Talk:The Fantastic Four: First Steps

silver surfer

cosmic circus reported that silver surfer is getting a marvel studios special presentation and it'll be a prequel to this film.223.187.252.51 (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The Cosmic Circus is considered an unreliable source and as such, that information is not to be used as fact. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

SAG-AFTRA

How do we know that SAG-AFTRA listing Pascal means he is officially cast and they aren't just basing that on the same information that we already have? I don't think we've ever used a SAG-AFTRA listing to confirm casting before. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the fact that it was listed is fairly notable and its removal doesn't automatically mean it was incorrect. I interpreted it as them relaying information they may have thought was already public knowledge rather than it stemming from all the other reports, though I could be wrong. I think this could be a similar case to that site saying Mads Mikkelsen was in Doctor Strange 2 and Mashable listing the roles for Agatha. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it isn't noteworthy and am happy with the sentence we have in the production section, I'm just not convinced that this is reliable confirmation of the casting being completed on the same level as Pascal, Marvel, or the trades confirming the casting. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

It is somewhat skeptical, I will give you that, and probably not up to the same level of the trades or other traditional confirmations. I will note that the likes of SuperHeroHype, Game Rant, JoBlo, World of Reel, ComingSoon, Dexerto, MovieWeb, CBR (in a since deleted post), and Christopher Marc of ThePlaylist all took this either as a confirmation or as implying a confirmation. If others feel strongly, I would be alright with hiding Pascal from the lead/cast section, etc. for the time being. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Well Shakman has straight up posted on IG Stories the SAG AFTRA news bit so that’s practically confirmation. He didn’t deny it or anything. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Gizmodo also takes the SAG-AFTRA mention as potential confirmation, while TechRadar, Screen Rant (in another mysteriously since deleted post), and AIPT Comics all took Shakman's post as indicating further confirmation. This may be a case of WP:VNT with how all these sties essentially came to roughly the same conclusion on this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

that's a fake instagram account. KingArti (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's funny and explains SR's deleted post. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

So it seems to me that we just have speculation about whether the SAG-AFTRA listing is true confirmation or not, so I am still pro us hiding Pascal in the lead and cast list for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree @Adamstom.97 KingArti (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with keeping the info hidden for now. -- ZooBlazer 22:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Roger that. I have hidden the info now. Glad to have some clarity and common stance on this from regular editors. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Ralph as Galactus

says he was cast and not just in talks

source 2600:1004:B301:158C:48DD:C844:66BC:E06C (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@2600:1004:B301:158C:48DD:C844:66BC:E06C

edit: oh, never mind. does say he's in talks 2600:1004:B301:158C:48DD:C844:66BC:E06C (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

At first they say he's in talks but they go on to say that he's actually landed the role: "Ralph Ineson, [...] has landed the plum part of Galactus, the antagonist in Marvel Studios’ The Fantastic Four.". And in their tweet they say he's been cast: 'Fantastic Four' Casts Ralph Ineson as Galactus. Aldwiki1 (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

A lot of trades use "cast" and "landed" when, per the fine print, there are still some terms to be negotiated before a deal is actually finalized. THR wouldn't have included "in talks" in the sub-headline if it wasn't accurate. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Deadline's report indicates Ineson is fully cast. Ineson himself also corroborates on X. Rusted AutoParts 01:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

While Deadline's report says "tapped" and not "cast" and Variety also says he is "the latest addition", TheWrap also says he is "in talks". Ineson didn't directly confirm he was cast yet, and we cannot infer that from his tweet. There is WP:NORUSH in listing him in the cast lists and we can wait for more sources to eventuate on if his deal is fully completed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"tapped" and "landed" can mean chosen/agreed to be cast, so they don't contradict the "in talks" bit. No reason why he can't be in talks and also want to share the news on social media either. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I think we should still be holding off until we get confirmation that he is no longer in talks. His tweet did not say that talks were complete, and the source you added just says he "essentially confirm[ed] the casting". - adamstom97 (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I'm still not convinced by Ineson's tweet, and the ComicBook article doesn't independently confirm his casting. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I guess then my question would be why is it that THR is being given the most credence? Deadline and Variety report on it as a done deal. When it comes to TheWrap, they are essentially reporting on the THR report. It just seems, coupled with Ineson himself directly acknowledging, that it's a done deal. Rusted AutoParts 01:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, The Gersh Agency, his American talent agency, announced his casting on Instagram. Rusted AutoParts 01:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Because THR had the exclusive. We have two trades saying he's in talks and two using phrases that do not actually explicitly confirm his deal is finalized, as Adam and I noted, so there is no clear right or wrong here. The best course of action is to note he is in talks. I know talent agencies love to prop up their actors and, as an involved party, it is best to take their post lightly as it differs from what third-party sources have stated. There is no harm in seeing if any of the trades clarify their reports based on that, though I doubt it. While I would typically offer we include these mentions, they don't seem definitive enough to warrant a passing mention or saying he is 100% cast just yet. Again, there is WP:NORUSH. We'll get more solid confirmation eventually. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the caution, it just really feels like too much erring on the side of caution. I'd be more inclined to wait for more concrete intel but with Ineson and his representation both directly acknowledging it, I feel comfortable including him in the cast lists. And if THR was the originating source would it not stand to reason Deadline and Variety, being their own entities, independently verified the news as being confirmed at that point? Rusted AutoParts 03:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Except Deadline and Variety didn't directly say he was cast. "Tapped" and "landed" are not mutually exclusive to being cast. It could refer to final negotiations or being the finalist. Ineson didn't confirm he was cast and his agency saying it in a tweet is similar to the trades simplifying wording in other tweets. I'm just not convinced by arguments this was a done deal when the news broke. It likely could be signed within this next week, though when we have sources that differ, we should go with what the exclusive report said and potentially note what the others said, though the cagey wording makes it difficult to pinpoint specifics of the negotiations vs casting narrative that a talent agency is likely to lean into for their client. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Rahul Kohli

I see Adam has stated in his revert he is uncertain about this. While I understand the impetus of the discussion was about fan castings, (having watched the clip) I think Kohli then veers into noting how the fan castings were on to something and he had been considered for the role before it went to Pedro. I think we can confidently include this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Kohli actually clarified his comments, saying "Fucking hell, this is being blown way out of proportion. I wasn't gonna address it but I guess I have to now. I said during a podcast 'I didn't get it.' I didn't say I was in the running or I lost to Pedro Pascal or I was being considered or close to being in it. I just didn't get it and it was part of a larger point about fancasting and mental health." This seems that he was merely discussing the fancastings and how those just didn't come into fruition, not that he was actually serious in consideration or approached for the role. Based on his clarification, I don't think this is something worth mentioning as it seems there was never anything official to begin with. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

My issue with the original addition was we didn't know whether he auditioned or discussed the role or was just considered for it, because all he said was that he didn't get it and he almost discussed something that he shouldn't. This clarification backs that up I guess. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I saw those clarification soon after making this discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Filming starts today

At the SDCC panel, they confirmed that filming begins on Tuesday July 30th, is it safe to move the page to mainspace ? KingArti (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Usually we would wait until there is confirmation that filming did start today, unless others are confident enough with the SDCC confirmation on the weekend? - adamstom97 (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

If Kevin Feige and Rob Delaney said it themselves, I think that's enough confirmation imo. KingArti (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Just because they were sure it was going to happen doesn't mean something couldn't have changed since then, that is what I meant. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

logic.exe not working KingArti (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that it is illogical for circumstances to change over several days? - adamstom97 (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@KingArti Never use a technical move request to bypass the move from draftspace to mainspace. That is against the film policy as we NEED a source confirming principal photography has actually begun before moving! There is WP:NORUSH, so please be patient and don't try to violate the process. I have moved it back for the time being. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we should still wait for a source confirming that filming actually began today, given the start date has changed several times already (even just by a day from last month to now). I would feel more confident in having updated sourcing rather than potentially jumping the gun here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Marvel Studios twitter just said filming starts today: https://x.com/MarvelStudios/status/1818360915240403125 KingArti (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

[[1]] Seems like there are already leaked BTS photos from the shoot, which would confirm it has started filming, although no reliable source yet. George13lol2 (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Considering they had some material shown at SDCC, I don't think this is enough to go off of yet that principal photography has begun. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like we have a source that filming has begun - Richiekim (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, Marvel Studios just tweeted this. - Richiekim (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Doom in post-credits scene

Is The Insider newsletter reporting an anonymous tip really an appropriate reliable source for stating that "Robert Downey Jr. is expected to appear as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom in a post-credits scene." Rlendog (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Sneider is a reliable source for genuine reports. The whole point of his article is that he knew about Downey playing Doom long before it was confirmed by Marvel. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Anonymous tips aren't what we rely when sourcing cast members. We wait for official confirmation.Even if the tip was accurate when he got it JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Journalists receive these types of tips all the time. That is how reporting is done, in Hollywood, in politics, business, etc. We can't say a source can't be used because of a common practice in how sources gather information. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder if the RDJ info should be hidden in the cast. A huge spoiler like this so casually mentioned right in the cast section a year before the film's release seems out of place and unusual. I realize MCU articles contain spoilers, but they're usually confined to the plot and production sections, and when they're in the cast section, the big surprises are typically added either close to a film's release (when revealed by the trades or the studio), or after the film's release. Including a significant spoiler such as this front and center in the cast section a year out from release would spoil people who merely wanted to see who was in the cast. I propose we hide the info in the cast for now but keep it in the production section instead of welcoming every reader with a major spoiler. Aldwiki1 (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:SPOILER, we don't hide spoilers. This is a report, there is no need to hide it. It is not our priority to contain spoilers like this as we present the facts. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Articles are indeed free to contain spoilers, but these kinds of major spoilers aren't typically presented front and center in the cast section a year out from a film's release, which made me wonder if an exception could be made for this specific case, not to completely get rid of the spoiler, but to keep it confined to the production section for the time being, but it seems an exception can't be made so I'll respect that and move on. Aldwiki1 (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Hiding content from certain sections where we otherwise would be happy to have it, just to avoid spoilers, is still a WP:SPOILER issue, even if the information is kept in a different section. You wouldn't be saying this if the film was out, so we shouldn't do it now. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV, please see the ongoing discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Jeff_Sneider_/_The_InSneider. So far the preliminary consensus seems to be that Sneider should not be cited without attribution, and the discussion is ongoing if his site should be allowed for contentious BLP claims at all. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason why we ought to remove what is clearly labeled to be "expected" from the cast list. This is not a contentious claim. While the consenus in that discussion is veering to allow Sneider's reports with attribution only, I do not think this claim requires that because it summarizes how that is covered in the body of the article. We should not remove or hide verifiable information just because of some BLP policy when it is not directly about BLPs. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

20th Century copyright

As we saw with the various Deadpool & Wolverine posters (and eventually "in association with" credit), 20th Century is included in the copyright on the SDCC poster given out, so it's likely safe to assume the similar crediting will happen here (and with any other previous Fox property moving forward). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess we will just have to wait for a reliable source covering this information or an announcement or film to be released, as Wikipedia says no to original research. Littlesquirrell (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

As precedent has been established, and we are making an educated guess, this is not some far-off spool. It's a safe bet. BarntToust (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Alternate timeline

Variety's words are often treated as confirmation and accepted as definitive. It says, "...“The Fantastic Four,” by contrast, is set in an alternate timeline". So can we use it? Besides, do Marvel films set outside the Sacred Timeline even count as MCU? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I read that as them commenting on the existing speculation rather than reporting a new detail. If we were to add it as "Variety confirmed that the film would be set in an alternate timeline..." I think that would be a bit weak, so my vote is still to wait for a clearer statement from Marvel or Shakman. As for your second question, the MCU is not just a fictional shared universe, it is also a real-world media franchise. Deadpool & Wolverine is primarily set outside of the Sacred Timeline but it is considered an MCU film because it is part of Marvel Studios' MCU franchise. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, not sure if there is a good source, the movie is set an another universe in the multiverse, but not for long. On some point the heroes will be "merged" to the prime universe one way or another. Maybe it has something to do with the rumors about the multiverse of Loki beeing destroyed again in Avengers 6, crearing one and only universe. I think we should wait to the more detailed sources, and it will probably take some time. IKhitron (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Those are unreliable rumours about what might happen over the next few movies. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Definitely. IKhitron (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)