittedly don't know for sure where we could split it (production, maybe?), but some shrinking and at least a little bit of splitting needs to occur. Thoughts, everyone?
Pings (since {{
ping}} isn't working):
Favre1fan93,
TriiipleThreat,
Adamstom.97,
Richiekim
Sock
(tock talk)
13:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Here's the source. 71.188.21.140 ( talk) 14:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know if Alexis Denisof is returning to portray "The Other" from The Avengers? 98.110.8.213 ( talk) 03:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Here's the source. I personally don't know where this would go, obviously in the 'music' section, but I'm not at liberty to edit the page because well, I'd probably not put it in the right context. 71.188.30.244 ( talk) 22:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
This seems like a reliable source, and they state that the budget is reportedly 150 million, so I'll put that as a placeholder unless someone finds a conflicting source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.79.120 ( talk) 00:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
It states Guardians cost $170 million to make at this link: http://www.thewrap.com/guardians-of-the-galaxy-tracking-for-60-million-opening/. Just look for where it says "This is a big bet for Disney, with a production budget of $170 million dollars." So, I guess we can add that as it's budget on the wiki page for Guardians. Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.188.167 ( talk) 00:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
James Gunn has confirmed 2 me via comments on Facebook @ this link, https://www.facebook.com/alessio.pasquali.75/posts/264968863694788?comment_id=265418683649806&offset=0&total_comments=4, that Guardians of the Galaxy is indeed 2 hours and 1 minute long. Look at the second comment that he says to me when he says "Yes, the movie is a little over 2 hours long." That proves he confirmed it. Why don't any of you believe me? Even James Gunn said it was true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.188.167 ( talk) 19:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, guys. James Gunn has again confirmed, on his Twitter page, that Guardians is indeed really 2 hours and 1 minute long at this link: https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesGunn/status/485172106418610176. Can we please add this into the page, now, that the movie is 121 minutes long and use the Twitter link as a source, and put an end to this debate? Please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.25.36 ( talk) 21:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Good news, guys. The running time of Guardians is officially classified. Here's the link for proof: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/guardians-galaxy-film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.188.167 ( talk) 20:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
This link http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/will-john-c-reilly-join-the-marvel-universe-for-guardians-of-the-galaxy claims Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely worked on the script (which is credited only as "Written by. JAMES GUNN and NICOLE PERLMAN"). The person who writes this blog doesn't say where this information came from, and it appears nowhere else that I can find: not in Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline.com or any other reliable source. Whoever "Drew" of Hitfix is, it's clear he's not someone doing original reporting but simply re-reporting what original-reporting sites say — and from what I can see, adding a rumor or "something he heard". If Hitfix is the only place claiming Markus/McFeely worked on the script, and since he doesn't say where he got that supposed iformation, then this does not seem like it reaches the threshold of reliability. -- 209.122.114.237 ( talk) 18:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why this page uses that odd ref format? Koala15 ( talk) 04:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Quill's ship is named the Milano, not the Minora as stated in the article, as per Director James Gunn's twitter: https://twitter.com/JamesGunn/status/494193606794547200. Additionally, the prison is called the Kyln and Ronan's is the Dark Astor, both spelled that way in the comics and on screen in the movie.
68.195.11.127 ( talk) 02:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Not done: Nowhere in the article does the word "Minora" appear, and the prison is said to be the Kyln three times. I can't find anyone that refers to Ronan's ship as the Dark Astor; Google shows chocolate and theatres. Please be more specific with where the issues are, and provide a source for the spelling of Astor.
Sock (pka Corvoe)
(be heard)
(my stuff)
20:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following statement to the end of Vin Diesel/Groot's section under "Cast":
"Diesel also provides Groot's voice for several foreign-language releases of the film.Puchko, Kristy (July 30, 2014). "Listen To Vin Diesel Voice Groot In Five Other Languages". CinemaBlend. Retrieved July 31, 2014." 69.136.149.237 ( talk) 06:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Done Thank you for the source! I made it the second sentence, after the "Diesel voiced and mo-capped" (paraphrasing) area.
Sock (pka Corvoe)
(be heard)
(my stuff)
20:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Sonicgum15 ( talk) 03:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Put in the Marketing Area that on July 4, 2014, a special preview of the movie was shown in the Captain EO theater at Disneyland and Epcot. 209.134.127.183 ( talk) 05:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the reception heading, please change the following wording for readability (things to omit, things to add):
In July 2014, pre-release tracking suggested that Guardians of the Galaxy could gross over $60 - $70 million or more during its opening weekend. [158] Box Office Mojo estimates that the film could gross over $82 million or more.
50.139.120.19 (
talk)
15:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the cast section, link Denarian Saal (Peter Serafinowicz's character) to Supernova (Marvel Comics), his comic counterpart. 69.136.149.237 ( talk) 02:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the plot section, the Other is killed by Ronan unprovoked during Ronan's audience with Thanos. 121.213.21.235 ( talk) 04:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Addition to the sequel information: Director James Gunn confirmed that in the sequel "there should be at least one more Guardian from the comics" during a Twitter Q&A: http://www.eonline.com/news/565485/guardians-of-the-galaxy-director-james-gunn-s-twitter-q-a-with-e
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please let's change this line:
In a separate interview for The Dark World in November, Feige added that a third, unknown Infinity Stone would be seen in the film,[112] later revealed in June 2014 to be the Power Stone.[113]
To this:
In a separate interview for The Dark World in November, Feige added that another, unknown Infinity Stone would be seen in the film,[112]
Basically removing the whole last part. Feige never said there were only three Gems, he said they had only officially revealed three Gems. Meaning the Scepter could very well still be the Mind Gem. As for the article proving the Orb from Guardians of the Galaxy was the Power Orb, that is simply untrue. The article expresses only the Opinion of it's writer, and his source is a line from the movie he most likely misunderstood. Please change it, it's causing a lot of arguments in certain, very nerdy, parts of the internet. Exodus111 ( talk) 23:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Does Cosmo have any cited relationship to Laika? I am unfamiliar with the Guardians of the Galaxy franchise, but given the CCCP... kencf0618 ( talk) 03:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Should comic creators who were credited in the film (near the bottom) be added anywhere in the article? We don't normally do this, but figured I'd ask just in case. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 04:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I think this article [1] has some pretty good stuff in it if anyone wants to use it. - adamstom97 ( talk) 07:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
So long story short, in the Development section there's this quote that reads "...cosmic side of the universe." and for the sake of them liking the capitalized U in "universe", some editors are making that quote into "...cosmic side of the [Marvel Cinematic U]niverse.", which I find ridiculous, having that bracket enclose just one letter from a word. I proposed leaving it as "[Marvel Cinematic] universe", the U being lowercase not being that bad IMO, but I got reverted by a second editor, so I leave it to you to decide. -- uKER ( talk) 16:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Gamora reveals that she has betrayed Ronan, unwilling to let him use the orb's power to destroy entire planets such as Xandar.
Gamora reveals that she has betrayed Ronan, and will instead sell the orb, thereby giving herself a chance to finally escape Thanos and live an independent life.
184.153.154.25 ( talk) 07:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
ie--at that point not even Gamora knows about the powerful stone the orb contains.
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It has been confirmed that the cocoon in the Collector's home is the regenerative form of Adam Warlock. In the post credits scene it shows in the background that the cocoon has been broken. This is of extreme importance given Warlock's role in the comic book infinity story arc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.225.14.75 ( talk) 14:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The Music section currently ends with this sentence:
By August 2014, the soundtrack, titled Awesome Mix, hit number one on the Billboard 200, becoming the first soundtrack album in history to not feature any original songs.[132]
However, if you look at the citation, the album is actually the first soundtrack album in history to hit #1 on the charts while not featuring any original songs. There have been numerous other soundtrack albums with no original songs -- for example, the hit soundtrack album for "American Graffiti," which peaked at #10 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/41_Original_Hits_from_the_Soundtrack_of_American_Graffiti). 68.173.32.194 ( talk) 05:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that part of the scenes in Xandar have been inspired by the Liège-Guillemins railway station. 92.147.133.120 ( talk) 11:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
In the box office section it says " IMAX accounted for 17% of the total gross with $1.9 million, which is the second biggest August pre-release in IMAX format behind Iron Man 3." Iron Man 3 was released in May, so I'm sure how it could have the biggest August pre-release. Mussobrennon ( talk) 00:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The critical response section seems long but I'm not criticizing. I enjoyed watching the review for families of the "Movie Moment Mom" for Fanango, Tara McNamara, she's great [2] -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 06:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why certain people are so against using the characters real name and continue to remove my correction. There are numerous sources that confirm that it is Howard The Duck and not just a generic anthropomorphic duck there it should be recognised. Wikipedia is supposed to be a realiable fact page therefore the correct information should be noted
80.47.128.195 ( talk) 22:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Cosmo is credited as a dog named "Fred" during the credits, so it can be stated that he is, indeed, Cosmo. Additionally, the Marvel Art of Guardians of the Galaxy book explicitly refers to the dog in the film as "Cosmo". As for Howard the Duck, James Gunn has identified him as such in interviews and on Twitter. I will endeavour to find sources for it.
80.193.1.164 (
talk)
16:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
According to WP:FILMPLOT, post-credits scenes and joke scenes are considered inappropriate for the plot, so what's the point of including it? -- McDoob AU93 19:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how this is a case of
WP:IAR. You're interpreting FILMPLOT differently than the majority of editors I've personally seen, as I've never seen someone argue to exclude a post-credits scene. I'm not saying you're wrong, and I respect your interpretation, but I don't think an interpretation is synonymous with a rule, making it basically impossible to "ignore" a rule.
Sock
(tock talk)
23:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Christopher Fairbank in the cast listing - he played the Broker (www.imdb.com/title/tt2015381)
ThomasAnderson ( talk) 17:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The movie is popular around the world, and in the USA.
Headline-1: Box: ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ rules lackluster Labor Day
QUOTE: "The Marvel film topped the domestic charts for the third time and benefited from crowds hoping to stretch out the waning days of summer, grossing $16.3 million over the Friday, Saturday and Sunday period and pushing its U.S. total to $274.6 million. It will likely end the four-day holiday with $21.2 million in stateside ticket sales from 3,462 locations." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 17:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
![]() | This
edit request to
Guardians of the Galaxy (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Quill, Rocket, Groot, Gamora, AND Drax all worked togeher to escape the space prison. Please make the necessary changes. 72.161.217.235 ( talk) 16:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Corrected that for you. Here's a source if unsure ;) 2601:C:780:234:21A2:1F9A:CA7C:402F ( talk) 20:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Poor subtitles in Chinese release leads to mixed reviews. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 02:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Corrected that for you. Here's a source if unsure ;) 2601:C:780:234:21A2:1F9A:CA7C:402F ( talk) 20:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Poor subtitles in Chinese release leads to mixed reviews. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 02:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Should we note that it is the third highest grossing mcu film? source - adamstom97 ( talk) 04:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
A. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Weekend-by-weekend analysis and country-by-country analysis is thus unnecessary, since all domestic/overseas weekend grosses and country-specific opening weekends/total grosses are available at Box Office Mojo in well presented tables. Noting a country or a specific weekend is only worth when there is something notable about it (for example, the film was number one on that weekend, broke a record in the specific country or the country is one of the highest-grossing territories for the film).
B. There are guidelines here suggesting we should approach the box office in a retrospective way. So stating "record" after "record" with a date tagged to each one is an undesirable historical approach to the matter. This is what box office websites do. They mention anything notable about a film that happened during the weekend or a specific day. But in retrospect some stuff are not important relative to others.
C. Rankings are done by chosing criteria: biggest film achievement among films in a specific year, biggest film achievement among films of a specific genre, biggest film achievement amongs films released by a specific studio, etc. This applies one criterion at a time. When you start applying 2 or more criteria at a time or when the sampling period is small, the record becomes less significant. e.g. biggest opening weekend during summer 2014 (summer is only four months which is a very small sampling period). D. Consistency: if it is decided that we should mention where the IMAX gross of the film ranks among Disney films, we should also do the same for its opening day, opening weekend, total gross etc. Why mention one and not mention the others?
1.Guardians of the Galaxy became the fourteenth movie of 2014 to gross over $300 million, which it did in 10 days. 2.By October 16, 2014, the film had grossed over $700 million, becoming the third Walt Disney Studios release of 2014 to do so, and the fourth Marvel Studios film to do so, behind The Avengers, Iron Man 3 and Captain America: The Winter Soldier.
These two are completely arbitrary. Why is reaching $300M and $700M so important that they need whole sentences to describe them. And if they are important, why is $400M, $500M and $600M not important. Particularly, why is notable that it reached $300M when THIRTEEN OTHER FILMS have done that too?
3.which was the biggest August pre-release in IMAX format, as well as the second best pre-release showing for a Disney or Marvel film, behind Iron Man 3. This is applying two criteria at once. If we agree that we should rank the IMAX gross among Disney films, why not rank its opening day among Disney films, its opening weekend among Disney films, its total gross among Disney films, its Labor Day gross among Disney films etc.? Sometimes we need to draw a line. I believe doing this for opening days and weekens is OK, but not anything else.
4.passing Transformers: Age of Extinction as the top grossing film of summer (May–August) 2014. This record is unnecessary to mention since the film is also the biggest film of the year (which implies it was first in the season in which it was released).
5.In the fifth weekend, Guardians of the Galaxy was number one once again,[202][203] becoming the first film of the summer to be the number one film in three weekends. Why add a whole sentence for each and every weekend in which the film was number one, instead of saying: "The film was in first place on its fourth, fifth and sixth weekends." Also, "the first film of the summer to be #1 in 3 weekends"? The smaller thhe sampling period, the more trivial the record becomes. If it was the first film in the last ten years to be #1 in 3 weekends, that would be notable. Why is a period of four months for this record notable? We could just say "The film was #1 for 3 consecutive weekends". Period. There are many that have done that in the past so even a ranking would be trivial (it is #45 [3])
6. Guardians of the Galaxy in its sixth weekend was number one for a fourth time,[205] becoming the first Marvel film to be the top film for four weeks, surpassing Captain America: The Winter Soldier and The Avengers, both of which were number one for three weeks, Instead of ranking it among all films that were #1 for 4 weekends, it is ranked among Marvel films. Not even superhero films as a whole. Why not rank its opening day among Marvel films as well. We should also rank its opening weekend among Marvel films. The list can go on forever. Ranking the "opening weekend" with all these criteria (studio, year of release, genre) may be justified, but "number of weekends in first place" shouldn't be combined with any other criteria because it is too trivial.
7.On September 12, 2014, the film passed $300 million for its domestic gross, becoming the first film of 2014 to do so. Are we really gonna celebrate the fact that it was the first film to earn $300M in 2014, when there are already about 50 other films that have achieved this in previous years? Mockingjay Part 1 will also earn $300M. It will be the second film of 2014 to earn $300M. Is this less important? Just because Guardians was released earlier during the year doesn't mean there's something special about it.
As for the overseas section, weekend-by-weekend analyses and the arbitrary mention of random countries is not a standardised approach. We should choose the biggest countries (the three biggest... the five biggest... I don't know... it has to be a reasonable amount) and talk about them. With a mere $2.3M, for example, Japan is totally insignificant, because that gross is not a record in any way. Same for Italy, its openign-weekend was not a record and it was very small ($3.4M). As I've already said, we can't keep mentioning specific information for the box office performance just beacuse were highlighted in the media. The media do that because at the time, there is nothing more notable to report. Wikipedia is not like that. It does not choose the most notable things that happened to a film each week and add them to the article. It looks back at the whole run of a film and decides what is notable and what isn't.
I may have left some of the above info in my updated version of the box office section, but I still think we should discuss them. Thank you. Spinc5 ( talk) 22:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment I think Spinc has made some valid observations. Generally, when we provide information we should be able to tell the reader why it is significant. That's really the key idea behind determining what to include and what not to. If a film is the biggest film of the summer season then you can argue that is significant, but why is grossing "over $300 million" more significant than grossing more than $200 million, or $400 million. And why is ten days significant if Transformers did it in half that time? The idea is to give a global overview and then pick out other notable markets i.e. the home market; the biggest "foreign" market; the markets where it set significant records etc. Pertaining to concern "C" I also agree we should not apply arbitrary criteria to contrive new records either. To address Spinc's points individually:
As a response to Erik, I would like to say that the opening weekend of Guardians in Japan broke no records (not in the MCU, not for 2014, basically nothing). In Italy and Germany (which are mentioned in the article), it's the same picture. But you know why they were mentioned in the article. It is simply because each of those markets was the only one to open on that specific weekend. On the weekend of August 29-31, Guardians opened only in Germany and Austria. On September 12-14, Guardians only opened in Japan. On October 24-26, the only opening for Guardians was in Italy. Box office websites had to report something so they came up with as many comparisons and rankings they possibly could for those markets (e.g. for Italy: 29% above Captain America: The First Avenger, 8% above X-Men: Days Of Future Past, and 13% below Captain America: The Winter Soldier) This is WP:RECENTISM and trivialism in its greatest form. South Korea opened to $4.8 million which is bigger than Italy or Japan. But it opened on the weekend of August 1-3, on which many other bigger markets opened (Russia, UK, Mexico, Brazil) so the box office websites already had more "impressive" numbers to talk about.
As a response to Betty Logan,
1. That may be an important record for the studio, but not for the film.
2. see no.1
3. The problem is, as you've said, that we don't have official records for IMAX. So what if it's the second-best Disney film? What if there are 20 other Warner Bros or Fox films that have made more? It would rank 20th all time, which is pretty insignificant. Unless we find its all-time rank, this record is meaningless.
4. Box Office Mojo has seasonal records but that doesn't justify including it in Wikipedia. Should we thus go back and find the biggest film for every season of every year (best winter film of 2014, best spring film of 2014, best holiday film of 2013, best autumn film of 2013 etc). The sampling period is only a few months and provides no insight into whether this movie made a respectable gross or not. Statistically, due to the variation in release schedules etc, I think looking at anything smaller than a year would make no sense. For example, Monsters vs Aliens was the biggest film of spring film of 2009. But for the year, it ranked 11th. Is this really a record worth mentioning? If we don't do it for all seasons, we shouldn't do it for any of them.
5. Even if it was the only film to achieve three #1 weekends during the year, it wouldn't be worth mentioning as a record, because about 50 other films have achieved this in other years in the past. We could just say, "it was in first place for three consecutive weekends".
6. If you believe that "number of #1 weekends among Marvel films" is important, then we should rank its midnight gross, its opening day, its opening weekend, its opening week, its total gross, its number of theatres in which it was released, its number of weekends in the Top 10 among Marvel films and the list doesn't stop there. Besides opening weekend and total gross, I don't see why the rest are significant.
7. Exactly: recentism. MEANINGLESS recentism. Spinc5 ( talk) 01:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright. So I finally had some time to comment here. Please view the content in my sandbox that address many of the concerns. I believe this is an acceptable end result, given the info available to us, and what we can chose to include in the section. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 21:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
VFX is the very heart, the deep core of GotG, it is MPC's and Framestore's labour of love that created such an incredible universe yet I was astonished to see one small paragraph describing the effects, surely that is a mockery? Twobells ( talk) 21:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
GoTG is a British-American co-production not solely a US-centric film, also, the sets, visual effects, sound..well everything except some minor fx work was all done in the UK. Twobells ( talk) 17:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Going back to the left margin. I just reverted the changes, there's no consensus reached here. Still haven't seen anything which makes me change my earlier opinion. I think the material about the operations in Britain should go into the production section. I'd also like input from other editors who have put in work on the article, such as Favre1fan93, Adamstom.97, and Sock. I think we should wait to hear from some other editors before making any changes on this issue. Onel5969 ( talk) 19:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
None of the sources in the lead explicitly state that film is British purely or partially. Also we cannot use IMDb as a reliable source, see WP:IMDb/RS.--- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 22:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that instead of describing the orb as coveted, some reference should be made to its nature. I believe that referring to it as a "powerful and coveted orb" does this by using a single word. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 00:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 06:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
– Now that it's been months since the film was released, the trends have become apparent. By all evidence, Guardians of the Galaxy (film) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here and the thing the vast majority of readers are looking for. It received 1,890,566 views in the last 90 days, several times more than the other two topics combined ( Guardians of the Galaxy (2008 team) received 279,899 hits while Guardians of the Galaxy (1969 team) received 107,249). The disambiguation page itself received 197,457, which is a lot of readers to be sending to a dead end. Both comic series are relatively obscure, a fact that was widely discussed in the sources [4] [5] [6] and was noted by Marvel's own studio chief; [7] it's even a running gag in the film. It's time to get our readers to the article they're looking for. Cúchullain t/ c 20:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Should we still include this here, given that Gunn as stated it isn't actually part of the MCU and doesn't really tie in to this film beyond using the same characters? - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 21:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I recently read through WP:SIZESPLIT for the first time after a debate involving The Grand Budapest Hotel, and I learned that the recommended kilobyte count for splitting an article is around 50-60 kb, with 100 kb having the comment of "Almost certainly should be divided". While SIZESPLIT is neither policy nor guideline, it is built on consensus. Seeing as this article currently sits around 185 kb (!), I think we need to seriously consider either removal of less important content, or a splitting of articles. This is likely an issue across MCU articles, but this is frankly above and beyond readable prose size. I admittedly don't know for sure where we could split it (production, maybe?), but some shrinking and at least a little bit of splitting needs to occur. Thoughts, everyone?
Pings (since {{
ping}} isn't working):
Favre1fan93,
TriiipleThreat,
Adamstom.97,
Richiekim
Sock
(tock talk)
13:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)