Talk:Doctor Strange (2016 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pre-production

Pre-production for the film has begun according to this article.Richiekim (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Moving to mainspace

I was just thinking about this today. What if we moved this page to Development of Doctor Strange? I think there is enough content to make it a page ONLY if done under this title (see Jurassic World and Star Wars VII as examples), and then it will (hopefully) prevent content creation once the film is announced, as Doctor Strange (film) would redirect here. We can also then clean up the "Film" section on the Doctor Strange page. Additional thoughts on this? I know this hasn't been done for any other MCU film, but that Ant-Man move got me thinking how a title like Development of Ant-Man would have been completely plausible from 2006-October 2013. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe in time but I think it's too early. Perhaps when we get some more concrete steps (say a release date or something), we can revisit it. All we have now are screenwriters and Feige's good faith intentions.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Revisit

So I think it might be plausible to reconsider this, especially with Comic-Con coming up very soon. Since I posted this last, we have gotten a director, potential leads, and from the quotes I have recently added from Feige, a planned production start timeframe. Maybe not today, but I do feel this should be done before Marvel's Comic-Con panel for a couple reasons: a) it will prevent the inevitable page creatation at Doctor Strange (film) when the film is announced (assuming such); and b) it will allow Doctor Strange (film) to redirect to somewhere useful, opposed to the section at Doctor Strange#Marvel Studios, which is basically a crude version of this draft (and subsequently allow the clean up of that section). Thoughts? I know you said earlier TriiipleThreat that maybe getting a release date would be a good time to revisit this, but I think all we need now is the release date, and then the improper page creations would start (as we've all seen far too much). Fandraltastic, Richiekim thoughts as well, as other draft contributors? Again, stating to have this moved to Development of Doctor Strange, not where it will eventually end up, Doctor Strange (film) (or whatever the official title is). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

We should probably wait till when Comic-Con starts before we move to the mainspace. Also, considering the recent turmoil befalling Ant-Man, we should be wary about making articles before filming starts. So until filming begins, Development of Doctor Strange should be used.Richiekim (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. That was another reason I had. I don't want another Ant-Man situation, so having a "Development of" page would be the solution of that. I do believe we have here a sizable, notable article to make it stand alone. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Richiekim, I think we should wait it out. Also I'm not a fan of "Development of" articles. We already strive to use language in this article to make it clear to readers that film is unreleased/unproduced. Adding "Development of" to the title, and removing the infobox does nothing. When people read United States presidential election, 2016 its obvious that the election has yet to take place despite the infobox and title being similar to United States presidential election, 2012.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Sounds good. Will just have to be alert come Comic-Con. I did add that hidden note at Doctor Strange (film) to hopefully stop anything from happening there. Since, as Richie noted below, we have entered pre-production, should we create a subsection for the film as Doctor Strange (TBA) over at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films? I think that could be acceptable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Jon Spaihts confirmed as screenwriter?

According to this interview with Scott Derrickson, he seems to confirm that Jon Spaihts has been hired as screenwriter for Doctor Strange. Richiekim (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

According to their website, Movie Pilot is a WP:SPS that relies on user submitted content similarly to Wikipedia, IMDB or Comicbookmovie.com, so we cannot use it as a source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is finished, but surely an interview wouldn't count as user submitted as it had to be done by a staff member at some point?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If the source is not reliable then we cannot trust that the interview isn't fabricated or altered.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Joaquin Phoenix

@Favre1fan93, Richiekim, and Sock: I wanted to get your guys opinion. The Wrap stated its headline that Joaquin Phoenix In Talks To Star In Doctor Strange but goes on to say that its a part of the "rumor mill". Since then The Hollywood Reporter has independently confirmed through an unnamed source that the actor is in fact in negotiations. Deadline has also picked up the story without any equivocation. Is this enough to be added to the article?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I see Richie has just added it which is fine but I wouldn't use The Wrap as source for the reasons stated above. I would still like to have your opinions though.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I just replaced the Wrap source with one from THR. I believe it's fine to post here, since three different reputable sources have reported on this.-Richiekim (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Just got on for the day. I'm fine with using the THR source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Also in favour of including the THR source. Sock (previously Corvoe) ^{(be heard)} 01:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Useful for inclusion?

Are these Variety slides useful for inclusion? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Official Logo

http://www.ramascreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Marvel-Doctor-Strange-logo--586x344.jpg

Images are not allowed outside the main space. Will add once it is moved to the main space. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Brul?

Shouldn't he be included in the pre-production section as Deadline has opted that he may be featured as the main villain of the film? I think it's worth noting. Here's the source. 69.248.243.150 (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

"opted", "may". These are the two key words. Speculation does not belong in an encyclopedic article, which this will eventually be. He isn't even confirmed to be in the film, let alone to be playing a villain in it. Sock (tock talk) 05:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Filming

@Favre1fan93, TriiipleThreat, and Richiekim: I know Feige has said that filming won't start till November, but Derickson has tweeted saying that he is heading to London now, so we may get more news soon / earlier filming than expected. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Feige has reiterated to THR that filming will begin in November. Richiekim (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ejiofor

The Deadline article reads "Ejiofor, rumored to be joining the film, will play Baron Mordo, an enemy of Doctor Strange who first appeared in the comic Strange Tales in 1963." The phrase "rumored to be joining the film" suggests that this is less than a confirmation. Given that the role was previously unspecified, the news is the relevation of the character, not that Ejiofor is confirmed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I previously disagreed, but now am reading it as such as well. It is essentially saying: "Ejiofor has not signed on, but is in negotiations to play Baron Mordo." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I now agree as well. I guess they worded it in a way that it could be interpreted as both, but for our purposes it only tells us about the character. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Swinton confirms Ancient One role.

Here's the source. Npamusic (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to be precise, she confirms that she is in talks. It's not a done deal.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

What? No, she specifically states that talks are done and that the deal is done. Are we seeing something different in this specific line: "No no no, it’s done. We’re so far in talks that we’re not talking any more [laughs]. It’s done. The conversation has been had." Npamusic (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't pay any attention to me. I read that completely wrong.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

hah, it's cool man. I added it to the article. Npamusic (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: There's no indication that author is stating an opinion the line reads "In the comics, the character has been a male, and Marvel Studios initially was searching for a male actor. But the studio rethought the role and has now made it female."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I felt my wording was good, as it uses the info from THR, but then in the following sentence we note that the character may not be the same gender as Swinton. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

THR used stronger wording saying the role is female. Also Swinton says she doesn't know if she will portray the character as male or female, not that Marvel hasn't made a decision. There's a slight but distinct difference.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

How I was reading it, was that there were reports of male actors being looked at, but now a female actor has been cast, so the author has assumed that Marvel must have made the role female and said as such in the article, but we now know better in that it has not yet been decided. Perhaps I was interpreting the situation wrong. I think Favre had the right idea, but perhaps some extra clarification can be given? - adamstom97 (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the specific language used in both sources, you can see that the statements are not exactly mutually exclusive. It is possible, even if unlikely, that Marvel made the role female and Swinton not be aware of that decision. Actors often take roles without reading scripts or detailed knowledge of the part. Sometimes property, name recognition of those involved, or compensation is enough. However, even if the statements were mutually exclusive, its better to present both sides of the conflicting accounts and allow readers to make any judgment calls then to try to mesh the information together and possibly introduce our own WP:OR or WP:POV.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Rachel McAdams

Rachel McAdams has confirmed she is discussing lead role for Doctor Strange. Marvel courts Rachel McAdams for female lead in Doctor Strange Hektor (talk) 11:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Already on the page. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks. Let's see whether she is Clea. Hektor (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

D23 panel

Appears the panel has just ended, with concept art mainly shown and a message from Cumberbatch. Only other interesting thing I got out of it from the live blog I was watching was Marvel's Agent M tweeting that Ejiofor may have been confirmed as cast. I guess something to look out for in the articles that post the panel recaps. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Move to mainspace checklist

Thought I'd put this here, given filming may have started, but reliable sources say December, so who really knows at this point? Anyways, here is the checklist of things that have to happen for the move to mainspace. Please feel free to add directly to this list, or comment below if you have any issues to what I have. For the most part, I think we've all been linking directly to the article (letting it take the redirect), so I don't think we'll have any issue with general links out there. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

1. Move to the mainspace! This can happen in two ways: contact an admin to perform the move (which requires the deletion of Doctor Strange (film) in the mainspace) OR place {{db-move|1=Draft:Doctor Strange (film)|2=Filming has begun on the film, allowing it to enter the mainspace per [[WP:NFF]].}} at Doctor Strange (film). DO NOT CUT AND PASTE!  Pending reached out to an admin to make the move and the db-move template is also in the mainspace for which ever gets addressed first
   1. If the moving admin does not do this, be sure to remove {{Draft article}} and unhid the categories.
2. Change the template at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Doctor Strange (2016) from {{further}} to {{main}}.  Done
3. Replace the whole fourth bullet point in the Doctor Strange#Film section with the content at User:Favre1fan93/sandbox#Doctor Strange.  Done
4. Upload the Doctor Strange logo (which you can grab from here) to File:Doctor Strange logo.  Done
5. Fix redirects currently going to Doctor Strange to the new mainspace article. (so far they are: Doctor Strange (2016 film) and Doctor strange 2016.)
6. Add the article link to all the nav boxes used in the article.  Done
7. If Marvel provides us with a press releases indicating filming starting, adding any info from that to our respective pages (castings mainly)

Update So as of this posting (approximately 1:30 am 11/6) the move has not happened yet. I have left a message with User:Czar to help perform the move, while TriiipleThreat added the db-move template, should another admin come across it. The only remaining checklist items to hit are unhiding the image and cats here, unhiding the film in the templates (thanks to them being there from Richiekim), adjusting redirects, and changing the link in the phase three table and template in the section at the list of films page. Hopefully by the time I check in again, this will be moved. Thanks everyone for the patience! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Filming has started

Here's the source. Npamusic (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC) Npamusic (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

We cannot use unverified twitter accounts as a source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

What about reliable ones? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It still traces back to an unreliable source. Fruit of the poisonous tree.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It's also possible that this is just second unit filming, which wouldn't pass WP:NFF (I think?). Also, this totally not reliable Tweet shows the blurb (possibly) from that production magazine, and it is stating a December start at Pinewood and NYC. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

if it is second unit, then why is Cumberbatch there? Npamusic (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC) Npamusic (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

We already had reliable sources for a November start which matches up with this set video. The new sources for a December start could just be referring to the production starting at Pinewood in December. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, we still need a reliable source claiming they are there. So far, reliable sources are just stating the info from that person's tweet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

here's another source (see: sources). Npamusic (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Npamusic (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, we can't use CBM but its still based on unverified twitter accounts. Be patient, we'll have independent reliable verification soon enough.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Film is filming in Nepal with Cumberbatch: source. Npamusic (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Npamusic (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat, Richiekim, and Adamstom.97: I think I found it! (fingers crossed) Kathmandu Post is stating he is there film, independent of the original photo (which is in the post). They have their own photo, plus state he is at a different location than the original Tweeter (Kathmandu over the Pashupatinath area). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Keyword: "reportedly". The Kathmandu Post is not confirming that the shoot is for Doctor Strange.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

How much "reportedly" is it if they have their own photo of him on set (which we as editors also have seen from the other sources provided here and elsewhere)? And how is it different from an actor casting from a trade publication that says they've been "reportedly" cast? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Everything that isn't announced/confirmed by Marvel is technically a report. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

They may have a photo of him but they are purposely not confirming what he is doing in the photo. If they were, then they would make the definitive statement "Nov 5, 2015- Hollywood actor Benedict Cumberbatch was spotted in Nepal, shooting a scene for his upcoming Marvel Studio’s movie “Doctor Strange”." But instead they inserted the word reportedly, which passes off any attribution so they cannot be found libel for the article. It is the same as "an actor casting from a trade publication that says they've been 'reportedly' cast", which is why I avoid sources that use such terminology.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This one too could be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

But it will not, because it references the tweet. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The Himalayan Times independently confirms: "It is learned that the Sherlock star is currently shooting for Marvel’s Doctor Strange.", then they go in to how the person tweeted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess this guy's tweet is an example of citizen journalism. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but the inclusion of the tweet in either The Himalayan Times or The Kathmandu Post is irrelevant. They each independently choose their own wording about the situation, outside of that tweet existing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

That first photo in The Kathmandu Post article with the closeup of Cumberbatch has the watermark that says "eKantipur". Kantipur Publications is apparently the parent company of The Kathmandu Post. Richiekim (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, the photo is irrelevant if they will not confirm that the photo is taken from the set of Doctor Strange. The Himalayan Times sources avoids troublesome wording like "reportedly". They also use the phrase "It is learned", which despite the grammar, suggests that they were able to verify the information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to add The Himalayan Times to the draft, and start the process of getting the draft into the mainspace. Is that fine with everyone? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

To me, it is. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, Cumberbatch just confirmed filming, here: "And I told [the Queen] I had just got back last night from filming in Nepal, Doctor Strange for Marvel, then I'll be going straight into the fourth series of Sherlock." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Mads Mikkelsen cast?

This article states he's been cast. Npamusic (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

They seem to be the only one to "confirm". Slash Film says he's believed to be, while ComingSoon.net says he's in talks. I think we should hold off for now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The Wrap also confirms Mikkelsen.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The Wrap confirms Mads addition to the cast?

This article jus released says that Mads is part of the cast. That's two sources (see topic above) can we add hm to the cast section now? http://www.thewrap.com/transparents-amy-landecker-joins-benedict-cumberbatch-in-marvels-doctor-strange-exclusive/ Npamusic (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Npamusic (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I posted that in the other thread. I think THR and The Wrap beats /Film and Comingsoon.net.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Proseline

Can the writing of this article be improved to avoid proseline? It is poor practice to start every paragraph with the month and year. Can content not be shuffled to be more organically intertwined? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with a lot of what essay says, general time references are necessary for the historical context of the film's progression.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

There do not need to be so many time references, though. For example, you could group the earlier events by decade without necessarily specifying the month and year every step of the way. It would allow for more organic transitioning between events. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Not how it works on here bub. Npamusic (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Erik is one of our most well respected editors and raises a good faith concern. While some time references are necessary for context, I'll see if anything can be done to group more of them together.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Adamstom.97 did some clean up with this edit. I can give it a look over soon too to see if I can cut it down anymore. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Adam's edit looks good.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought I'd give it a run through while adding the casting info, but I mostly just tried to remove instances where the same month was repeated for different information. Erik's original concern with the paragraph beginnings still stands, I believe. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I think there are different fixes that can be performed. For example, the "In April 2014" paragraph has Feige talking about the character, and I don't think that "April 2014" or "July 2014" have to be mentioned since it is not commentary that has to stick to a timeline. I would say the same for Cumberbatch's commentary in the "In January 2015" paragraph and Davis's commentary in the "In August 2015" paragraph. Other transitions could be something like if there is a follow-up event later in the same year, one could say, "In <month>" (without year), "In the following <month>", "In the following month", etc. This is done in some places now, but I see a couple more instances where it could be done. Also, the "In June 2014" paragraph's opening sentence could be inverted to something like, "Marvel hired Derrickson in June 2014 to direct the film." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Filming moved to UK.

Here's the source. Npamusic (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Npamusic (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The source doesn't say that.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, here is the source. Copied the wrong article. Npamusic (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Npamusic (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the page with the Screen Daily article. Richiekim (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Neve Gachev

A non notable actress who's IMDB page indicates a history of uncredited background work should not be added as a member of the main cast. Only one source is listing her as such, and it's far from a reliable one. If it was a major role, there would've been a much bigger hoopla about her casting, but there wasn't. Provide sources to prove me wrong. Rusted AutoParts 12:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 and TriiipleThreat, what say thee? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Her IMDb credits are not relevant here, as there is always a first time for everything. What is troublesome is if this is the only source. I have no problem with waiting for more if that is the case.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, Screen Daily appears to have "researched" their cast list by grabbing it from IMDb. Their list is the same as what IMDb had when this article was published. This is, of course, just circumstantial evidence. - DinoSlider (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It's the only reason I brought up IMDB. The source used has the names from the IMDB page featured. background actors are very eager to post on their IMDB profile the roles they secure in film/television to enhance their resume. SO despite the film only starting to form its core cast, it's not uncommon to see random names listed as a bit part, despite it not being a major role. In this case Gachev is listed as "Doctor". And it's something seen I've seen on several film cast lists that were still gearing up to begin filming. It's bit parters looking to brag. Rusted AutoParts 13:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It may be a case of WP:POISON, but there is no evidence to prove that. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Overly-detailed

Development and Pre-Production sections are overly-detailed. It's just a big chunk of text with the most insignificant details. Should be made more concise, IMO. XPrintGirl (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this a legit concern about over detail or are you just too lazy to read the info? Can't get through life cliffnoting everything. The info provided is important to the long development of the project. Rusted AutoParts 19:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Rusted AutoParts, please do not bite. XPrintGirl, I agree that it is a lot of text, but sometimes the details are warranted. Where do you think the text can be condensed without losing value? It helps to make suggestions to know what would be an improvement. I made similar suggestions a couple of discussions above. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Rusted AutoParts, it's a legit concern that Wikipedia even made a template about it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Overly_detailed). Thank you, Erik. I have tagged the sections a couple of days ago but someone removed it. I will be listing suggestions, shortly. XPrintGirl (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I would think that the early attempts at making a Doctor Strange film in the Development section would be a good candidate for condensing/deleting. The current film that is being made right now really had its origins when Marvel Studios gained control of the property in 2005. Richiekim (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, those "early attempts" are very critical to this attempt. How did Marvel Studios gain control of the property in 2005? The story is a part of process, it's both relevant and interesting.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That's all well and good. However, the section can still be trimmed to make it more concise, conveying the development history to the reader while reducing the bloat. For example, the details about Goyer's scheduling conflicts for a film that wasn't even made could be excised. Also, several of the links in the section seem to be suffering from link rot, and clicking on the archived link does not seem to work either. Richiekim (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• A few comments/suggestions on condensing as this page "have excessive information about trivial subjects and need to be refocused to suit a more general audience"
  1) Edgar Ramirez's "involvement" offers no significance and resulted to nothing.
  2)Lots of casting news can be significantly shortened, from a paragraph to a sentence or two.
  3)There's no need to quote McAdams, for example, about being in super early talks. Quotes like those don't offer anything. It's basically common sense that actors go into early talks, negotiations and if everything is sorted, deals. Date of news, then confirmation of casting would suffice.
  4)James Gunn's comments on Facebook about the crew is reserved for Trivia sections of IMDB and fanboy sites, not for Wikipedia.
  5)Lots of details are repeated, just in different sections.
  6) An audience reaction for a mere trailer (not even a trailer, but slides of concept art) is just peacock. XPrintGirl (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

1. The film isn't complete we don't what it will result in.
2. Casting is a major part of filmmaking. How and when actors came to be part of film are significant details.
3. Same, and the quote adds insight to the process.
4. Gunn losing crew to this this film is not trivial.
5. Please read WP:FILMMARKETING, the audiences reaction to the trailer is an indication of its effectiveness.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia doesn't need to have every rumour and every "news" that comes out of this film.
• Of course casting is a significant part of filmmaking! Nobody is disputing that. But these casting announcements CAN EASILY be written concisely without trivial details that only fanboys would care about. Remember, we cater for the general audience.
• Put quotes on the citations instead. It's cumbersome when every actor/crew of this production gets his quotes written. McAdams' comments confirming her casting is even more important than her being quoted as saying she's "in early talks" or whatever.
• It is trivial. It's a throwaway comment on a Facebook section which wasn't even covered by industry publications.
• It doesn't even qualify as a trailer in the first place. It's a collection of concept art. Cinematic trailers and even online trailers carry weight that such reaction wouldn't be called peacock.

I don't want this to go down to a debate between TriipleThreat and me. I've presented by suggestions and comments. I hope other editors would weigh in. XPrintGirl (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, none of the issues raised here are actual problems that need addressing. We have gone through and cut down the information we have to make it concise, and will continue to do so from time to time leading up to the eventual GA nomination. Just because many articles don't have the effort put in to make them detailed and in-depth doesn't mean that this one, or any of our other film articles, shouldn't. Also, in detailling the development process, we don't remove things because they don't directly lead to the finnished product; the whole point of development is that things come up and are changed or ignored over time. Triiiple was right in saying that this information is interesting, and don't assume that because you don't find it interesting then only "fanboys" must. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The only stance I'm seeing here from XPrintGirl is "only fanboys will care". Not a legit concern to me or a legit use of my time. The information contained is useful (and sourced) to those who wish to use it. If you don't, feel free to use the IMDB trivia page. Then again, you've only been an editor for a week, so what do you know. Rusted AutoParts 12:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

James Gunn on Doctor Strange

May contain something useful. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing much really. If it wasn't James Gunn speaking, you could put what he said from any other fan. We have some better material about the visuals (or intended visuals) already in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

New writer added to film.

Derrickson's co-writer on many of his films has been brought on to rewrite the script by Jon. Here's the source. Npamusic (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Npamusic (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: In regards to your recent edit (and similar mindset to what I've had), D'Esposito explicitly calls him the co-writer, which despite us waiting for credits, indicates to me, that he should be included in the infobox and lead with Spaihts. I don't feel he would use that if he was just a production writer (ie Ferrari and Barrer on Ant-Man). Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I feel like that wording would be enough for here until we get some official credits. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I too feel it is enough until something else comes out that says otherwise. I'll add it once Triiiple has a chance to respond if he wishes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps D'Esposito was just being gracious, it's hard to say. But maybe the cautious side is to include him as opposed to not.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Use of EW cover image

I was just taking a look at some of the back-and-forth about using this image or an on-set image, a discussion involving two of my good and responsible, longterm colleagues. For what it's worth, my opinion is that while the on-set image shows Cumberbatch small and barely recognizable, I've been led to understand, via the image-upload tool's rights pulldown, that we generally aren't allowed to use magazine covers except in articles about the magazine (with apparent exceptions made for when the cover is the focus of news stories itself, as with Caitlyn Jenner's Vanity Fair cover). I do hope we'll find a great, useable image of Cumberbatch in costume soon. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Tenebrae, are you referring to File:Benedict Cumberbatch on the set of Doctor Strange.jpg? It is a freely licensed file. As for the EW image, I don't think it matters where it comes from as long as it provides critical commentary. Is there really that much insight being shed on how Cumberbatch looks for his role? It's not any kind of extreme makeup. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

A little confused — I never said the existing on-set image was not properly licensed. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Me too, sorry! Are you talking strictly about the EW images? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on fair use, and just going by what it says on the upload page: "Magazine cover (can only be used in the article about the magazine)" and, in the full message, "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of magazine covers to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question ... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." -- Tenebrae (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: is correct about the use of magazine cover images, they can only be used to discuss the publication itself. Also the set image is being used to illustrate the production, not the character. Besides I can garuntee that sooner or later we'll have a film poster that shows the character in costume. No need to panic.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, the image of Cumberbatch in costume is great for the Doctor Strange media section, which Richiekim already added (albeit an image with out the EW typeface and text). And I agree with TriiipleThreat. We'll be getting a promotional poster in no time, so there is no rush or need to showcase the EW cover here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Strange's abilities

Should these be mentioned in Strange's character bit, or is it more plot info? Also, thinking this is WP:OR, but Feige seems to confirm that the Eye of Agamotto is the Time Stone. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I think a brief discription is warranted.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a brief description should be included. It also seems to me that the Time Stone is being hinted at, but I wouldn't take this as confirmation just yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Added. We'll keep the (supposed) confirmation about the Eye being the Time Stone in our back pocket for now. (Though side tracking a bit, a bit bummed they're revealing another Stone this early in Phase 3. Though Strange is a good candidate to do so... But I digress.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Costume

I tried adding some material on the first official photos of Cumberbatch in costume, because I think it's relevant to the film's production and marketing. This was the material:

The first official photos of Cumberbatch in costume appeared as part of the cover feature of the January 8, 2016 issue of Entertainment Weekly, which was released December 28, 2015.[1][2].

This was removed first by Favre1fan93 and then by Adamstom.97. Favre1fan93 stated as his rationale:

"mentioning an image was released is trivial & not special here."

Adamstom.97 similarly stated:

"The release of photos such as these has never been notable, and there is nothing especially significant about these ones. This is not a trailer with commentary, or something on that level."

Notability refers to the criterion by which a topic merits its own article, and not the inclusion of material in an article. This is an article about a superhero film, and since one of the most important identifying aspects of many or most superheroes is their visual look, and since one of the most commons areas of discussion among comics fans regarding a comics-to-screen adaptation is the look of the character, the release of the first photos showing the character in costume is significant. It is not "trivial", and I can see no reason mere mention of it should be excluded from such an article. Thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that notability does not apply here, but WP:NFCI does. For non-free images, #4 says the following can be appropriate: "Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary." I've usually worked with screenshots (#5), which also necessitates critical commentary. I find critical commentary to mean content from secondary sources about either the image or what is in it. In this particular case, we're talking about costume design, so if there is critical commentary about the costume, it would warrant showing the image of the costume so readers can comprehend that commentary. I can't think of costume images offhand, but American Beauty (1999 film) and Changeling (film) are Featured Articles with screenshots that go with critical commentary. So the question is if there is sufficient commentary in this particular case. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that this also exists: WP:FILMNFI. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree costume design is very relevant to film production and worth discussing if sources exist. I added costume design information to Django Unchained complete with a free image from the Commons. However, the information being proposed here, is just a mere mention that a publicity photo was released, which falls more under marketing than costume design. Furthermore this sort of customary marketing without critical analysis is discouraged per WP:FILMMARKETING.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so though the notability criteria for creating articles does not apply here, we still have to decide whether information is 'worthy' of being added or not. I agree that the appearance of and costume design for these superheroes is important, but this isn't new costume design information, it is a few images released for marketing purposes. Therefore, we have to judge these as what they are, and as far as marketing these do not meet WP:FILMMARKETING. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Can't really add much else to what's been stated above me. I'll just echo what was said, that, yes the costume design is important to the production of a film, not its marketing. Additionally, if we were to feature an image of Cumberbatch in costume (as it would most likely not be free), it would have to satisfy WP:NFCI rules, and provide critical commentary to content in the article. As for the line of text added in the marketing, per WP:FILMMARKETING, we need critical commentary to discuss common marketing. Releasing a character in costume for a film is a common marketing strategy, and as I said before, not notable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggested sources

• Kevin Feige on connection between Ant-Man and Doctor Strange: [3].
• Feige on the film: [4]. Hula Hup (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The second source is already present in the article, my mistake. It contains info on the Ancient One and McAdams's character that has not been included yet, like that the former avoids stereotypical portrayal and that the latter is the eyes of the audience. In citation No. 61, Feige says in regard to Doctor Strange, "It does make sense [to have standalone franchises], but I don't think it makes sense for this character, who has clearly woven in and out of that stuff [The Avengers] in the comics" and "So there's always the potential for it [Strange to join The Avengers]". Hula Hup (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• [5].

• [6].

• [7]. Hula Hup (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Source for potential filming location

Just wanted to drop this here before adding: MCU Exchange is claiming that there is filming currently happening at the Large Hadron Collider for the film. However, I've not been able to find any other source stating this, as MCU Exchange is generally unreliable. Just wanted to see if anyone had any opinions for its inclusion, but I'm still thinking no. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't add it unless we get a reliable, independent source. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Flicks.co.nz

@Favre1fan93: I'm not sure how it compares to IMDb, as I don't really use that site, but Flicks is a site where you can choose any cinema in NZ and see session times for every movie playing for the next week. It also allows you to buy or rent already released movies from other websites, both on demand and on DVD, as well as featuring trailers as they are released, and all the upcoming movies, as long as they are playing in at least one NZ cinema I guess. The site has a writing staff that does reviews and other features like top 10 lists, opinion pieces, and the like. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay. If it passes snuff, then we can add it back. Just didn't seem overly reliable when I looked at it. But that all sounds fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't sure myself, thought it would be easiest to describe it and see what you (guys) think. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Citations for use

Here's a reflection by comic book writer J. M. DeMatteis talking about his experience writing a Doctor Strange movie for Marvel in the early 90s that might be helpful. Any other citations for use can go in this section:

• J.M. DeMatteis (2013-03-02). "Strange Tales, Part One". jmdematteis.com/.

Doctor Strange has wrapped filming as of today, according to Scott Derrickson on Twitter.

Scott Derrickson announces end of filming on Doctor Strange: https://twitter.com/scottderrickson/status/716758314168762368

Which teaser poster to use?

This first one (A) released with Strange's back to us (as of this post, the current one for the page), or this one (B), released with the trailer drop? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Richiekim: before I undo your upload, care to comment? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I think (B), since the film's logo is prominent in this one, which would better assure readers that they're on the right page rather than (A), in which the name of the film is absent. - Richiekim (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm yes. Good call. I'll leave it for now, but will see if anyone else cares to comment/has an opinion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

A new poster has been uploaded showing Strange's face, and I think we can go with it. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Great writing info

I think we can use this, but just wanted to double check. Cargill was on Korey Coleman's podcast yesterday and gave some really interesting descriptions of the writing. Starting around 1:46:50, he goes into describing how he was involved, and said that he is co-writing with Derrickson, but that another writer did work (presumably Spaiths) when Marvel was trying to hit their original July 2016 release (also this confirms the Variety report from way back before the 10/14 event). So I think it should be updated here (and the LoF table) that the screenwriters are "Scott Derrickson & C. Robert Cargill and Jon Spaiths". "&" is used for Derrickson and Cargill per their work as a writing team and using Sinister and Sinister 2 as an example. Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, a great response from Cargill about the Ancient One. The podcast is a good listen (for Cargill's part at least) if you have the time. Kind of peeling back my question from earlier, definitely think we can mine a bunch of info from this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there is plenty of good stuff there, and that we should use this as an update for the screenwriters for now ("Scott Derrickson & C. Robert Cargill and Jon Spaiths" sounds good to me). Here is a transcription of some of Cargill's parts, though the site is unreliable. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

We can definitely use the MCU Exchange source to help with transcriptions, though we should ultimately link to the actual podcast. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Cargill's Ancient One comments

Should Cargill's clarification to this "controversy" be added, indicating that the part about the China-Tibet relations were his own opinion, not necessarily a reason considered by Marvel? I personally don't get that reading based on how we worded the statements, but just wanted to see if others thought this ref should be added in some form. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It reads pretty clear that Cargill is the one making that statement.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Tilda Swinton on the white washing controversy

Here is a source that may be helpful for this article. - DinoSlider (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Great minds think alike, I was just about to come here with that.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

That is a blatant excuse to be true to the material I believe is key The original Ancient One is a tibetan man to have his race change is a daily thing in Hollywood. Racebending meaning changing his race is an excuse to exert White racial superiority and racial hierarchy. The comics made him a Tibetan man so the controversy should be taken seriously.

But, what about the nature of Whitewashing and racebending that occurs in yearly Hollywood films. Tilda Swinton's casting is a huge example of this occurring in major movies. This issue needs to be more recognized and to be recognized the Casting controversy should have a section of its own in the article. Barely anyone will read it if it's clustered in with other details. IceBrotherhood (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Whitewashing section

Regarding this, I understand that it is too much content to contain under "Cast", but I think there should be a stand-alone section about this later in the article, perhaps near the end. There is reputable commentary from various sources that should be consolidated here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe this is similar to the Idris Elba situation in Thor, where it was decided - while there are many sources on the subject - that too much detail would result in giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Besides do we really need George Takei's thoughts on the subject? We have established that accusations of whitewashing exist and provided responses from those involved. The only thing new was added were responses to the response. How far does this need to go?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable sources reporting on Takei's commentary about the casting, so I find its inclusion warranted per WP:RSOPINION, as well as other persons whose responses have been highlighted in sources. I agree that it is undue in the context of the "Cast" section, but I think that means having its own section to work with. It is a distinct sub-topic for this overall topic. It's easier per WP:STRUCTURE to fold together the various commentary (with the "Cast" section mentioning it briefly and having an anchor link to the more detailed section). I think it is going to be a key component of any article, but it does not need to be above the staple sections. It could be at the end in terms of general importance. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems like WP:FART to me as I'm sure lots of celebrities have thoughts on the matter and breaking it off to its own section would only add to the weight.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I think @Erik: has a point - I've been following commentary and the responses the filmmakers have made in regards to Swinton's casting and I think it's worth creating a separate section to (objectively of course) point out this controversy. -- S ^talk/_contribs 22:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, the more prominent and detailed it is, the more weight it adds.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Given what the MOS says on this at MOS:FILM#Controversies, I feel like Triiiple, that adding more to the matter will make it a weight issues. We already have a sentence that says there was "controversy" with "Swinton's casting also drew accusations of whitewashing due to the fact that the character is generally depicted as a Tibetan man." Do we have to continually add other voices now pointing this out? Will it add anything else? No, I don't think so. A possible solution, though, would be to add more refs, or create a WP:CITEBUNDLE, for some of these additional voices on the matter calling it a "controversy", and placing it after the current sentence I quoted, allowing readers to follow the refs and further read on the subject should they choose. A small addition, too, could be Derrickson's own response, placed as follows: "In response, Swinton stated that the character in the film is not actually Asian and that she was never asked to play an Asian character,[ref] while Derrickson said he was "listening and learning" on the matter.ref" - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

So, more quotes and statements from people who support or created the movie, retaining several sentences from Cargill's defense of the movie, and burying more criticisms in the sources?

Adding further defenses from the filmmakers regarding Wong just contributes to a lack of neutrality in the article. If the orientalism concern with the casting choices is worth covering (and it is), then both sides should be covered, not just one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:F952:BC00:6D37:F2B7:785B:29A2 (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Zythe, Dbachmann, Tenebrae, and Millahnna: Pinging editors who were involved in the other discussion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The fact that Marvel and the director felt the need to weigh in also suggests that this is worthy of proper coverage. If you don't want to expand coverage or provide a separate section, then fine, but what coverage there is should be balanced. Devoting several sentences to Cargill's views on the subject (when he expressly states that he wasn't even involved in the decision) without including a discussion of the criticism is just an attempt to enforce a particular viewpoint on the issue. Simply stating that the casting was criticized also does not capture the nature or substance of the criticism, or the counterarguments to Cargill.

I'm not sure why Takei's voice is less worthy of coverage than any of the others, given that he is a prominent commentator in his own right. But if that's really a problem, there are others (like Kovvali at Salon, or Chu at DailyBeast, etc.) that could be used.

Similarly, the nature of the Wong character should be addressed. Cargill cites him as important on this issue. The announcement of the casting of the character said he was "key". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:F952:BC00:452F:5CAA:D81D:759D (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but why is an anon IP, with no other recorded edits except to this discussion, and who evidently doesn't care enough about building an encyclopedia to even register, being all SPA on this? I could be wrong, but ginning up "controversy" is something publicists do, and giving the "controversy" legitimacy by having it covered in any depth on Wikipedia seems a little suspect, given this person's scant Wikipedia background. (The fact he's not signing his posts but leaving them to be auto-signed also indicates to me this is not someone who has had experience editing Wikipedia under other IP addresses.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

So you don't have a substantive critique of my position, and have moved on to a critique of me. This might be a reasonable approach if you suspected that I was working with some vested interest to manipulate the content of the page. But your argument seems designed to protect the one corporate interest at stake. The movie isn't controversial in a way that attracts viewers (except perhaps for racist trolls who are attracted to accusations of whitewashing); it's controversial in a way that alienates viewers. You also acknowledge that it would be easy to create an account, which is what I assume a paid publicist would do; and you say that I probably don't have experience manipulating Wikipedia pages, the way a paid publicist would.

I don't care all that much on a personal level (and am not alleging that this was a violation of Wikipedia policy on personal attacks, or anything like that). But I am annoyed at the distraction from the substantive point: the Wikipedia page covers the controversy in a one-sided way, and it covers it in a way that is not proportionate to the controversy's importance. Even if you don't trust a single critic, the fact that important people who worked on the movie have commented on it attest to its importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:F952:BC00:7840:F15:6AD3:7C3C (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

For your concerns with Swinton's content, please join us in the discussion above, with proper indentation to know who your response is too (that can be achieved with colons). As for your edits to the Wong character, there were multiple issues with it. First, he can not have a bulleted listing at this time, as we do not know if he is a billed character. Billed characters are those that appear at the bottom of the film's poster, or based on an order from a press release. At this time, we do not have an updated billing that does, or does not include Wong in it, so he is kept in the paragraph at the bottom. Second, saying he is a "key" role in the film, is weasel-y word, and material from the article's headline–the part meant to grab a reader's attention. Finally, you attempt to add this Daily Beast article to "commentate" on Wong's casting is very far off, given that article has absolutely no mention of Wong in it at all, so it can't be used. As for Cargill's podcast source, that isn't really anything worth mentioning, because if you listen back to it, he just mentions Wong, along with Ejiofor and other unnamed cast members to state the diversity of the cast. Not something overtly special about that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

So when the Dailybeast article says, "Just like I didn’t think it was a necessity that the racially ambiguous Dr. Strange be cast as an Asian guy, although making his faithful manservant Chinese felt like a slap to the face," and links to a notice of Wong's casting, that's not a reference to Wong?

Is there a source on McAdams or Stuhlbarg playing billed characters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:F952:BC00:452F:5CAA:D81D:759D (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Apologies on missing the little mention of Wong in the Daily Beast source. But still, the only bit about it was that the casting "felt like a slap in the face", as all the other quoted material you tried adding is not explicitly for the character, but rather a commentary on Marvel's casting in general across the films and television series. As for the order, please see this for the order, which is noted at the top of the cast section. That is the most up-to-date billing we have for the film. The order will be updated and changed as the sources come as we are in no rush. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Feige has rejected Cargill's Tibet rationalization.. At this point, the page devotes several sentences to laying out Cargill's point of view, but does not discuss (1) the Marvel Studios president's rejection of Cargill's Tibet argument, (2) the director's rejection of Cargill's rhetoric, or (3) any of the prominent commentators (or prominent outlets) that have run critical pieces.

The article on Feige also includes the following point about Wong: "There's also the matter of Strange's sidekick, Wong, played by Benedict Wong in the film. Isn't it also a racist stereotype to have a white mystic gain the assistance of an Asian sidekick? Why was that element left in there, but the Ancient One became white?" This seems to tie the controversies together: Marvel reacts to the controversy around the Ancient One by asserting that it has a strong record of diverse casting and that it was acting out of sensitivity to stereotypes. But the casting of Wong -- and the arguments explored in the Kovvali and Chu pieces -- demonstrate that this is contestable, at best.

The best solution is a separate section on the controversy. A weight argument against coverage may make some sense when looking at the amount of attention on the issue in the "Cast" section, but it makes no sense in the context of the broader article, which devotes several sections to providing an archive of summaries of Marvel's press releases on developments in the production process. Given the level of coverage, the controversy is highly likely to be a focus in the coverage and reception of the movie itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:F952:BC00:C0DC:8252:376:2F33 (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The "controversy" is, for the most part, just the same tempest-in-a-teapot that accompanied a female Starbuck in Battlestar Galactica and a black Heimdall in Thor. And as this article shows, the Ancient One was not even originally conceived as Tibetan: http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/marvel-defends-tilda-swinton-s-casting-in-doctor-strange-1.11737645. One celebrity aside, I'm not sure this "controversy" is anything more standard Internet troll-grumbling. It's not like the Asian-American Anti-Defamation League is issuing press releases, is it?

Since this might be a subscription-only article, it says: "While many outlets have called the original comic-book character Tibetan, the Ancient One is actually specified as being from 'Kamar-Taj, a hidden land high in the Himalayas' in his origin story in “Strange Tales” #148 (Sept. 1966). Dr. Strange first encounters him not in Tibet but in India, in Strange’s origin story in “Strange Tales” #115 (Dec. 1963)." --Tenebrae (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

(1) The Marvel Studios president, the director of the movie, a co-writer of the movie, and an actress in a starring role all felt the need to weigh in on this issue. You might think the issue is stupid, but on an objective basis it is an important issue.

(2) Viewed in the context of the overall article, there is clearly too little coverage of this issue. Read through the pre-production or filming sections -- they are literally a running archive of press releases from Marvel. Much of the discussion also simply repeats information in the cast section, like the several sentences devoted to the team thinking about casting Cumberbatch.

(3) The fact that you think the complaints are silly on the merits is not a good reason to limit coverage in the article, and it is certainly not a reason to restrict coverage to a discussion that favors the filmmakers. (As an aside, your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense -- even if the character wasn't Tibetan, the character was Asian. I doubt that there would be the same complaints (i) if an actor or actress from a different Asian country was selected; (ii) if the overall storyline for Doctor Strange -- in which Asian culture's role is simply as a backdrop for a white guy to find himself -- were less questionable and could support a less thoughtful approach; or (iii) if Marvel actually did have a strong history of casting Asians in fully-fleshed out roles with real motivations or agency. No one could reasonably look at the casting of Heimdall and claim that it's part of a pattern of erasing white men from films; the star of that movie is basically Hitler's dreamboy -- along with the star of Captain America, ironically enough. There won't be a non-white headliner on a Marvel movie until 2018, deep into Phase III, and so far Marvel only seems to be interested in casting Asians in stereotypical roles like loyal manservant, soulless ninja assassin, or exotic sexpot.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:F952:BC00:C1DA:498A:2E6:CD53 (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

References

McAdams and Mikkelsen's character names

Here is the press release for the toys that have supposedly revealed the character names for McAdams and Mikkelsen. Despite being an official release, as it is for toys and not Marvel, there is still the possibility these are placeholder names for the characters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this was how Ant-Man's other persona, Giant-Man, was initially revealed to be in CA:CW. Although it was through Funko, not this off-brand. -- S ^talk/_contribs 15:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Diamond Selects isn't an off-brand. They're a pretty big toy distributors. But as I said, since these are both new characters, there is still the possibility these are placeholder names. With the Giant-Man Funko situation, it wasn't too illogical to make that connection, given the character was already established in the MCU, and knowing the characters power abilities from the comics. WP:NORUSH. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

According to Doctor Strange Prelude, Makkelsen's character really is Kaecilius. But before we can add the name into the article, we need to find a proper way to add a source about it here. CAJH (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Worth noting?

Cumberbatch addressed the similarities between Strange and Sherlock, as noted here. Wasn't sure if it should be mentioned. I can see both sides, for and for not including. Just wanted to see what others thought. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards not including it, but not too worried. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

If AoU can mention Ultron's similarities to Frankenstein's monster, I think we can mention Strange's similarities to Sherlock too since Cumberbatch has been comprehensive in his quote. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Without reading what he actually said, an actor comparing his roles is typically the type of insight that we look for.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've added the info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Comic Con

https://mobile.twitter.com/AgentM Rusted AutoParts 01:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Panel. Cumberbatch, McAdams, Swinton, Mikkelsen and Wong are there. McAdams character reveal? Rusted AutoParts 01:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope, no name. But there's "history" between them. Wish they'd give her a fakeout name to run with like Valerie or Ally. Rusted AutoParts 01:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Additional writer and official budget for Doctor Strange revealed

Hey, guys, if you could add this to the Doctor Strange movie page, it's been revealed, from The Hollywood Reporter, that it had an additional writer wth Dan Harmon from Community and that the film was made for $165 million dollars: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/doctor-strange-enlists-dan-harmon-922236. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:9040:3F00:DDB0:6E0B:82:8CE0 (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Harmon already on the article, the budget info is the last reported projection for the film from 2005. Not clear if that is still true or not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, that was from an LA Times article. This is from a Hollywood Reporter article, so, apparently, it's confirming what LA Times said that Doctor Strange's budget is still indeed $165 million. So, Favre1fan93, could u please add that Doctor Strange has a $165 million dollar budget on it's page? Please. Thanks. 😉 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.120.128 (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No. Again, that is outdated info. There is no indication at this time if it is the correct one. The proposed film in 2005 was quite different than what it has become, so it is quite feasible that the budget changed. Also, the article does not have page protection, so you are free to edit the content if you wish. But as I've stated, it shouldn't be at this time. WP:NORUSH. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

New Doctor Strange box office predictions

Can we please add this $88M opening weekend prediction for Doctor Strange from BoxOffice.com as part of the box office predictions on the movie's wiki page: http://pro.boxoffice.com/long-range-forecast-doctor-strange-trolls-hacksaw-ridge/#comment-2851? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.141.201 (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Inception comparisons

Something new. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Strange runtime revealed

Event Cinemas, the site that broke how long Guardians of the Galaxy and Civil War ran, has officially revealed the running time for Doctor Strange as 130 minutes: https://www.eventcinemas.com.au/Movie/Doctor-Strange — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.31.5 (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ticketing/theater sites should generally not be used to cite the runtime, as they tend to vary slightly at times between each other. Print publications, or classification boards should be used. WP:NORUSH on the info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, Empire is reporting that the UK release date has moved up. - DinoSlider (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks DinoSlider. I've adjusted the info in the article to include the UK's new date, which is now the first release territory. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Another reason why ticketing/theater sites should not be used: the "reported" run time was debunked by Derrickson. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Benedict Cumberbatch info

According to Empire, the release date was moved so they could hire Cumberbatch. This seems noteworthy, but I'm not sure what section it would fit best in: Cast, Pre-Production, Release, ... - DinoSlider (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

We already almost say it in the production section, so a bit of a re-wording there to clarify would be good. We could also mention this in the release section I think. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Adam. Pre-production and release section would be good imo. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know if we have to add in the Empire source. We already have in the first three paragraphs of "Pre-production" all the info in that source. This would just be an extra ref to reinforce what is already there, but I don't think we need it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Censorship concerning whitewashing

All I'm trying to do is add an extra link to whitewashing in film, which is a topic that drew intense media coverage to the film. The archived discussion regarding this issue imparted pretty much nothing, considering a consensus wasn't reached. What is so devastating about adding a "See also" section? Do a search for "Doctor Strange" and "whitewashing" and you will find an incredible amount of reputable media coverage that associates the two together; they are clearly related topics. Seems like some editors have a vested interest in brushing this under the rug... —Wash whites separately (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Just because you got no reply within an hour does not mean that there is no consensus. The discussion has barely even begun, and you are just being ridiculous. If you do think that you have a solid reasoning for this edit, then there should be no problem forming a proper consensus rather than blatantly ignoring rules and common courtesy.

The general consensus of the previous discussion was that we should mention it in relation to the character, but not pretend that the whole film is being torn down by critics because of it, just as we did for the casting of Irdis Elba in Thor. Obviously there are those, including yourself, that think it deserves more weight, and that is fine. But new consensus will have to be determined here before things are changed in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

As with the previous discussion, here, and as Adam stated above me, it was determined that the topic was aptly covered in the cast section regarding Swinton, in a similar manner to the casting of Idris Elba in Thor. If the link to whitewashing in film was not included there, I would say to add it there. But it already is. And from that previous discussion, and still currently, it is a matter of WP:SCOPE and WP:WEIGHT within the article. It is one character within this film that drew the criticism, not the whole thing. And additionally, as the situation has evolved, with more info being revealed, Swinton isn't even playing the "Asian" Ancient One, since "Ancient One" is only a title passed down to various individuals throughout history. And the current MCU version happens to be a white Celtic. So again, the linking is not warranted as a "see also" link, when it is covered properly in the article. And per WP:NOTSEEALSO (bolding theirs), As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes, for which I've just stated how and where it is in this article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Character Descriptions

Marvel Studios has released official character descriptions, Fun Facts and Project Profile, so it's official the running time of 115 min., the name of Bratt's character... Escudero (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Derrickson on Reddit

Scott Derrickson answered some questions on Reddit at /r/MarvelStudios, here. Does anyone know if his answers can be used? I'd think yes, but I'm not entirely sure and I couldn't easily find any guideline or policy on the matter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Before I add anything, out of the whole answers, these stood out to me to add: Paul McCartney attending a scoring session and saying a track had "Shades of Walrus", Derrickson looked to include a Bob Dylan song in the film, and What Dan Harmon's work was, and that it is uncredited. Definitely the last one, not sure about the music ones though. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Definitely the Dan Harmon stuff, and I would add the music stuff (I think he also mentions a Pink Floyd song that is in the movie that we could add as well). - adamstom97 (talk) 05:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I added them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Some news

1. Here is an article talking about the casting of Linda Louise Duan as Tin Minoru (and here's Duan's acting CV with this info). However, Comicbook.com notes (and from Feige in the set visit interviews), she may not actually be named in the film. The first link also speculates on the casting of Brother Voodoo and Daniel Drumm.
2. Also, the content of the post-credit scenes have leaked. THIS LINK DOES HAVE SPOILER MATERIAL if users wish to avoid them. Just wanted to add it here if after many have seen the film, we could use it for sourcing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Actual premiere?

Is it Hong Kong or LA? Marvel is billing their coverage and the posters at the LA one as the "world premiere", but we have a reliable source for the Hong Kong one that that was the world premiere (plus media and junkets happened after the Hong Kong premiere, something that usually happens after the LA one). Didn't know if this could be a situation like with GotG, where they had a press/screening event on July 12, 2014 in Singapore, before the world premiere in LA on July 21, 2014. Just wanted thoughts @TriiipleThreat, Adamstom.97, and Richiekim:. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it matters. What matters which is the first and that was in HK.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Just seems like they ended up scheduling the Hong Kong premiere before their big "world premiere" event in LA, and had to call it the "world premiere" since it was first. We should stick with HK as the literal premiere. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Official confirmation of Doctor Strange's budget

TheFool.com has just confirmed Doctor Strange's budget was $165 million dollars: http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/10/22/instant-analysis-for-disney-investors-doctor-stran.aspx?source=isesitlnk0000001&mrr=1.00. Please add this onto Doctor Strange's page, now that it's confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.219.235 (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Writing Credit

The credits of the movie credit it as "Written by" all three writers, not separate credits for story and screenplay — Preceding unsigned comment added by VodkaCocktail (talk • contribs) 18:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Plot section

Since the film has already been released ("Doctor Strange held its world premiere in Hong Kong on October 13, 2016") where is the description of the plot? Shouldn't it be possible to have one already? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It hasn't been released for general audiences yet. Facu-el Millo (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

When a film is released then the plot can be added. Wikipedia is worldwide project the Hong Kong release date should have been enough.

It has since also been release in the UK. Wikipedia is not censored, there should be full plot section already. -- 109.77.226.175 (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Benedict Cumberbatch does Motion Capture for Dormammu.

Here's the source. Npamusic (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Npamusic (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead

The lead states that, "Various incarnations of a Doctor Strange film have been in development since the mid-1980s until Paramount Pictures acquired the film rights in April 2005 on behalf of Marvel Studios." The word "incarnations" should be replaced with "versions" or something similar. It is a slang term in this context. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"Incarnation" refers to one in a series of something that has been "reborn" each time, like one incarnation of someone who has been reincarnated. "Versions" does not carry the same meaning, and I don't think there are any other viable alternatives. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Films scripts do not get reincarnated, they get rewritten. I understand what "incarnations" is intended to mean in the lead, but that's not its dictionary meaning. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This is still a normal use of the term, not slang, and it does not imply that the script has been literally reincarnated. Anyway, the sentense does not just refer to the rewriting of scripts, see the development section for the whole film being reinvented at different studios under different writers, directors, and producers, over decades. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Press Kit

Marvel Studios has released the Press Kit of the movie, which includes full end credits and production notes. Maybe can be helpful. Escudero (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Finally! Thanks! And here is the archive link, archived October 30, 2016.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Potential Edit War

Hi. Never done this before, so... I have come to understand that there are disagreements regarding reviews for the film. You think we can talk about this before it gets too out-of-control? – Njorent (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)