Talk:Thor (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

When Marvel's film starts production

When the Marvel Studios film begins production, I think we can make this article for that film, while linking Marvel Animations' film at the top and the Icelandic film if it has an article. Alientraveller (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Here would be best. TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox for Thor (film)

This is just a notice that I have created a sandbox for the planned Thor film to be used as the actual article once the has entered principle photography. Please feel free to comment and contribute. - TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Filming Begins Today

Per the Associated Press (reprinted here, http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FILM_MARVEL_THOR?SITE=NCWIN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT, among other places), filming begins today (January 11th), and as such, the film now warrants an article under Wikipedia guidelines 72.192.217.186 (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is slightly premature, usually we do not create the article until we have confirmation that filming has BEGUN (even if it is set to begin filming on the same day) but I wont contest it as long as the concensus is to Keep. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should apply common sense here; the threshold is more for projects that people say we will start filming next summer, which is no certainty. The article can be had. Erik (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Image use of File:Thor Movie Logo.jpg

I am questioning the use of this image in the infobox. The image is a photograph of a logo unveiled by Marvel at a trade show but was never released by the company as part of any wider advertisement campaign. Also the fact the company never released a digital version and that the only copy we have is taken from a photogragh of the image leads me question its right to be used here. What are your thoughts? -TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say not to have it. It really does not show much, and we should not have an image just for the sake of having one. Teaser poster seems to be the proper threshold, IMO. Erik (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I just uploaded new logo under this file name by mistake, forgetting about this conversation. Teaser poster are the threshold.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Iron man teaser

Should it be mentioned that the post-credit sequence at the end of Iron Man 2 alludes to this movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.28.110 (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not? It's obvious that Thor is part of the Iron Man/Captain America/Thor/Avengers interlinked movies. 174.101.36.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC).

Unil the Thor movie is released we have no way of knowing if or how the Iron Man 2 scene will affect it. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The scene is now mentioned in the Marketing section, still we should refrain from entering it as plot information. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

fan reaction to Elba's casting

It doesn't make sense to me that something which has received media coverage, and Elba himself has commented on, can't appear in this article until after the film is released.Prezbo (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSFILM#CAST the focus of this section is "Background information about the cast and crew". Elba's qoute in the article was in reference to casting not to fan reaction. There will be a reception section once there is enough information to support it, until then remember there is no deadline.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with that essay, I think it's good for Wikipedia to remain up to date. It's weird for Wikipedia to pretend that casting decisions occur in a vacuum when the actors themselves are responding to public commentary. I guess the focus of a "Casting" section should be on production information, but it doesn't need to rigidly ignore everything else. Casino Royale (2006 film), which is a featured article, talks about the public controversy surrounding Daniel Craig's casting in the "Casting" section.Prezbo (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As a part of the casting process Elba is able to provide insight on the background of that process. Fan reaction (to-date) has had no bearing on it so therefore is not notable in this section. There will be a reception section in the future. However I have readded the information until such time that the infromation can be placed in the appropiate section. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And it also goes beyond just comic book fans. A lot of people who follow the Asatru faith are speaking out about it too. Though ofcourse, this goes along with the racists too unfortunantley.99.54.189.90 (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This should definitely have its own section. It needn't even be under "Casting" or "Reception". Just "Controversy", with "==" either side of it. This racism furore is ridiculous and we have hundreds of sources now, like the Guardian, commenting. Actually, more to the point, the correct title would be "White supremacist boycott attempt".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 04:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

this would be giving it undue prominence. You say yourself that "this racism furore is ridiculous", so I don't quite see why you think it should be given its own h2 section

this would only mean two things: (a) we would be suckers for falling for Branagh's cheap attempts at producing publicity through unconventional casting, and (b) we would be suckers for transporting the racist idiots who fell for Branagh's publicity stunt.

also, I suggest that the soundbite from Elba's interview should be pruned just to give the actor less opportunity to make a fool of himself. It's easy to sound stupid in unrehearsed interviews, but It would be difficult to say anything more dumb or trite than "If you know anything about the Nords, they don’t look like me but there you go. I think that's a sign of the times for the future. I think we will see multi-level casting ... and I think that's good" --dab (𒁳) 11:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It's also difficult to say anything more stupid than calling people criticising a casting decision "racist idiots" just because SOME racist idiots criticise it, too, and ethnicity is the main factor in criticism. By that logic, it would also be racist to criticise the casting if an upcoming filming of Huckleberry Finn's adventures would have Jim portrayed by a white guy. --46.59.141.171 (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not a valid comparison. Jim being African-American is an integral plot element, just as it is with, say, the protagonist of Ralph Ellison's novel Invisible Man. Asgardian ethnicity is not integral to the Thor mythos. To underscore this, I would note that in one recent Thor miniseries, Heimdall is black.

I remember when Sci Fi Channel's Battlestar Galactica remake was in the works, and fans were vociferously up in arms over the fact that Starbuck was a woman in this conception. And now? Katee Sackhoff is a sci-fi icon and fans and critics widely consider the series one of TV's best. This Elba furor, too, shall pass. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay then. First of all. Huckleberry Finn is a different story all together. It's based on facutal events like slavery. Second of all, it only needs a small 1 or 2 sentences in the reception part when the movie comes out. 3rd of all, it is stupid and they are being racist idiots. Otherwise, everytime Jesus was cast as a white man people should have been complaining. Or when Andromeda from Clash of the Titans is cast as a white woman when in the actual mythology she was an Ethiopian woman. And lastly, I've heard a little bit of tension about the Asian being cast in the movie too and I believe it needs a small 1 or 2 sentences as well.174.3.182.173 (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess, from my perspective, it comes down to Dbachmann's point about undue weight, which is a legitimate guideline concern of Wikipedia's. If there really is widespread, organized objection to Elba's casting, then I think it deserves a mention. If it's isolated grumbling, then it's non-notable. Just how a big an uproar is there? Is it an uproar at all, or just a handful of disgruntled individuals? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There was some minor media reporting of fan objections when Elba was initially cast and again when the boycott from a single separatist group was announced. The most persistent outcrys have come from message boards like IMDB. In fact when Zythe mentioned "we have hundreds of sources", I have found only about a dozen RSs reporting on the topic with most of them just regurgitating the same information. I still say, the way the info is presented now is probably best, mentioning the objections, boycott and Elba's reaction without giving too much undue weight.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Man, I guess I should have looked closer at the article. Yeah, the information is totally mentioned, and cited. (I haven't checked the cites but presume they're OK, given other editors' watchfulness.) Honestly, this seems covered just fine as it is — it even includes her reaction. I'm not sure adding anything else is needed or useful. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As a fan myself, I know that the fan reaction wasn't all negative, but mixed. And the link only takes the negative comments and posts them. It completely ignores the possitive ones (and believe me their were for both Elba and even more Asano). Does that really qualify as a good source of information?174.3.164.53 (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

ComicBookMovie.com cannot be used as a ref source

This has been a recurring issue at Captain America: The First Avenger. It appears that the site ComicBookMovie.com gets its content almost entirely from non-professional reader submissions. This makes it no different than a forum that posts fan snapshots of movie locales or gives "news" that may or may not be accurate. The site even runs a disclaimer that these are reader postings and that the site isn't liable for inaccurate or libelous news posted there!

Forum postings, no matter how they're clothed, are not reliable sources by Wikipedia definition, and ComicBookMovie.com reader-submitted posts cannot be allowed as reference citations.

If something is of genuine encyclopedic or newsworthy value, it will be reported in RS sources. If something is only being "reported" by a fan at ComicBookMovie.com, that alone should raise a red flag. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

If the site itself can't vouch for the accuracy of its postings, how can Wikipedia? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The sites accuracy has yet to be proven to be anymore unrelaible than other such film sites and their work has been re-reported by other sources deemed to be reliable.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

These just few of hundreds of examples:

• MTV
• Rotten Tomatoes
• Comic Book Resources
• Cinematical
• Ain't it Cool News
• /Film
• Latino Review
• I Watch Stuff

Doesn't matter to us - if a RS pick up on one of their stories, we can use *that* source but I completely agree with Tenebrae - comicbookmovie.com is not a RS and should not be used. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion has been taken to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#comicbookmovie.com and the use of citizen journalism as reliable sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And, OK, with all due respect to Triiple, who's a valued member of WikiProject Comics, his list is a bit disingenuous. Some of the sites there aren't quoting comicbookmovie.com, but in fact comicbookmovie.com's copying of work from standard journalistic sources. The Rotten Tomatoes writer (lazily, in my opinion), cites comicbookmovie.com's Zak Penn quotes -- but those quotes were secondhand and came from Wizard magazine. In no sense does that constitute a site using comicbookmovie.com as a source since comicbookmovie.com was not, in fact, the source of the quote. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I made that list from a quick google search. Regardless everyone please come to the discussion at the project talk page. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Release Dates

Per WP:FILMRELEASE, Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film. According to Learn Thor's International Release Dates, the earliest release is April 27, 2011 and the release date in the country of origin is May 6, 2011. That is why both dates are included.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Iron Man 2

The film was teased in Iron Man 2.

Is it possible that this portion could be a little more informative. It's a little too simple. It could sound a little better and encyclopedic and a source there wouldn't hurt either. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I expanded it with the citation used in the Iron Man 2 article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It does look and sound a lot better now. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't only Elba

The boycott was about the Asian guy too, if you've actually been on the website. I know this and I've seen it myself. It's more about Elba, but also about Tanabou so why was my mentioning it removed? If we're mentioning Elba's casting being controversial, then we should at least mention the same thing about Tanabou.174.3.182.173 (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It has to be covered by multiple third-party reliable sources to make it notable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Then why is Elba's casting being mentioned? They're boycotting for both of them. More Elba, but still. Either mention that they're boycotting for the both of them or neither of them.174.3.182.173 (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The cited source only mentions Elba. If you have references for Asano please list them.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Likewise. I've scanned the cites here, and they make no mention of anyone other than Elba. The Guardian article cites complaining fans, but doesn't even mention where these comments ostensibly appeared, let along give a link. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's a link to a comicbook fansite that is discussing race. I know they make several mentions about Asano and even more about Idris Elba. Also, if you look at the boycott page and actually read it they make several mentions of the "Chinese person" or the "Korean person" that's going to play Hogun. Of course you all and I know that he's not Chinese or Korean, but rather Japanese, but that's just how they think and talk because they're racists. There was quite a bit of talk among fans (myself included) when Asano was cast and even more when Elba was cast. But like I said Elba's casting as an actual Norse God kind of dwarfed Asano's so it's harder to find headlines about it online. However in almost every discussion about Elba's casting you'll find a smaller discussion about Asano's casting.

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=185926&page=1174.3.164.53 (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Again we need reliable sources. Please take the time to read this guideline on identifying reliable sources. We do however appreciate your interest on the subject.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

So would the Boycott-Thor website be considered a reliable source? Because they do mention his casting there.174.3.182.173 (talk) 07:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so it's only things like articles, right? And shouldn't this be in the reception section (of course when the movie comes out) and be left out until then? That's what they did with the Dragon Ball movie I heard.174.3.164.53 (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Citing The Hollywood Reporter

I've learned to use WebCitation.org for most every citation I add to Wikipedia since links go dead with alarming frequency. But it's especially important to add a WebCitation or some other archive link for The Hollywood Reporter citations since they're only available to the general public at the original URL for a limited time. They then go into a subscriber archive with a different URL and may or may not be searchable. (You know how internal search engines are.)

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

Using http://webcitation.org takes less than 60 seconds once you've done it a couple of times. If we believe in Wikipedia as a lasting source of information and not a news site for the latest on this Marvel movie or that, it's critical that we archive our citations. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Preparation for release

This will be the first major comic book film of 2011, and I wanted to see if we could prepare the article further for the film's release. It appears that we have plenty of detail, so I think the main improvements will be to formatting. For example, I think we should be writing out the references' dates in full and using {{nowrap}} for the month-day pairings. In addition, we should make the references more consistent in appearance. Websites' names are not supposed to be italicized, but we tend to do that because we put the names in the "work" fields. It may be better to do this for non-print references: write the domain into the "work" field (e.g., comicbookresources.com), and write the website name into the "publisher" field (e.g., Comic Book Resources). Would this approach work? Or is there another one we can use to avoid unnecessary italics?

Some structural thoughts: I think "Marketing" should be revamped to avoid indiscriminate detail per MOS:FILM#Marketing. It is commonplace for most films to roll out media materials, and we should focus on exceptional events, like the expensive Super Bowl commercial. I don't think we need all the sub-section headings in "Marketing" either; could we put all these paragraphs under one heading? My other thought is wondering if the "Cast" section could be formatted another way. I feel like the current presentation is the best we can do given our limits (having role-centric paragraphs and bullet points). It is not very navigable, either. I don't know what could be a better presentation. Could we have lines between the items (four dashes)? Could we have a simpler cast list and then write prose that can somehow stitch all these character details together? Erik (talk | contribs) 22:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have no prefence for date formating as long as its uniform. I dont think we are supposed to italicize domain names so putting them in work field wouldnt be benefital. Technically I believe website or publication is doing the work and its host or publisher should be publisher (e.g. "|work=Variety |publisher=Reed Business Information" or "|work=MTV News |publisher=Viacom"). Correct me if I'm wrong.

• Which points in Marketing section would you consider to be indiscriminate? I think all points detailed mark milestones in film's marketing campaign. We can get rid of the sub-section headers though.

• I agree the current format is best we can do. Although spacing could help the presentation. This is what the page would look with lines in-between each item. I do however feel strongly that information should remain with list as is the case with The Dark Knight (film). I feel this information would get lost jumbled together in body of the article, allowing the information to remain with its respective cast member aids casual reading.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Jack Merridew had the idea of making it into a defintion list.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I like the definition list approach a lot. I think my issue with the original approach is that it is hard to identify the actor and role with ease. The bullet points may do the job somewhat, but the definition list allows us to clearly identify the name. I support it. Need to see why Xerowlebi does not. What do you think?

In addition, for the references, you make a good point about avoiding italicizing. For print publications that appear online, we can use the "work" field (e.g., Variety). Maybe for only websites, we do not use the "work" field and only use the "publisher" field? That way, we avoid any unnecessary italicizing of websites, which do not need them. (I know there are guidelines stating this, but can't find them right now.)

For the marketing section, I think mentioning the publicity image and the official logo are a bit mundane. I would rather see a little more elaboration about the Thor presentation at Comic-Con, as that is more of an unusual event. In addition, I think we should be brief about mentioning the trailer if we are not going to put context behind it. For example, we can say that a trailer for Thor was released online and in theaters, but its first television spot was at the Super Bowl. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit, I personally like the simple list above the formatting that the definition list brings, but, besides being something not usually seen, the definition list bolds the names, something that was specifically rejected several times, partly because of the links contained within and something with accessibility, mostly just for being excessive bolding. And it specifically states in WP:FILMCAST not to bold them.

|work= and |publisher= are not interchangeable, yes |work= auto-italicized the text and |publisher= does not, but they each serve there purpose: |publisher= being the original source of the information, and |work= being whichever magazine/website/etc. "copied" the info and was chosen as the ref URL, |work= and |publisher= can be the same, in which only |publisher= should be used. The italicization issues with this have been brought up several times, and the last I've heard of it was that it was to late to remove the auto-italics on |work= now, as it would require every transclusion to be assessed on whether it should be italic or not. And the misuse of these are off the scale, and so would be trying to fix it. On what to put in the fields; I've never been a fan of putting the domain name in it, but rather the name of the outlet (e.g. not "comicbookresources.com" but "Comic Book Resources"). _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 02:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Why exactly is this article getting a brand new format not being used anywhere else? Shouldn't we be working on making this article more alike GA's and FA's? Additionally, the inline HTML to avoid the bolding really should not be done. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 01:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Good and Featured Articles have used this approach to list actors and their roles and to provide real-world context. It is the best we have done based on previous experience. The problem is that navigation does not come with ease with that approach. With this approach similar to a definition list, names are more readily located. If we can do better, we should. Yet another approach would be to use a triple-column table with Actor, Role, and Background labels, though I am not sure if it will look better than the definition list-esque approach. As for the bolding workaround, we could just use bullet points for the actor/role and indent the following paragraphs. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You know that the ':' we all type so much are creating the xhtml dd-element, that is, the definition portion of a definition list (with the ';' being the dt-element, or definition term portion (and the dl-wrapper being created implicitly by the use of the others in wiki-text)). Mixing '*' and ':' is semantic gibberish; '*' is for bulleted lists, that don't have associated definitions. The font-weight: normal; and the spans is a hack; it's about forcing-away the bold that was objected to. I'd be all for cutting it and going with the bold, as I originally did. Mebbe the 'as' whomever should be moved into the definition (after the ':'). Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

A definition list is semantically correct; it's defining the cast ;) Jack Merridew 07:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted back to the list, plain HTML code should not be present in an article, getting rid of it bolds the names again which is specifically against WP:MOSFILM. It looks like there are two options; using bulleted list or all-prose. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What about bullets for the actors and roles, then indented prose underneath them? That would allow the names to be visible without any HTML or bolding. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Like this?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this style. I think it's helpful to have it bulleted out, as well as including more detailed descriptions. Perhaps the "Cast" section could begin with a brief summary paragraph prior to cast descriptions.--TravisBernard (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Travis! We're just trying out new things here. :) For the summary paragraph, what would you propose to have in it? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Erik, I think this summary paragraph could be useful for some film pages, but not necessarily all. Let me see if I can find a good example, and I'll post it here. If I can't find anything, I might just put together a draft. Thanks for the reply, and I look forward to working with WikiProject Film. --TravisBernard (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Erik, I found a few great examples, and I'm excited to share them with the team. The casting section of Alien has a cast overview, highlighting this "summary" or "intro" paragraph idea. Another example is the cast section for Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. The key to the intro paragraph is that it provides context and briefly describes the casting decisions made for each film. As previously noted, not all films necessarily need an intro/summary paragraph; however, it could be very effective in a number of situations. Erik, feel free to chime in here. Although the comment was directed at Erik, I'm also curious how everyone else feels about the intro/summary paragraph idea. --TravisBernard (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I like it. On some films with labyrinthine casting processes over the course of years and versions (see Green Hornet (2011 film)) it might not work, but for straightforward circumstances like here, it's nice to have an overview that puts the casting in context. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not think a "summary paragraph" for a cast list would be of any help. Summarizng the contents of a list just seems redundant. Any developmental information regarding casting belongs in Production section. The list here in the Cast section already basically summarizes the information in the Production section anyway with the addition of some insight regarding the parts from the cast members. If you take a look most of same refrences are cited in both sections.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the casting section of the Thor article, or all Film articles in general? I don't think the cast summary is appropriate for all articles, but in certain instances I think it is helpful. For example, if the casting within the production section needs special attention or has lengthy and noteworthy points, why bog down the production section? --TravisBernard (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This article specifically. But to be clear the "Cast" section of this article is NOT a "Casting" section so a summary paragraph is not necessary. Casting developments are presented in the Production section because it directly relates to the production process.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Colm Feore's character

In the link I just added for Skarsgard's character, the writer states that Feore's character is not Ymir. This is in line with the leaked script from a few months ago, where his character was Laufey. There are also movie toy lines with his Laufey character present. Are the toys enough of a source to solidly add Laufey as his character? Or do we have to wait for a more legitimate source to pop up? Fandraltastic (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right! He addresses the interview with Prof. Andrews. I need to remember to READ first REVERT later. Good find BTW. Regarding Laufey I think we should remove the character name for Feore and wait for something more substantial. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If you listen to the audio in the source I added Feore specifically refers to himself as Laufey at about 14:20. It is not included in the text write-up of the article but you can clearly hear it in the audio. -Fandraltastic (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Good work with finding the name! However I wouldnt include the link to the mythological figure just yet. Theres no indication that this Laufey is Loki's father (mother in myth), who by all accounts is dead by time this story takes place. Laufey by all we know could be the "Bob" of Frost Giant names. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, although Laufey is a very specific character in both the myths and the comics that this movie is based on. I suppose no one will come right out and state that he's Loki's father so we'll have to wait for release. -Fandraltastic (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Idris Elba on casting

Saw this today. It's quite a bit of coverage and seems worthy as a source to reference. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Saw that too, seems THR is using a old quote that is already present in the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Aw, okay. and I thought that the article was going to go in-depth about Thor itself. It provides the history, which is interesting but does not belong here. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually its not the same quote but close to it. I do however prefer Elba's wording in this article. [I] Will update the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Triii. Would you kindly explain why you have reverted the following edits I made under Casting for Idris Elba? I wrote the following: "He is the all-seeing and all-hearing guardian sentry of Asgard, he stands on the rainbow bridge, Bifrost and stands watch for any attacks to Asgard. Heimdall stood as the guardian of Asgard, defending the city's gates from any intruders, and was one of the most trusted servants of Odin...The casting prompted a boycott of the film by *some* white supremacists..." and I reduced the quote down because most of the section is just negative feedback. If you want a criticisms section, put it in the article at the end as is the norm. Thank you. Conficutus (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page, I readded the word "some". However the description you wrote is overly long, the movie is unreleased so we only use the most basic of descriptions as there are a lot of current unknowns. Also we don't want to overburden the cast section with plot information. The quote you removed was in response to the criticism that balances out the criticism itself. The quote should remain as is full and intact as not to misrepresent Elba's words.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've read the above talks, I think I know why the full quote is being put in here and as said previously, it isn't plausible for us to have the casting section of Idris Elba primarily addressing the criticisms. These should be addressed to Kenneth Branagh, who chose him. I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. Instead of having a section under casting for Isris Elba with this , why not just have a H2 section called Controversy or Criticisms at the bottom of the page and leave the casting section to explain what the role of Idris is, as all the rest of the characters do? That's the norm isn't it? Oh and it seems somewhat odd for you to complain about the length of the casting section for Idris Elba, saying what I wrote was *Overly long* and yet when the quote was reduced you reverted it? Conficutus (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like you to have a look at other Cast sections: [[1]] [[2]] [[3]]

As you can see from other articles, it would be more acceptable and to Wikipedia standards, to erase all the unnecessary information from the casting sections and simply have listed the names of the people cast in the film. Then, just as you can from the link above of the controversy stir surrounding the film Cleopatra, you can have a controversy section at the bottom of the article. Surely this is the more plausible way? Obviously you are very protective over how the article is, even though the rating of it is a C rated article. I think several people have already pointed out the criticisms belong elsewhere. Conficutus (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Overly long in regards to plot only descriptions per WP:PLOT. Also per WP:FILMCAST relevant background information is perfectly acceptable. No information provide in this article is unnecessary as it provides background and insight to the characters. Lastly criticism for Elba's is coming from a small vocal minority giving it is own section would place WP:UNDUE on it. The topic is covered in five short sentences (2 criticizing and 3 in response). --TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

What about WP:TOPIC ? How about including the positive side. This is what Kenneth has to say: "“Idris Elba is a fantastic actor – we were lucky to get him. He provides all the characteristics we need from Asgard’s gatekeeper, the man who says, “Thou shalt not pass”. When Idris Elba says that, you know you’re gonna have a problem. He’s smart, intelligent, handsome and an absolute joy to work with. If you have a chance to have a great actor in the part, everything else is irrelevant,” he said.“If you’re going to say the colour of his skin matters in a story like this, look at 50 years of Thor comics to see how many ways great artists have bent alleged ‘rules’. Look at the Norse myths to see the way they confounded and contradicted themselves. " I don't see that quote included. Obviously, the height of this controversy stir means it deserves its own section. I mean, you have one sentence on what the cast role is, the rest of the paragraph talks about the controversy it has caused. That's not following guidelines [[4]]. There should be a section for controversy. Conficutus (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A director calling his actor "fantastic" is hardly notable. Besides Elba reasonably counters the criticism in his own words which in my opinion is more worth more as he is the recipient of this criticism.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

How is a director defending his decision to choose an actor not notable? Incredible. An actor defending himself is notable, but the director that defend his own decision for choosing the actor in the first place isn't? They are some serious issues here. I think you need to look at WP:STRUCTURE. The controversy needs a section of its own to give equal say to Idris, the director and the reason for the controversy. Already we have two large quotes. Anyone in the right frame of mind can see that you're not following WP:NPOV guidelines. It deserves its own controversy section. Conficutus (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A director calling his actor "fantastic" is hardly notable. Besides Elba reasonably counters the criticism in his own words which in my opinion is more worth more as he is the recipient of this criticism.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You have repeated your opinion. The director chose th actor, so the director should have a say in why *he* chose the actor as this is what the controversy is about. The controversy has nothing to do with what Idris says, but why the director chose the actor. This is where you are going wrong. Conficutus (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the double post. Of course Branagh is going praise Elba as he has already done with everybody else he has casted in this film. If we add every time the cast and crew says something nice about each other, the article will become bogged down with everybody patting themselves on back. The "contorversey" is covered and countered with the appropriate amount of weight.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No Triiiple. This is wrong. I could equally say, of course Idris is going to defend himself, yet you have no problem including his quote. The director chose the actor. He of all people deserves a say as to why, and he has explained himself. It's WP:NPOV. The director deserves a say, and possibly the actor. But certainly there is no need for both and if one quote should be chosen, it should be the directors. That's the bottom line. So are you going to change the quote, add the section or am I? Conficutus (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The article will remain as is unless you have WP:CONSENSUS to support your bold change.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

And the consensus is we should have a section for controversy on it's own so that the director can have say on this too, or else, remove what Idris said and put in what the director has to say about *his* decision to *choose* Idris Elba to be *cast* in *his* version of Thor. And here is something mentioned above in one of your conversations about the quote you think works well currently "also, I suggest that the soundbite from Elba's interview should be pruned just to give the actor less opportunity to make a fool of himself. It's easy to sound stupid in unrehearsed interviews, but It would be difficult to say anything more dumb or trite than "If you know anything about the Nords, they don’t look like me but there you go. I think that's a sign of the times for the future. I think we will see multi-level casting ... and I think that's good" --dab" Conficutus (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been sick and unable to edit for a few days. I'd thought this issue had been settled by consensus. From what I gather, a small fringe group objected to Elba's casting on racial grounds. Elba, the object of this ire, responded with a comment. I would say that had Brannagh said something specific and detailed about Elba's casting -- that he deliberately wanted multi-racial characters, that the studio told him he needed ethic characters to appeal to the ethnic market or whatever it may or may not be — then that would be solid and useful information. Brannagh simply calling an actor "fantastic," which is pro forma business-as-usual, really isn't notable.

Additionally, I would also say that this relatively small issue might be deserving of a Controversy section if it had made significant national news coverage, or if noted civil rights leaders had weighed in with opinions. This issue, brought up by a fringe group (and maybe not even a formal group at that) seems as if it's getting blown out of proportion, thus getting into Undue Weight territory. Can you see my reasoning? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with WP:UNDUE. This is what the director said about his decision to choose him: "“If you’re going to say the colour of his skin matters in a story like this, look at 50 years of Thor comics to see how many ways great artists have bent alleged ‘rules’. Look at the Norse myths to see the way they confounded and contradicted themselves. " This is clearly a more succinct and acurate reflection of the argument that should be presented here. Any sane person should see that. Conficutus (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that saying someone who disagrees with you must be insane is a good argument. It is also uncivil. Having an entire controversy section because one small fringe group said something gives that fringe group far more importance than they deserve, hence WP:UNDUE. Is there anyone besides this tiny fringe that had a problem with Elba's casting? Was there any organized opposition, a petition, a boycott threat? Was it any sort of significant story in the mainstream press, or just some tiny item buried in the paper? These are some reasons to contradict your statement, "It has nothing to do with WP:UNDUE." I'm not calling you insane for disagreeing with me, but giving reasons.

That said, I'm certainly willing to meet you halfway and say that if you want to include the shorter Brannagh quote (e.g. Added Brannagh, "If you're going to say...contradicted themselves") following the existing Elba quote, I myself would have no objection. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done, I replaced Elba's response in lieu of this one. We really dont need one sentence about a boycott from a small fringe followed by 9,000 remarks stating how wrong they are, it just gives the controversy more attention then it deserves. I left Elba's second quote because that is in regards to casting in general not a response to the boycott.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've found a better source to add to the casting section of Idris Elba and I would like to include it on the grounds that this is Idris Elba describing what he feels it is like to act in this part, as all the rest of the actors do in casting sections. Currently, Idris Elbas casting section is far too long, only talks about the controversy and doesn't give him a say as to what he feels like playing the role. http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/apr/03/the-god-in-idris-elba ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 16:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence does talk about his inspirations. I didn't see much in that article that you posted regarding his character specifically, was there a quote in particular you wanted to add?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's been added. The paragraph has been cleaned up and I think all would agree this is far better. What do you think? ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 17:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I disagree, the quote you added was more in praise of Branagh. The focus should be kept directly on the role itself. Also the comments you removed addressed his casting directly and reflection of his inspiration for the character.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a clear improvement to the section. Kenneth's input is just his description that he thinks the controversy is "daft" and Idris has briefly described his appreciation in having this part to play, as well as his appreciation of Kenneth who gave him the role. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 17:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect his appreciation isn't notable, he of course was happy to take the part as I am sure every other actor in movie is happy to be involved. The quote you added was not an improvement especially in comparison to what you removed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Another revert. I think it's clear Triii that you are going against yourself here. Here are the edits that you keep reverting: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thor_%28film%29&action=historysubmit&diff=424887284&oldid=424886638. Here is what you said earlier: " I replaced Elba's response in lieu of this one. We really dont need one sentence about a boycott from a small fringe followed by 9,000 remarks stating how wrong they are, it just gives the controversy more attention then it deserves."

In that respect, I have coupled two sentences together about comic book fans and white supremacists, I have removed the overly long quotes and replaced them with succint ones describing 1. How Idris feels to play the part as Heimdall (which is what all casting sections should have) 2. Idris defends Kenneth's decision to cast him in the film. and Kenneth's quote has been shortened to his description that he thinks the controversy stir is "daft". There is nothing else that needs to be in the article. Anyone interested in wikipedia standards should see that you are not acting in the best interests of the article. The version done by myself is much more in synch with the rest of the casting descriptions. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 17:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The reaction by some comicbook fans and the boycott by white supremacists are two separate things. Idris's feeling's about playing part as I stated above are not notable. I could load up the article with comments from each actor expressing their gratitude for being involved. Their appreciation offers no insight to the role itself. The comments you removed was in regard to his casting in general not a response to any criticism,which by the way also contained information regarding his preparation for the role.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Triii, you seem to be completely missing the point. You have contravened yourself again. Here is what you wrote: Idris's feeling's about playing [the] part as I stated above are not notable. Perhaps we should make the follwoing edits to the article then:

• Chris Hemsworth as Thor: The god of thunder based on the Norse mythological deity of the same name. Director Kenneth Branagh and Marvel Studios chief Kevin Feige chose Hemsworth after a back-and-forth process in which the 27-year-old actor was initially dropped from consideration and then given a second chance to read for the part.[8] Hemsworth said the film stays true to the comics, stating, there are "so many different versions of the comic books, they've sort of bonded quite a few of them to form this particular story, but it's all very true to the original stuff".[9] On his take of the character, Hemsworth said, "We just kept trying to humanize it all, and keep it very real. Look into all the research about the comic books that we could, but also bring it back to 'Who is this guy as a person, and what's his relationship with people in the individual scenes?'"[10] About approaching Thor's fighting style, he remarked, "First, we looked at the comic books and the posturing, the way [Thor] moves and fights, and a lot of his power seems to be drawn up through the ground. We talked about boxers, you know, Mike Tyson, very low to the ground and big open chest and big shoulder swings and very sort of brutal but graceful at the same time, and then as we shot stuff things became easier".[11]

• Natalie Portman as Jane Foster: A scientist and Thor's love interest. Marvel Studios stated in an announcement that the character was updated from the comics' initial portrayal for the feature adaptation.[12] When asked why she took the role, Portman replied, "I just thought it sounded like a weird idea because Kenneth Branagh's directing it, so I was just like, 'Kenneth Branagh doing Thor is super-weird, I've gotta do it.'"[13] Portman also stated that she really wanted to do a big effects movie that emphasized character, and getting to do it with Branagh was a new way of approaching it, relative to Star Wars.[14] Regarding her preparation for the role Portman remarked, "I signed on to do it before there was a script. And Ken, who's amazing, who is so incredible, was like, 'You can really help create this character'. I got to read all of these biographies of female scientists like Rosalind Franklin who actually discovered the DNA double helix but didn't get the credit for it. The struggles they had and the way that they thought – I was like, ‘What a great opportunity, in a very big movie that is going to be seen by a lot of people, to have a woman as a scientist'. She's a very serious scientist. Because in the comic she's a nurse and now they made her an astrophysicist. Really, I know it sounds silly, but it is those little things that makes girls think it's possible. It doesn't give them a [role] model of 'Oh, I just have to dress cute in movies'".[15]

• Tom Hiddleston as Loki: Thor's adoptive brother and nemesis based on the deity of the same name. Hiddleston was chosen after previously working with Branagh on Ivanov and Wallander.[5] Initially Hiddleston auditioned to play Thor but Branagh decided his talent would be better harnessed playing Loki. Hiddleston stated that "Loki's like a comic book version of Edmund in King Lear, but nastier". Hiddleston also stated that he had to keep a strict diet before the start of filming because "Ken [Branagh] wants Loki to have a lean and hungry look, like Cassius in Julius Caesar. Physically, he can't be posing as Thor".[16] Hiddleston looked at Peter O'Toole as inspiration for Loki as well explaining, "Interestingly enough, he [Kenneth Branagh] said to look at Peter O'Toole in two specific films, The Lion in Winter and Lawrence of Arabia. What’s interesting about The Lion in Winter is, [O'Toole] plays Prince Henry, and what’s beautiful about his performance is you see how damaged he is. There's a rawness [to his performance], it's almost as if he's living with a layer of skin peeled away. He's grandiose and teary and, in a moment, by turns hilarious and then terrifying. What we wanted was that emotional volatility. It’s a different acting style, it's not quite the same thing, but it’s fascinating to go back and watch an actor as great as O'Toole head for those great high hills".[17]

Hemsworth, Portman, Dennings, and Hiddleston at the 2010 San Diego Comic-Con International.

• Stellan Skarsgård as Erik Selvig: A scientist doing research in New Mexico who encounters Thor.[18][19] Skarsgård stated that he was not initially familiar with Thor.[20] As to why he took the part, Skarsgård remarked, I "chose Thor because of [director] Kenneth Branagh. The script was nice and we got to rehearse and talk to the writers and do some collaborating in the process to make it fit us. So I had a very happy time on it. What I always try to do is immediately do something I just haven’t done so I get variation in my life. I’ve made about 90 films and if I did the same thing over and over again I would be bored by now. I try to pick different films, I go and do those big ones and having done that I can usually afford to go and do some really small obscure films and experiment a little".[21]

• Colm Feore as Laufey: King of the Frost Giants.[22][23] Feore stated it took five hours for his makeup to be applied.[24] About his character Feore remarked, "I am the King of Frost Giants. And if you’ve seen any of the Frost Giants, you know that I am, of course, the Napoleon of Frost Giants. We’ve got some massive, fabulous guys who dwarf me and come in at around eight-and-a-half feet, nine feet. But, no. Can’t you tell by the commanding presence? I am the boss".[22]

• Ray Stevenson as Volstagg: A member of the Warriors Three; a group of three Asgardian adventurers who are among Thor's closest comrades, known for both his hearty appetite and wide girth.[25] Stevenson previously worked with Kenneth Branagh in the 1998 film The Theory of Flight, and with Marvel Studios as the titular character in Punisher: War Zone. Stevenson wore a fat suit for the role, <del? stating, "I've tried the suit on, and what they've done is kind of sex him up: he's sort of slimmer but rounder.". Stevenson said, "He's got every bit of that Falstaffian verve and vigor, and a bit of a beer gut to suggest that enormous appetite, but he's not the sort of Weeble-shaped figure he is in the comics. He's Falstaff with muscles. I've got this amazing foam-injected undersuit that flexes with me.".[26]

• Kat Dennings as Darcy Lewis: A co-worker of Jane Foster.[32] Dennings described her character as Foster's "little helper gnome".[14] Dennings also stated that her role was expanded during the rehearsal process.[33] Dennings explained, "She’s kind of like a cute, clueless, little puppy or maybe a hamster. There wasn’t much on the page for the Darcy role to begin with and I didn’t even see a script before I took the job so I didn’t really know who Darcy was at first. But she really evolved — she’s so much fun now even. She’s very Scooby-Doo if that makes sense. She’s always three steps behind and reacting to what’s happening with these great expressions; 'Zoinks'. She gets things wrong and doesn’t care".[34]

• Anthony Hopkins as Odin: [37] In an interview Hopkins stated he knew nothing of the comic. About the film he said, "It's a superhero movie, but with a bit of Shakespeare thrown in". He also revealed that the film uses all modern language.[38] Hopkins stated, "I'm very interested in that relationship between fathers and sons", and that, "My father's relationship with me was cold. He was a hot-blood character but to me, cold. When I was young, he expressed his disappointment because I was bad in school and all of that. He didn't mean any harm, but I felt I could never meet up to his expectations." Hopkins also expressed that he finds a personal resonance in the Odin role, saying, "He's a stern man. He's a man with purpose. I play the god who banishes his son from the kingdom of Asgard because he screwed up. He's a hot-headed, temperamental young man... probably a chip off of the old block but I decide he's not really ready to rule the future kingdom, so I banish him. I'm harsh and my wife complains and I say, 'That is why I'm king.' He's ruthless, take-it-or-leave-it. Women are much more forgiving; men are not so forgiving. I know in my life, my karma is, 'If you don't like it, tough, move on.' And I move on. I'm a little like Odin myself".[39]

• Joshua Dallas as Fandral: [45] Dallas said he believed that Fandral "would like to think of himself a philanderer. He would like to think of himself, I was saying, as the R. Kelly of Asgard. He’s a lover, not a fighter". Dallas also mentioned that Errol Flynn was an inspiration for the character stating, "He was a big inspiration for the character and for me. I watched a lot of his movies and kind of got that into my bones. I tried to bring out that little bit of Flynn-ness in it. Flynn had a lot of that boyish charm that Fandril’s got all that in him".[46]

And as for you mentioning the comic book fans and boycott, I think they are linked and therefore should be mentioned in the same sentence. Ultimatly though, in attempting to keep the section as it is, you are not following WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM guidelines. The rephrased section would simply bring it back in to line with the rest of the article, while also ensuring it is not WP:UNDUE ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 08:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Also, you might want to note that all the actors mention Kenneth in their quotes, so I don't see how you should have a problem with Idris mentioning Kenneth. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 08:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not compare a casting character to Idris's: Idris's is "The all-seeing, all-hearing Asgardian sentry of the bifröst bridge, based on the mythological deity of the same name.[27] News of Elba's casting was met by online complaints from some comic book fans and white supremacists who saw it as inappropriate for a Norse deity to be played by a black actor.[28][29] Idris says, "When Kenneth asked me to be part of it, I did find myself questioning race," Elba confesses. "But Kenneth hadn't even given that a thought. He just needed an actor who has presence and command, and felt that I fitted the bill...It was so refreshing – and a testament to [Kenneth] as an actor and director that his casting was genuinely colour blind. I feel very proud of being part of that movie." [30] Kenneth Branagh described the controversy stir as "daft"" which is comparitive to Natalie Portmans character: Natalie Portman as Jane Foster: A scientist and Thor's love interest. Marvel Studios stated in an announcement that the character was updated from the comics' initial portrayal for the feature adaptation.[12] When asked why she took the role, Portman replied, "I just thought it sounded like a weird idea because Kenneth Branagh's directing it, so I was just like, 'Kenneth Branagh doing Thor is super-weird, I've gotta do it.'"[13] Portman also stated that she really wanted to do a big effects movie that emphasized character, and getting to do it with Branagh was a new way of approaching it, relative to Star Wars.[14] Regarding her preparation for the role Portman remarked, "I signed on to do it before there was a script. And Ken, who's amazing, who is so incredible, was like, 'You can really help create this character'. I got to read all of these biographies of female scientists like Rosalind Franklin who actually discovered the DNA double helix but didn't get the credit for it. The struggles they had and the way that they thought – I was like, ‘What a great opportunity, in a very big movie that is going to be seen by a lot of people, to have a woman as a scientist'. She's a very serious scientist. Because in the comic she's a nurse and now they made her an astrophysicist. Really, I know it sounds silly, but it is those little things that makes girls think it's possible. It doesn't give them a [role] model of 'Oh, I just have to dress cute in movies'".[15]" You can't complain about actors talking about why they think Kenneth chose them for the role, a brief mention of Kenneth's opinion or why they feel they are suited to do the part. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 09:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

First let me say you are on the verge of edit waring and can be blocked from editing. Secondly you are not reading what I wrote, I said Elba's feeling's about playing part are not notale. You have highlighted a few other quotes from actors but what you are not releaving they contain a WHY. Why they took the part. The quote you are attempting to force in the article does not offer any useful insight as to why just a thank you. Again I would to remind you of WP:BRD, you made bold change to the article, I reverted it, and now we are discussing. Do not change it again unless a WP:CONCENSUS is determined here to do so.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason whatsoever for the version I have done to be reverted. You said: "you are not reading what I wrote, I said Elba's feeling's about playing part are not [notable]" I already replied to that above, in the very exhaustive list of cast character quotes clearly showing that all the actors have had a say in WHAT their part is and WHYthey feel they were chosen to do the part and HOW they feel doing the part. The source from the Guardian which I have included, addresses the controversy, why Idris feels Kenneth chose him for the part and how Idris feels about being chosen for the part. Nothing is different from the casting section of Natalie Portman. Here are the edits you keep reverting [[5]] and as has been very elaborately explained here already in great detail, your reverts are wrong. There is NO reason whatsoever for reverting the page. None. The version I have done is much more succinct and see per WP:UNDUE. The source from the Guardian [[6]] is a much better source, not only is a recent one where Idris is addressing the issue of the controversy, but also he explains in detail other areas too. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 10:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Portman is stating why she took the part, this is an internal reflection on herself in a section about her. In your quote Elba is commenting on Branagh's decision. All he is saying is that Branagh felt he was best the person for the job. Ofcourse he felt Elba was best person for the job or he wouldnt have hired him. This why this isnt notable. The quote offers no background or insight on the casting or the role. Also again you are lumping together some fans reaction and the white supremacist, they are not the same and you make no mention of the boycott which is the most notable piece of information about this controversy and the reason it has picked up media attention. WP:UNDUE does not mean ignore the problem.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

In the quote, Elba comments on Kenneths decision to address the controversy. Obviously, he cannot address the controversy, without mentioning Kenneth who chose him and why Kenneth chose him to do the part. This is why it IS notable. The quote does offers more insight in to the role than the previous one, saying that he was chosen because of Idris being an actor of him being well-known as an actor of "presence and command". The fans reaction, and the white supremacists are one of the same thing. You can easily include a few words saying that some threatened a boycott. I notice you make no compaint of Kenneth saying the controversy stir is "daft", so we should just leave that sentence in too. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 11:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC) I am 100% sure that the version I have done is a vast improvement because it addresses the controversy and explains why Idris was chosen for the part, and like all other actors, he has expressed his appreciation for being given the role, for example, Natali says about being cast as a female scientist I was like, ‘What a great opportunity,...exactly the same lines as Idris saying he felt "proud" to be part of the movie. Further, Kenneth's input as him thinking the controversy as "daft" is enouough in the article and any more would be WP:UNDUE₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 11:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If you read the entire quote Portman is say its a great oppurtunity for little girls to have a role model but regardless there was alot more to her quote then a mere expression of gratitude.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict

You've just reverted 12 days of Idris Elba editing, including your own edits, without discussion. That certainly isn't WP:CIVIL. You're supposed to discuss first in a edit controversy. Clearly, you find that I have the better argument, so rather than conform to it you are undoing over 24 edits to the article. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 11:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC) I still think the previous version was better. So basically, you have changed your mind again here: [[7]] and you're now working from an 12 day older revision on the Idris section. So I can say that clearly we have a difference in opinion on how many sentences/words should be given to this controversy, what sources ought to be used, whether Kenneths input as dscribing the controversy as "daft" is important, and what we should include from what Idris says (ideally, Idris should comment o nthe reason he was chosen and how he feels about that) I think this source is a better one [[8]] in every way and I don't think Idris needs to address the criticisms. Why not just put in that Kenneth said the controversy stir was "daft". Anything more will be WP:UNDUE and let Idris talk about his role in the film, as all the rest of the actors do? ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 12:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually this edit is the one that broke protocol after you reverted my revert. You made a bold change, I reverted and then we discuss. Not keep reverting while discussion is in progress so the page remains to your liking. What I have just done is restored the original quote agreed upon at the top of this discussion, removed less notable part of the controversy since you feel it is getting to much attention and restored the relevant information regarding Elba's preparation that you haphazardly removed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That simply isn't true. I put the comment on the talk page at 16:53, April 19. I therefore put the comment on the page before I made the edit. Your uncivil actions have been plain disregard to discussion and the multiple edits as well as the agreements we have already made in the article. It is uncivil to revert to a 12-day-old version, especially after your statement about an impending edit war and blocking of my account, as well as the way in which you have said I must discuss changes. After a very long discussion, and several progressive edits, you cannot just reverse the whole lot (days of edits) without discussion. For example: we already agreed that Kenneth should have a say. This was then removed by you. It is just very rude, to be discussing an article and improving it, and then when the reasons for the change have been very clearly pointed out, the entire section to be reverted, not simply to an earlier revision, but one that is 12 days old. It's very demoralising as you can probably see I am doing most of the discussion anyway. We agreed #1. That Kenneth should have a small say in this on the controversy since it addressed his decision #2. We agreed that there is too much said on the controversy itself and not what Idris role is, or what he has to say about his role, hence the above. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 13:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to have third party mediate, but this is what happened. You started a discussion on the talk page at 12:53, April 19, 2011 and then updated the article at 13:15, April 19, 2011, not sufficient time for anyone to respond. Also I did not threaten an edit war I stated you were on the verge of edit warring with your revert of my revert at 13:29, April 19, 2011 and again at 05:03, April 20, 2011, after I explain to you the bold revert disccusion cycle. I have made no uncivil comments or actions.

• 1. Elba say should be given the opportunity to speak for himself especially since this addresses him directly.
• 2. In your quote Elba isn't saying anything insightful about the part just that he is thankful to Branagh for giving it to him.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to follow this dispute and failing miserably due to its drifting so far away from the actual content of the edits involved (as all content disputes seem to do). But the one point that is sticking for me is Elba's comments: I completely agree with Trii on the point of the "thanks" quote. It does not adequately provide any real world context, especially in light of the backlash his casting has caused. It makes more sense to me for us to briefly note any research he has done for the role (his looking to the comics) and his reaction to the controversy. The quote where he basically just says thanks is rather useless for our purposes. Millahnna (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Previously, you accused me of making the edit before I put it on the discussion page, which it isn't true. I am glad you recognise your error on that. Normally, it takes around 10 minutes for a response here. Perhaps incivility would be the wrong word, however, you are clearly being rude in ignoring discussions and not following WP:EDIT guidelines. I am doing what I can to discuss, but regardless of my discussions, you have reverted to a 12-day-old revision of the page, in other words, voided all the discussions we've had about this section. Your two points which you have come up with here (on your own) contravene what was decided previously:

• 1. On 20:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC), you used a  Done template and basically said that Kenneth's imput was important. You [changed the article yourself] and said replaced quote per talk page. However, today on the 19th April you have reversed all edits made since these discussions began, including the one that you made on the 08 April. You did this with no discussion whatsoever despite claiming that if I were to revert again, I could be banned. In other words, TriiipleThreat has undone all the edits that have been done since our discussions began. And this is very demoralising that he should be able to get away with it.
• 2 It is your opinion that Elba doesn't say anything insightful. However, he explains thoroughly why Kenneth chose him for the part, why Idris feels he is good for the role and how Idris feels doing the part. All the other characters in cast sections do the same. Idris should not have to explain what research he has done for the role. Other characters have explicity mentioned they have done no research for the role so why would it matter if he has or hasn't done research. The section is supposed to address primarily how the actor feels or thinks about the role. Not addressing controversy, criticisms or having to justify themslves by the amount of research they have done. Millahnna, Triple Threat has basically ignored this whole discussion page here and what was agreed by both of us right from the beginning. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 14:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I think this version is much more succinct and per WP:UNDUE ":The all-seeing, all-hearing Asgardian sentry of the bifröst bridge, based on the mythological deity of the same name. News of Elba's casting was met by online complaints from some comic book fans and threats from some white supremacists who saw it as inappropriate for a Norse deity to be played by a black actor Idris says, "When Kenneth asked me to be part of it, I did find myself questioning race," Elba confesses. "But Kenneth hadn't even given that a thought. He just needed an actor who has presence and command, and felt that I fitted the bill...It was so refreshing – and a testament to [Kenneth] as an actor and director that his casting was genuinely colour blind. I feel very proud of being part of that movie." Kenneth Branagh described the controversy stir as "daft". I think " This is nothing more or less that needs to be added than this. It address how Idris feels to play the part, why he was chosen and the controversy right on the head. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 14:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I was tried of this conversion but I have always maintained that Elba should have a say. This was changed when you removed Elba's other comments about his casting. And if we were are going to only have one response it should be Elba's not Branagh's (as it and this section is directly focused on Elba). Elba's original comments were proposed by Erik whom I was more in agreement with than you, unfortunately he is taking a wikibreak and has been unable to comment. Again in your quote he is simply praising Branagh, and Branagh would not have cast someone who he thinks would not "fit the bill". Your edits also ignore the boycott (the most notable piece of information as it has gotten the most media attention), his direct response to the boycott and any preparation he has done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, you and Eric have a history on here. You agreed that the director, Kenneth, should have a say too. It was only when Kenneth's quote was shortened to him thinking the controversy was "daft", edits made today, that you started having an issue with his input. What I have written above is succinct, to the point and nothing else is needed. Elba gets a say too (so what is the problem), but it's so much more to the point. It address how Idris feels to play the part, why he was chosen and the controversy right on the head. That's all that is needed. Anything else is just WP:UNDUE. The above quote does mention the Boycott, which is what I have proposed. Fine, the "fit the bill" comment is somewhat obvious, but it's part of the quote. But you are being highly critical. May I remind you that your quote from Idris mentions Cleopatra, Gandhi, flying hammers and horns on the head, so please don't try to cherry pick a comment like "fit the bill". So many double standard comments made here. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 14:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Your quote essentially states two things, Branagh hired Elba because he was right for the part and Elba's gratitude towards Branagh for giving him the part. The quote you removed was direct response to boycott (not indirectly through praise of Branagh) and made valid comparisons to other casting choices and the fallacy that this is an controversy over a fictional being.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No. It says that

• 1. WHY That Kenneth was looking for an actor who has presence and command , and that Idris had that ability. Earlier on, Idris explains that his previous roles in series like Luther have given him this edge.
• 2. CONTROVERSY It explains directly about his concerns of race, and the question he is asked is about the controversy stir.
• 3. HOW It explains how Idris feels to be in this role and that he respects Kenneth for his "colour-blind" approach - and no complaints, because other actors have given reasons why they respect Kenneth and wanted to act in his fill in the cast section. In a lot fewer words than your quote too. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 15:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:Millahnna and User:TriiipleThreat that the quotes they note re: Brannagh and Elba are non-notable. (For example, what actor in the role WOULDN"T have command and presence?) I agree that the extremely minor tempest-in-a-teapot about some factions opposing the casting should be given no more than a sentence for reasons of WP:UNDUE. I thought we had reached a compromise version, but it seems that isn't enough. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} a.k.a. User:Conficutus, is behaving in a way that disrupts Wikipedia to make a point. Pasting hundreds if not thousands of words and crossing them out? Reiterating the same arguments over and over in order to try to wear down those who disagree with him? User:Asgardian was banned from Wikipedia for much the same behavior, and I confess I would support a user RfC for Conficutus at this point. He has gone far beyond the pale in his extreme argumentativeness and at this point I question the value of, at the very least, having him continue to edit this article. Multiple editors disagree with him, yet that seems to make not difference in his obsessive desire to flog this issue for weeks and weeks now. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

[User:Tenebrae]] - I was copying and pasting the cast sections to prove that it is OK to have characters describe their feelings about acting in the film. If I don't make my point clear, it won't be accepted. Anyway, ever since you got involved I haven't done any reverts against you or anyone else for that matter. I also haven't done any more reverts forcing me to take it to discussion hence the amount of discussions I am having. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 16:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing all the comments, I really do feel that Triiiple is simply trying to give this controversy stir more popularity than it needs. All that is required for the controversy stir is two sentences. "Some comic fans made online complains and some white supremacists threatened to boycott the film. Kenneth called the controversy stir "daft". That's all that is needed. No defence is needed or justification from Idris Elba. No one needs to ask how much research he needed to do...those two sentences are fine, Idris should be free to talk about how he found the part, why he felt he was chosen to do it - just as everyone else. It's simple WP:UNDUE. Otherwise, you're giving this controversy more attention that is deserves or needs. It was an empty threat anyway, we hardly hear of this boycott that is supposed to happen. ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 15:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll call it WP:SEEKHELP for now and leave it for today. Think you'll find that since this conflict has been with just the two people, me and Triii (I understand Triii has asked others for help from people involved), I really don't think it qualifies for Rfc. You've only just got involvled today and rarely had any input in this. I'm going WP:SEEKHELP KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 16:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have addressed the NPOV of this section on the WP:NPOVN noticeboard. Idris Elba # Thor NPOV concern . Thank you. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 09:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It really is hard for me to follow what's going on a little bit so I don't know if I can be a help. I do say when there is disagreements it's probably best to have suggestions to please both sides. And this is just me but we shouldn't probably use the phrase "not notable" on information. Information doesn't have to be notable just constructive for Wikipedia standards while notability is mainly an argument on whether a article should exist or not. So "Not constructive" would probably be better. I feel that Confictus might be getting a little overboard with whatever he want's done being done that it could be exhausting TriiipleThreat and other editor's out. Maybe he should do some meditating as well so he can a clear head at this as well. Anyways I can tell both of you want what's best of what's for the article but remember working together and resolving differences does a better job at getting that done. I wish I could be more of a help but this conflict kind of makes my head spin to where I am not sure who to support. So a simple explanation of the different opinion's might be nice. And that third opinion section might be good that. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

References for Reception

Yay! Review time. This review from IGN might be useful. I might find more in the future. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should stick with selected "Top Critics" because of weight issues. Its still early more will come. I did leave the sole negative review in the interest of neutrality.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason why I said "might" and did not put it there. I happen to notice this before going to Rotten Tomatoes but it's not really too important when you got Rotten Tomatoes showing every review there is. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse Me!

Movie isn't out everywhere yet. Is it advisable to put the plot there before it's released? Or is it another stupid Wikipedia rule?Kelzorro (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The movie has been released in Australia.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It's already out in 3D

The intro to this article says that it's scheduled to be released in 3D. I saw it on April 21st in Australia and it was in 3D. So for accuracy's sake that ought to be ammended, unless I'm missing something. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing that out.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I'm here to provide a third opinion on a "disagreement about the casting section of Idris Elba". I'm not familiar with the topic of this article and have not edited here before. I had a quick read through the discussion above and it appears that this is a dispute between [User:Conficutus|Conficutus]] and TriiipleThreat. If there are others involved in the dispute, then this cannot be a third opinion and you will need to follow other methods in the dispute resolution process.

I'll read through this talk page further, but it would be very helpful if you could summarise the nature of the dispute below.

Third opinion

Thepm (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (KN→ ^{talk • contribs})

The casting section of Idris Elba [9] clearly contravenes policy per undue policy and also cast policy, and it has been suggested that the intention here is simply to highlight a very, very small view of some white supremacists which is per wikipedia policy wrong; User:TriiipleThreat defends the inclusion of this controversy and Idris Elba’s long-winded defence claiming “per balance” but all this does is give more undue weight to the controversy, other users (2) have suggested that the controversy should not be mentioned anyway, and another user (1) claiming that, if it is, it should only be a sentence long (see NPOV Noticeboard Discussion) and I maintain that despite User:TriiipleThreat's claims that there is little information to put in the cast section for Idris Elba [10] I mentioned at least one source but that was ignored above by the user who said "Idris's feeling's about playing [the] part as I stated above are not notable" ! (17:51, 19 April 2011) despite WP:FILMCAST - I therefore wrote this, additionally, his excuse is no reason to go against WP:FILMCAST & WP:UNDUE guidelines.

Viewpoint by TriiipleThreat (talk · contribs)

....I have no problem with removing the "controversy" all together was my original position. However this dispute has moved far from its origin and has recently mostly been about Conficutus' additions of comments from Elba, that Millahnna, Tenebrae and myself deemed to be non-notable, as they provided no insight to the role itself. However if the controversy is to be addressed then Elba's unedited response is permitted in the interest of neutrality. Either way we should not add non-notable content to lengthen Elba's section just to make it en par with other actors as Conficutus suggested.

2nd Viewpoint by KN→ ^{talk • contribs}

You had no problem with "controversy" a year ago o the 11 June 2010, saying "Prezbo (talk) [the controversy] has no bearing on casting, however would be notable in the reaction section after the release". This is really humourous. If (and the WP:NPOVN board should decide this) the controversy should be addressed it can be addressed in one sentence. "Online complains about Idris casting for a Norse god were passed off as "daft" by Kenneth and "ridiculous" by Idris." There you go. It's not hard. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 20:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion by Thepm

....

Hi Folks. I'm afraid that after reading through here a little further, it's become apparent that third opinion isn't the right tool. There are already a few people involved on the talk page and third opinion is really intended as an informal 3rd view for situations where there are exactly 2 editors involved. For that reason I'll step out and suggest that you might like to try one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options.

A small comment that might help Conficutus is to ensure that you understand policies before you offer them as cause and that you nominate the correct policy. For example your reference to WP:CAST above does not seem to be relevant as it is related to "cast" in the sense of "casting votes" not in the sense of "movie cast".

One further general comment is remember that wikipedia is not a vote. Decisions should be made based on sound arguments and use of policy where appropriate.

Good luck!

--Thepm (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)