Template talk:Marvel Comics films

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This non-article page is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Template
This article has been rated as Template-Class on the quality scale.
NA
This article has been rated as NA-importance on the priority scale.
WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
Template This article has been rated as Template-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
NA This article has been rated as NA-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Template overhaul

I redid the template so that it was organized a bit better than just tossing all the movies in a box. Some notes:

  • Right now, the "Single films" section is a little bare. It'll expand once Ghost Rider, Iron Man, and Ant-Man are released. Films are listed in the order they were released.
  • The "Franchises" section is organized by franchise (imagine that!). Priority is given to the franchise with the largest number of released films; further weight is given to the eldest initial film (for example, Blade and X-Men each have three; Blade came out in 1998, while X-Men came out in 2000, so the Blade franchise is shown first). Films that have announced sequels (such as Fantastic Four and Hulk) should be listed in the Franchises section rather than the Single Films section.
  • I dropped the release years because that sort of information isn't particularly important in a navigation table. Exceptions:
    • The Punisher movies have the same title, so need a distinguishing characteristic;
    • The In Production movies should (in my opinion) have their pending release date, where it is available. I'm actually fairly apathetic about this one; if someone wanted to remove them, I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
  • Movies in the "In Production" section shouldn't affect the weight of their franchise. For example, the X-Men line shouldn't be moved above the Blade line until after the Magneto or Wolverine film is released. Similarly, the Hulk trumps the Fantastic Four until Rise of the Silver Surfer is released.

For those that are curious: before and after.

So... yeah. That's all. EVula 20:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice--hottie 15:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Release date is a useless criteria for film ordering. It assumes knowledge of the release dates of the films, and those who don't know them see an unorganised mess.
  • Giving certain franchises priority over others is POV, regardless of justification. Alphabetical order is NPOV, and therefore is preferred.
  • I agree with your release date criteria.
  • Your last point is part of your POV ordering critera, and so is included in bullet 1.

--Jamdav86 19:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what? How is anything that I did POV? I'm giving weight to the franchises with the most films, which is a neutral factor in determining order. Chronological release is a perfectly valid method of ordering; see Template:George Lucas, for example. I'd ask if restoring the release date would satisfy your complaint, but the date not appearing is apparently the only thing we agree on. ;)
I've proded the comics WP folk to weigh in on this. While I disagree with the alphabetical ordering, if the general consensus supports your ordering, I'll back down. EVula 19:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. POV may be a bit strong, but arranging misc. films by release date is a bit confusing.

BTW, Template:George Lucas ties with The Dark Tower as one of the ugliest templates I have ever seen. --Jamdav86 19:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that we now agree on two things, Jam. ;-) EVula 22:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, sorry to rain on the parade, but this isn't a template, it's a category placed in the wrong name space. Use {{Template:Otherarticles}} instead. Hiding Talk 19:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Hiding Talk 19:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fantastic Four

Is ther a place here for The Fantastic Four (film)? --Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez | (Complain here) 15:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Added. Although, between this and the first Punisher movie, I'm wondering if there ought to instead be a section for the older one-shot movies, before the franchise was relaunched... EVula 20:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TV movies

I'm inclined to not have made-for-TV movies in this template, and restrict to just feature films. Any TV movies should be at Template:Marvel comics TV, not here. Anyone else have an opinion on this? EVula 21:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I think that the "Man-Thing" film should be added to this list because it was NOT created as a made-for-TV movie. It was created as a direct-to-DVD product, and so if we're going to list Ultimate Avengers and the animated films on here - which are also DTV products - then obviously Man-Thing belongs on here too. --Bishop2 13:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this, and I had to dig through the istory. Joltman removed it in april, and in may too, it looks like. I missed this. I'll re-add this. ThuranX 20:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit on September 25

Hi, I rearranged the titles on this template. I put the list into alphabetical order. I moved Spider-Man 3, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, and Ghost Rider out of the "In Development" section because they are either shooting or in post-production, not in development.

I also added years to all the films that have been given a tentative release date that I could find.

[edit] animated films

While I'm impressed by the edit adding hte recent animated films, I do wonder if they belong here. The table looks fine to me with them in, and my only problem is that so far, these have been only the Live-Action films. I'm starting a talk section so that we don't see revert wars and such. ThuranX 01:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movie Placement

Why are the Wolverine and Magneto films not under X-Men? They are still part of the series, despite being spin-offs, are they not? Especially since they use the same actors.. Also, couldn't The Punisher 2 be put in "In Development" since it's still in the works? StarIV 17:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at what you're talking about. to move the two X-spin-offs up, but then move the Pun 2 down would still be inconsistent. As such, I've simply moved Pun 2 down, so as to have all In Dev films in one place, (not counting SM3 and FF2, which are about to be released.) The reason Pun 2 was in it's franchise for so long was because people keep trying to add the Lundgren film to the current franchise, and with the two conencted ones there, it reads more clearly 'don't put that here'. we'll see how it goes, and come back to this if needed. Thanks ThuranX 14:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, that didn't work, as another editor removed two active franchises, moving the completed films to single films, and the in progress films to In Development, arguing that they aren't franchises until there's a sequel out, and then they should be turned into franchises. Unfortunately, this doesn't work either, as we know they are franchises already, as Marvel's started on sequels. It makes the most sense to follow one of two paths. Keep franchises as is, and put the newest installments in the franchises, letting readers click and learn, or list them as franchises, with all in development installments falling under the 'in development' category, and letting readers read the whole template box. Not sure which is actually smarter. Thoughts? ThuranX 01:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC) (And I prefer the former, as it keeps the information more tightly grouped to the places the reader would look for them.)
I'm the one that moved the ones without released sequels to individual films. I definitely think that in development movies should be listed under in development, whether they are part of a franchise or not. I don't quite see what's wrong with waiting until a sequel is released before moving an entry to franchises. What really makes something a franchise? Especially for The Punisher, what if the sequel never actually came out? It still doesn't even have a script written. -Joltman 11:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Just looking again, the only other solution I see is to get rid of the 'In development' section and move all films to the appropriate single/franchise section. If we did that, perhaps there's someway we could denote films that are still in development? -Joltman 11:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DC

why doesn't DC have it's own template?

Look in my sandbox, I've been working on one. ThuranX 19:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You could make one --SuperHotWiki 18:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I have , look through my user page to my sandbox, it's there, I just need to take a week, get feedback, then go live on it. ThuranX 05:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of movies/When should they be added?

In my opinion, I feel that films which are only in post-production, production or even in the pre-production stages are worthy of consideration in adding to the template. Why? As I was looking at the template, I noticed films that didn't even have a rough release year being added, and by having exceptions for that can allow for the entire list of the Marvel Comics film page to be potentially added. Just my view. Whilst I've left this for public consideration, I've removed the following films from the template as the didn't even have a release year: Luke Cage (TBA), Sub-Mariner (TBA) and Ant-Man (TBA). I assume this will be fine?... => Harish101 23:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Of all of these, only Ant-man's seen real movement lately, with scripts being worked on and such. However, removal of all three's good for now. ThuranX 03:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I feel we should follow WP:NFF and not link films until they've begun filming, like Thor, Captain America and so on. In that case, I'll remove Magneto. Alientraveller (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that addition upon the signing of production contracts would be an acceptable point. having writers doesn't assure anything, but when a producer, director, and/or leading cast are signed, we can throw the link on here, because then it'd be a notable reversal or the direction. scripts are always in spec though. ThuranX (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marvel's franchise reboots

How should we handle Marvel's rebooting of what were intended to be franchises? Two of Marvel's properties, Punisher and Hulk, are currently devloping not as sequels but as reboots after just one film. While I'd like to move all four involved film to single film status until the newer films are announced to have sequels, I'm not sure this is going to go over well with involved editors, nor be clear to random readers. Thoughts? ThuranX 02:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Shall we just wait until we see these films? Alientraveller 09:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think they should be moved to single films until the reboots get sequels. It's no different than Punisher 89 and Punisher 2004. -Joltman 12:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
With the reboot Hulk franchise I was kinda thinking the same as Alientraveller. I had no idea about Punisher being a reboot... having just looked into it, I would debate about what the hell they're doing but I'll stray from that and say that it may as well be taken down as a franchise or, as suggested previously, at least wait for this film to materialise also. Realistically though I guess it makes sense to remove the franchises, if I'm to be objective. => Harish101 23:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
AT, regarding just waiting, I don't see why we should. Both films, The Incredible Hulk (film) and The Punisher 2, have RS proof they are reboots or do-overs, so waiting for months seems just foolish, but so is jumping to a contentious solution. I think that moving them there's best, and I'll do so, with a comment after each that in article citations demonstrate that each new film is a reboot, and that the two older films aren't connected. ThuranX 23:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
For some reason the template has "in article citations demonstrate that each new film is a reboot, and that the two older films aren't connected." written above it. It's a conspiracy I tells ya! => Harish101 23:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
For some reason, like a long day at work, I forgot to delete my copy n pasted text... damnit. Just pull that sort of thing next time, LOL. My fault and I apologize and have corrected it. ThuranX 00:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Haha, it happens bro. No need to apologise. => Harish101 01:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It seeems that these films may not be called sequels but almost are sequels. The creators have said that both films are picking up where the others left off, they just have a new cast. I mean, we are not going to see another origin of the Hulk or the Punisher in these movies. Now something like Batman Begins was a reboot, because it started the story over completely. But then with Superman Returns, it was made up of a different cast and everything, but was still connected to the Christopher Reeve series as it picked up where they left off. So with that example, doesn't The Incredible Hulk, as well as Punisher: War Zone, count as part of the same series?RoryS89 16:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)RoryS89
No, because we have explicit statements that these are not sequels. While they won't be reintroducing the origins, they aren't going to strictly adhere to the facts of the first films. they seem to feel the eralier films set the groundwork, establishing an audience and some basic mythologies in the minds of the viewers, and now seek to go further. Until we get an explicit 'they are sequels', the citations that they are not stand. ThuranX 21:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Interview with Lexi Alexander explicitly stating the film is a reboot. http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=6583 76.241.88.203 (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the Incredible Hulk is picking up where the first movie left off is a clear indication that it is a sequel. Just because it doesnt play by the same rules as the first, doesnt mean its not a sequel. Rau J16 11:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
But it doesn't pick up right where the last left off. That he's in South America in both could easily be attributed to coincidence, or, it could be because of the passive nature of the reboot. Had you read this entire page, instead of stopping at the first thread, you would have seen this. We have citations from Edward Norton, star and writer of the new film, specifically stating he made major changes to the script specifically to separate it from the previous effort. Penn has said similar things, and the director has said that they aren't retelling the origin, that he's relying onthe first film's relative success as teh box office to assure that most of the audience will know the basic concept. IT's akin to (finally) creating an entirely new Superman franchise, and not bothering to SHOW the rocket leaving krypton again, relying on 70 years of Superman in Pup Culture to have the audience already aware taht he's a 'strange visitor from another planet'.

[edit] Template autocollapse

Is it just on my computer, or does anyone else notice that the template collapses oddly? On my computer it usually changes from a mini collapsed bar, to a slightly deformed bar, before opening up. I know this does not make any sense in words, so I've linked an image to clarify this. -- Harish - 10:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Mine does it too sometimes. Might be worth going over to the template talk pages to find out how to fix that. ThuranX 11:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
What's the latest on this problem? -- Harish - 15:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Hulk NOT a reboot

The Incredible Hulk has been confirmed to be a SEQUEL....yes it was originally a reboot...so they started afresh with a new cast. Only thing is Edward Norton wrote the first draft screenplay. He wrote it in continuation to the first. Need proof...how about you read the Incredible Hulk page or go to just about any movie site where details on the story are revealed? It is o longer a reboot but a sequel s leave it as a franchise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oilahize (talk • contribs)

Please show evidence/link us with "just about any movie site" that's reliable, in order to take the appropriate action. -- Harish - 02:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I went and reviewed Oilahize' citation of the film's article, and what he cited was a year plus old citation of Avi Arad, which was contradicted by later citations of Zak Penn, the writer and producer. As such, Arad's old comments were removed. Until such time as a set of proper, current citations can be found, please avoid re-editing. The 'same continuity' commentaries made by Penn in his earlier interview first off are used in comparison to batman begins, which we know to be a new franchise and total restart. His curther comments suggest instead that they intend to rely upon audience familiarity to aid in the storytelling, thus the suggestive and flashback oriented origin information they discuss. We currently have citation indicating that these are meant to be new films, see esp., the discussion regarding Norton's ideas about further separating the two films as independent of each other. ThuranX 03:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Penn stated the film is a sequel, but tonally different. The Alien—Aliens comparison is part of that. Feige may be calling it a reboot, but nonetheless Norton said it is in the timeframe of a sequel. So just wait until the film comes out. Alientraveller 11:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Penn stated that a while ago, however, the more recent article states that Norton helped rewrite the script specifically to separate the two films as different. ThuranX 17:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Alientraveller 18:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Not really....what I got from the articles I read was that it is different in the sense of style. The original took on a different style of the Hulk, whereas this next movie is much closer to the comic books.With Norton being a huge fan of the comics...he was perfect for the job.http://www.joblo.com/upcomingmovies/movies.php?id=900 ...some links to the articles I've read. Some of them are only weeks old and are stated in the sense of a sequel just a different style.oilahize


Well, I read back four articles, which means three months back, not weeks old, and none say it's a sequel. Further, the emphasis on the rewrites, norton's discussion of separating the two, and the further discussion that norton gives, specifically saying remake when comparing it to painted veil all suggest that it's a remake, but of a story the audience will be familiar with. In other words, 2003 got the hulk to the wide audience, the ground work of explaining the character is done, now they can 'retell' it to suit thier pruposes for a new franchise. ThuranX 16:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well one of the articles is from October 1st...I am pretty sure that was less than a week ago..oilahize
The Incredible Hulk is a stand-alone sequel. I'm sure it will have little or no relatation to 2003's Hulk, but it's still a sequel. It's kinda like 28 Weeks Later or the Night of the Living Dead sequels. The sequels aren't related to the previous movie(s), but it's still a sequel. — Enter Movie 01:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
We've got citations specifically contradicting your interpretation, and your examples are awful, because 28 weeks later specifically IS a direct sequel of the first, occuring 28 weeks after release of the rage virus, when London is being decontaminated and resettled; he movie's quite clear about the timeline, establisdhing a direct connection. Likewise, though produced years apart, the living dead series establishes a direct continuity, the world is progressively suffering more and more from the infestation. The best we've got about this movie is that while NOT a sequel, it's not a total reboot either, nad has chosen to simply avoid the material of the first movie, rewriting what it needs to to fit a new story. It's a passive reboot, not overtly contradicting the first, with all new origin material, but not acknowledging it either. ThuranX 00:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Coming from someone on the production [[1]] not a sequel.76.205.87.221 21:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, do you have proof of those citations? There's also a connection between the Hulk films: It still has the Hulk/Eric in it. And isn't a "passive reboot," as you explained, kinda like a spiritual successor?
Plus, I got some other examples, too: The Butterfly Effect 2 and White Noise 2. They're not related in any way to the previous movie. By the way, 76.205.87.221, I clicked on that site; which article do you want me to look at? I read this one, [2], and it said The Incredible Hulk is a sequel. — Enter Movie 00:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, which is more likely to know the truth, the writer, director, and star of the film itself, or a british reporter in Rio filing a wire report about the effects on the local economy down there? Further, explaining the 'passive reboot' isn't germaine to that story, and may have been edited out by either the writer during writing, or the editor, for clarity to the general audience. As to your demand for 'proof' of those citations, most are here on the talk pages or in the article itself. Many were linked via superherohype itself. As to your further examples, I fail to see your logic. You seem to think that simply having the 2 makes it a sequel despite zero commonality except a singular concept, like the noise or the time-jumping. If that's the case, I submit, this movie doesn't even have a 2, and thus, more ground for not being seen as a sequel. Further, you changed from asserting two movie had nothing in common but were still barely sequels. When contradicted, you suggest that two movies that really have very little in common are clear sequels. It's quite a strange turn of argument. ThuranX 03:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
To answer your first question, I'd like to have facts and truths from the writers, directors, stars, etc. than from a website. I just pointed it out because 76.205.87.221 pointed it out. And if they have a "2," doesn't it mean it's a sequel? Those sequels have the same premise and concept, just not characters from the first film. White Noise: The Light is the correct title; I just didn't feel like typing the whole thing, so it doesn't have a "2." And to explain about the sequels thing, I just wanted to point out that sequels doesn't need to be related to their predecessor to be a sequel; sorry if I was too vague. I also don't think I said that two movies that had nothing in common were "barely sequels"; I clearly stated that sequels that have little to do with their previous movie(s) are still sequels. All the writers are doing is trying to separate Hulk and The Incredible Hulk, but in a way, it's still a sequel because it's a follow-up with some origin story elements. — Enter Movie 04:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course it shares some elements. Scientist gets hit with gamma rays, turns into big green thing that smashes stuff. However, it's been repeatedly stated that while not overtly refuting the first movie, they're not using anything from the first film, either, except for the assumptive premise that audiences will already know his origin, and thus not have to completely recap it for the new film. It's not any particular sequel, and there's a link above to a long list of articles which help establish this. ThuranX 21:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I got a new query though which could change the consensus drastically. If one were to consider Batman Forever a sequel to Batman Returns, despite the drastic change in tone, wouldn't one consider TIH a sequel to Hulk? Still, it may be better to wait and see the film. Alientraveller (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Those two were known sequels, announced and advertised as such; we've got citations here stating that this isn't one, just that they're not going to redo the origin and such. ThuranX (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Series order

I've reverted Alientraveller's edit, which ordered the series' by first installment release, back to an alphabetic listing. The other form looks quite jumbled, and in a franchise set, it seems readers would have an easier time reading a list of characters, not release dates, to parse the order. ThuranX (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's understandable. Alientraveller (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punisher and Hulk are both reboots

Since The Incredible Hulk and The Punisher: War Zone can be cited multiple times as NOT part of the same series, how do you guys want to play this? Should we separate them out from the other "series" listings somehow? It seems like we need to specify that these are not sequels. --Bishop2 (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

they WERE separated out for a long time, and recently, a new editor and an IP, likely to be the same editor, are trying to change it in violation of multiple policies, including WP:CRYSTAL and WP:3RR. I will review the page, but the films WERE listed under the 'single films' category for good reason. ThuranX (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The movie article list Incredible Hulk as a sequel. Rau J16 07:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Norton says "it's utterly unrelated to that [Hulk] film." http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=671076.243.219.242 (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Venom, Capt. America, Avengers

shouldn't the venom, capt. america and avengers movie be listed? since thor is listed and it re-directs to "thor (comics)" page, i think the same thing should be done to these three movies that are planned

add Venom(TBA) and re-direct the page to Venom (eddie brock)#film

the same goes to capt. america and avengers82.155.223.136 (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thor is different, in that contracts and pre-production are confirmed, the other two are only 'intent stated' level films right now. There's little guarantee that anythign will occur. ThuranX (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
they already said that they are moving on with venom, and that the producers are already meeting with writers. ALso, edward norton has already been asked to play as hulk in the avengers, and robert downey jr. as iron man82.155.220.39 (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
talking about things doesn't count, and asking doesn't count without the paperwork, and citation. We don't report intent here, it falls under WP:CRYSTAL. If you have citations regarding the asking for reprising the roles, please bring it to both movies' talk pages. But until there's actual press on Venom and Avengers having peopel signed, it's not going to pass the sniff test. ThuranX (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Venom is thus far an idea. Likewise with Avengers, even though it does have a writer in Zak Penn (who has actually not begun work). Alientraveller (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Avengers franchise edits

there have been a number of recent edits to this template trying to shoehorn all the Avengers related films into a new category. I suggest instead that each character maintain their own series listing for now according to the current rules (that a sequel be in production before the template is rearranged), and then marked with an asterisk as an Avengers tie-in, once that film is actually in production. We know that Marvel has the intent to create this far-spanning MovieMarvelverse thing, but any number of factors could hamstring their efforts or shut the goals down entirely, and any such adjustments in light of one tiny scene aren't justified. ThuranX (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Does the fact that Iron Man 2 has a release date mean it can be added? I figure that means they have begun production on it. Rau's Speak Page 00:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
No. At one time, there were fairly clear announcements about Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Ant Man and more. Untill we start seeing real movement, we hold off. I know it's tempting, but one good indication that it's really time to consider it is whether or not the film has an article on here as well, rather than a section in another article. That usually doesn't happen until there's some real traction on it. ThuranX (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Kay, I was referring to an Iron Man section in the series, but I get your point. Rau's Speak Page 01:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
As ThuranX pointed out to me, there can't be an Avengers or Iron Man franchise listed until The Avengers or Iron Man 2 (for their respective series) are in production. As such, my recent changes were premature. Having said that, once such changes are apropriate, surely there should be a way to put the Iron Man series under an umbrella Avengers series (it should be safe to say that the sequels will occur in the same universe even if they don't make the overt references they're bound to make). It may require a slight redesign of the template. I'm not sure it's worth discussion right now.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is there can there be an Avengers film series article if there cannot be a section in the template? Shouldn't the same rules apply? Rau's Speak Page 23:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
And there's a lengthy discussion at that page about it. EVEN if that page stays, it doesn't validate including anything here; the article about Marvel's plans and the template inclusion of numerous films are two different things. As stated before, Characters go into their own franchises. The avengers tie-ins can be noted with asterisks, or some other device. ThuranX (talk)