Talk:Captain America: Brave New World

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Why isn’t the budget listed

I noticed there wasn’t a budget listed where they are usually listed. Is there a reason for excluding it? WhowinsIwins (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Because there has not been any known budget reported on by a reliable source. There will be some figures available closer to release when more concrete projections and box office figures start pouring in. Not everything is definitively known right away, and this film has been doing reshoots, so a budget likely hasn't been narrowed down completely for a while. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Most likely when it released they will give only the initial stated budget for tax purposes which will be significantly under stated. 250 or so million. It will likely take a year or so for the real budget to be released with the multiple reshoots and delays. Reporting puts that closer to 350. Which considering disney and marvel specifically seems about right. For reference look at captain marvel. Went from 270 to 350 when they finally gave final budget estimates after delay and reshoots. Expect this to be extremely similar 2601:204:F182:FA80:7DC1:3030:582E:C4CA (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Meant the marvels. The sequel that lost Disney 200 million. Expect this to be the same budget issues. 2601:204:F182:FA80:7DC1:3030:582E:C4CA (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Budget

Why go with the figure of 180m and not simply state unknown or to be verified? Who exactly is considered a 'reliable source'? Disney? Springrash (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The Hollywood trades like Deadline Hollywood and The Hollywood Reporter are reliable sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Is $180M the final budget? It's well documented that this film went through numerous reshoots.Wikieditor9117 (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe the budget as reported by THR and the other trades is somehow inaccurate. Most of these big blockbuster films tend to have further financial disclosures revealed years after their release (ie. The Marvels, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness) but there are no reputable sources disputing the accuracy of the presently known budget aside from unreliable sources and rumors. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

That would be the initial production budget used for the tax credit. Just have to wait. Eventually a more accurate cost with the delays and reshoots and having to redo vfx will come out pushing the budget significantly higher. 2601:204:F182:FA80:1298:591:6BFA:472E (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2025

Remove "the" from "the Ross". 2601:CD:CC01:1FB0:985:D319:F795:7743 (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

 Already done PianoDan (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2025

Change USA release date to Februarary 13th, 71.31.247.114 (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Movie’s release dates are not indicated by their Thursday night showings. Friday (the 14th) is the true release date and what’s listed on the posters and marketing 2603:3015:2479:320:7DAB:981D:5D12:1997 (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

File:///C:/Users/reett/OneDrive/Pictures/Screenshots/Screenshot 2025-02-12 183113.png

Proof

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Reception

How come this article lists that it received mixed reception from critics but there’s three large paragraphs of only negative reviews under the “reception” tab? Shouldn’t there be a mix of positive and negative to accurately depict the reception of the film? 2603:3015:2479:320:7DAB:981D:5D12:1997 (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Yuh, there definitely should be. These three paragraphs legit feel like some editors are just trying to trash the movie on purpose. Someone's got a serious grudge against that film and it shows. 2A01:CB09:D060:6FF2:DCFF:ACA7:D1E4:74EE (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

If you can find some more positive reviews, then please feel free to add them in yourself. The mixed reception is supported by several citations in the article already. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Most of the first paragraph is not a "this good" or "this bad", it is a paragraph focused on the recurring themes by writer-reviewers having a laugh about "somehow the fictional red president is not worse than the real-life orange one." I see no negative parts about the film there, just the representation of reviewers bringing up Trump. I mean, Trump has already had an effect on the film irl, namely the marketing, as a scene from the trailer depicting Ross's assassination attempt was a bit too close to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania for Disney's liking, thus it was replaced with other footage. BarntToust 02:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Alternatively, change “mixed” reviews to “negative” reviews.

~~ 2A02:C7C:8469:C700:A96F:617B:232:3997 (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Any changes of that sort would require a reliable source to back up those claims. Trailblazer101 (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

A comment of yours above is requesting positive reviews, and I’ve seen no update Do positive reviews exist or not?

I’m not even sure what wikipedia considers “negative”, is it the case that we always default to “mixed” or would “mostly negative” suffice?

~~ 2A02:C7C:8469:C700:B8C8:AB41:47A6:1E8D (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not solely in charge of what reviews get inserted into an article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

You’re not, and you are replying to my suggestion with contradictory statements.

If anything, you’ve proven my point that the reception should be changed to “mostly negative”

~~ 2A02:C7C:8469:C700:B8C8:AB41:47A6:1E8D (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

No, responses to the film are clearly mixed, with 50-50 positive vs. negative on Rotten Tomatoes and "mixed or average" reviews on Metacritic. The fact that the rest of the Critical response section does not accurately reflect this is due to the editors who have added reviews so far adding too many negative ones. The solution is to re-balance the Critical response section so the examples of reviews actually reflect the overall response. You are welcome to go ahead and try doing that if you feel so strongly about this. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The article is locked adam, And I would need consensus from this talk page to change anything even if it wasn’t.

The presented criticism is already enough. a B- from Cinemascore is Dark Phoenix bad, and that article mentions the poor test screenings in the main section.

My position is that this article should also reflect a negative reception.

~~ 2A02:C7C:8469:C700:B8C8:AB41:47A6:1E8D (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Just because one article does something one way does not mean the same applies to this one. Yes, the article is currently protected for other means, though you are welcome to gathering more positive sources and linking them here so editors who can edit the page may add them into the article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

This is incorrect, Wikipedia users use other article’s solutions as a reference all the time.

I have not mentioned positive sources, I have no idea why you are suggesting I find positive sources.

If the reception is negative, the article should reflect it as such.

~~ 2A02:C7C:8469:C700:B8C8:AB41:47A6:1E8D (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I have already explained why we should be adding positive reviews rather than changing the lead to say the reception is negative. You have ignored my explanation and continued to post unhelpful comments, which is exactly the thing you are accusing Trailblazer of doing. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Adam, the reviews are negative. The reception is negative. An average review score of 55% takes into account both positive and negative reviews. You can’t just demand some positive review exists that rates it 100000/10 to counteract a consensus of hundreds of critics.

If you have a misunderstanding you are welcome to talk on my talk page about this.

~~ 2A02:C7C:8469:C700:B8C8:AB41:47A6:1E8D (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

50% on Rotten Tomatoes means half of all reviews are positive, and Metacritic literally says "mixed or average", so Wikipedia cannot say "the reviews are negative. The reception is negative." We have to follow the evidence, not our own personal opinions. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

As stated, Other movies with equivalent rankings have worse treatment on wikipedia.

I have elected to make my case in the form of a proposed edit when I am on my computer.

~~ 2A02:C7C:8469:C700:B8C8:AB41:47A6:1E8D (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit requests are only for making changes unlikely to be controversial, not for attempting to force your preferred changes, especially to an extended confirmed protected page under Arbitration sanctions. That would be a misuse of editing tools in an attempt to WP:Game the system, and is highly ill-advised in this situation. Any such request will be rejected. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the article is extended confirmed protected in accordance with ARBPIA. An entire paragraph in #Pre-production talking about Israel and Palestine will do that.

I cannot tell whether you're looking to change this to "negatively received" or whether you'd like more positive sources. BarntToust 16:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I have made a separate discussion to handle this directly.

My position is that the article should better reflect that the film is negatively received.

~~ 2A02:C7C:8469:C700:B8C8:AB41:47A6:1E8D (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Reception change

The article details that RT gave Brave New World an average of 55% and 42%.

Cinemascore gave the movie a B-, which would make it lower than Eternals and the Marvels. Both articles for those are far more critical of the movie than BNW.

Therefore, I think the last paragraph should be expanded to include more detail , that is a better reflection of how the film has been received.

~~ 2A02:C7C:8469:C700:B8C8:AB41:47A6:1E8D (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Dark Phoenix also got a B-, and also had reshoots after poor test screenings. Perhaps we could introduce a sentence which reflects this to keep it in line.

~~ 2A02:C7C:8469:C700:B8C8:AB41:47A6:1E8D (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

This is already being discussed in the "Reception" section above. See my response there. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Trailblazer, every comment I make does not require your input.

I will be ignoring your contributions moving forward.

~~ 2A02:C7C:8469:C700:B8C8:AB41:47A6:1E8D (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

That is an absolutely unacceptable response to collaborators on the project. You have been given a warning on your talk page for your misbehaviour. BarntToust 17:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

BarntToust we’ll discuss this on the talk page, Thanks.

~~ 2A02:C7C:8469:C700:B8C8:AB41:47A6:1E8D (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Summary

Proposed wording

Suggested Changes Matthew Orton joined in December 2023 to write for reshoots, which took place between May and November 2024 after test screenings yielded poor responses. The involvement of Edwards and Glanz was revealed in December. Captain America: Brave New World premiered on February 11, 2025, at the TCL Chinese Theatre in Hollywood, Los Angeles, and was released in the United States on February 14 as part of Phase Five of the MCU. It received mixed reviews from critics, who took varying stances on the political commentary, story, characterization, and visual effects, though they praised the performances of Mackie and Ford. It became one of the few MCU films to not receive generally positive reviews.

I would like to propose a change to the summary on the last paragraph and the part before. Compared to the pages for the Eternals and Dark Phoenix which netted similar ratings, it is my view that the page doesn't reflect the current "average" reception towards the film.

I welcome any direct feedback to this small amendment. 2A02:C7C:8469:C700:6911:170C:2E3B:310D (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/all-marvel-cinematic-universe-movies-ranked/

Source for the unfavourable reviews. The score of 50% is ranked 33th out of 35, with the other 32 having a rating of 62% or higher. 2A02:C7C:8469:C700:6911:170C:2E3B:310D (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the main changes are "after test screenings yielded poor responses" for the reshoots sentence and then "It became one of the few MCU films to not receive generally positive reviews." I don't really agree with the reshoots change as that suggests they only happened because of test screenings, which I don't think is right. We know they were going to happen anyway, as with all MCU films, and the creative team have talked about some of the other reasons the reshoots were done. I'm also not sure about the second change: there are only two MCU films with worse RT scores so it is still rare to have so many negative reviews, but reviews for the last two phases have been lower on average than the first three and at this point it feels misleading to suggest that the response to this film is a big departure for the franchise. Looking at MCU films with less than 75% on RT, there were 3 in the Infinity Saga (23 films) and there have been 6 in the Multiverse Saga (12 films so far). - adamstom97 (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

On the topic of reshoots, generally looking at other films this side of Endgame, their reshoots aren't that much. Example: In Doctor Strange 2, limited Reshoots were done based on feedback that Chavez was too unlikeable. Audiences didn't receive that film poorly as they did here.

On RT scores, during our discussions BNW's score has slipped from 50% to 49%. The later phase may have lower scoring films, but they also had high scorers including Black Widow on 79% and Shang Chi on 92%. If Thor 4 and Captain Marvel can receive higher criticism on their Wikipedia articles for 62% and 63%, I think Cap 4 should too with a much lower score. 3 out of the 9 films in Multiverse Saga scored lower than 62%.

Is there a middle ground you would consider?

~~ 2A02:C7C:8469:C700:6911:170C:2E3B:310D (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by middle ground. My main issue at the moment is I don't think the Critical response section is doing a very good job of covering this film's response. I intend to take a stab at it sometime soon. When that is improved, it will be easier to discuss how the response is covered in the lead. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I fully trust Adam's intentions in reworking the critical responses. Once that is sorted through, then there will be a more clear exemplification of the core responses. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Imo the best time for that is when the week 2 drop off is known.

I still believe the lead could do with a tweak. Perhaps just the addition of "It became one of the few MCU films to not receive generally positive reviews." , as reviews are known. 2A02:C7C:8469:C700:6911:170C:2E3B:310D (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Except it is becoming increasingly more common for these films to not be as well received as they had been in the past. I do not think this is something that ought to be noted when each new release does not receive overwhelmingly positive reviews. There is no time table for when edits get made, and there is WP:NORUSH in getting everything laid out right now. I am still not even sure we can know a definitive immediate critical summary at this time without veering into WP:SYNTH territory, but I digress. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Trailblazer,

As discussed, your comment will be set aside. Please do not spam my contributions. Thanks.

~~ 2A02:C7C:8469:C700:8093:9183:23F:1A93 (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Oaxaca is in Mexico, not Japan

Oaxaca is in Mexico, not Japan 94.253.224.51 (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

That sentence is not saying it is in Japan, it says "to intercept an illegal sale of adamantium, which had been stolen from Japan, in Oaxaca", meaning it was stolen in Japan and they are retrieving it in Oaxaca. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Leader's looks changed

Despite initially promising to be comic book accurate, the final look is very different. Possibly brought on during reshoots or due to leaks? Use this. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Merchandise is never a reliable source of information for what actually shows up in the final film, and ScreenCrush is not a good source to verify this without getting into WP:OR/WP:SYNTH territory for what you are implying here. Unless a reputable source says his look was changed from what was initially said during reshoots, we cannot state this as fact. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Trailblazer101, while I will never watch the movie because now I only watch good MCU content (saw D&W, avoided Quantumania and The Marvels), Leader's final looks leaked online. Maybe this link could help to explain his looks differing from the comics? The Screen Rant source also says that Sterns is never referred to as "The Leader" in Captain America: Brave New World. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

We do not report on leaks, and CBM is never a reliable source. The Screen Rant source reads to me as just speculation. He just looks different, like many other live-action adaptations of comics doe. This is not unnatural, regardless of what was said in the past. Things are planned and plans change. Unless a more reputable source has some thorough explanation for this, simply noting his appearance is different and speculating why is not encyclopedic. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I included the Screen Rant source because it disproves this source which is already used in "Cast" section. I never said to use CBM because I know it is non RS, I just included it to inform you of the leak. Is IGN a better source than Screen Rant? It says, "who is known as The Leader in the comics (but is never referred to by that name in the film)". There's also Slate, which says, "In the comics, he’s known as the Leader; here, he’s simply bumpy and green". Kailash29792 (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we need to state the Leader name is not used, as that is also common not to use comic book aliases. IGN is slightly better than SR, yes. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Para break

I attempted to insert what I considered an obvious para break with this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Captain_America:_Brave_New_World&diff=prev&oldid=1276044296 and it was reverted by @Adamstom.97 with the explaination that such things need to go to talk.

It seems obvious to me. What do y'all think?

Marcus Markup (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

The first para is so small that a para break is not warranted here. It is all still discussing marketing, so it can be bundled together. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

The second paragraph that this creates is also not a natural grouping because it includes two different topics. If there is any additional marketing material to be added to the end of this section, then a more natural place for a paragraph break would be after the controversy discussion, but for now that would create a one-sentence paragraph so that doesn't make sense yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Of course it makes sense. That you, and other page watchers, don't see that, speaks volumes. I'm taking this off my watch list... I don't need this nonsense. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

You can't just say "it makes sense" with no further explanation and get mad when others disagree. At least we explained why we think it doesn't make sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I suspect you know exactly what my issue with the article is... the controversy is currently blended in with a couple of very innocuous sentences about marketing. It deserves a para break. This seems blitheringly obvious to me, but I am saying it now since I was called out on it. And I completely realize the chance of that happening is exactly zero, but I had to say it. And now, this thing actually IS going off my watch list! Marcus Markup (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Mackie's comments were part of him promoting the film, and therefore, a part o the marketing. I don't see why this needs to be split. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is a brief mention of some of the controversies surrounding the film within the context of its marketing. There is much more focus on the Sabra controversy, for example, in the production section. And there is room to discuss other controversies elsewhere if the sources support it. But it seems from your tone that your interest is in following an established agenda rather than what the sources say, so I think you removing this page from your watchlist is best for the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

You are a real piece of work. You come to my talk page, accusing me of being deceptive in my editing, and when I take offense, you get all huffy. And now, here you are accusing me of having an "agenda". What would be best for the article, and encylopedia, would be a basic assumption of good faith. My only "agenda" is in writing a good and useful article. Peace out. Marcus Markup (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Please be WP:Civil and WP:assume good faith. It seems you apparently have taken issue with adam and this article over some of its controversial content, which could be a WP:Contentious topic, so I would encourage you to take a step back. There is no need to be hasty here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I will continue to call out insults where and when they happen. Marcus Markup (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I do not think what adam said was an "insult". Please just focus on the content of the articles, not the editors. This is a touchy subject already, it does not need to be made into a major dispute. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Why do you keep provoking me? Telling another editor, it seems from your tone that your interest is in following an established agenda rather than what the sources say is one of the worst insults one editor can levy against another editor. He's telling me I can't read the sources, and have an agenda, ffs! Does he need to invoke my mother or something before you would consider him as "insulting" me? Marcus Markup (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I cannot speak for someone else, but your attitude here focusing on these complaints is not constructive to the point of improving this article. If you have concerns with a particular editor, then you are free to discuss them with them at their talk, but this is not the place to do so. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Your playing the Tone Police, and continuing to wag your finger at me, is doing nothing constructive to the article, either. I will give you the opportunity to wag your finger at me one more time, and you can then have the last word. Marcus Markup (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think my statement is one of the worst insults imaginable, but it wasn't even meant as an insult. I was just pointing out how your behaviour in this matter is coming across, and your comments since then haven't done anything to change my mind. You have made several statements that feel very much like you have strong feelings about this "controversy" and wish that it was given more prominence in the article. If your reasoning for that was based on the sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then there is a much nicer and clearer way you could have raised your concerns. The fact that you did not and have gotten so aggressive and defensive when called out about it suggests that I was right in my initial feeling. If I'm wrong and you genuinely want to have a discussion about WP:DUEWEIGHT as it pertains to this information, then feel free to stop being so rude and switch your focus to the content at hand. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

You have made several statements that feel very much like you have strong feelings about this "controversy" and wish that it was given more prominence in the article. I wonder who, exactly, has the "strong feelings" about the "controversy" here. But anyway, I came to the article yes, to learn about the "controversy" (which you chose to quote as if my interest in it was somehow untoward). And I had to read the article. I didn't want to read the article, to be honest... usually scanning section headings are good for that, or if not that, para breaks are usually good for new subjects, but that was useless, as per the subject title here. I, as a reader, had to CTL-F search to find what I was looking for. That's bad article writing, particularly when tons of other readers such as myself will want to learn more. I realize how sensitive the subject is, but the fact of the matter is, it's badly organized currently, except if one were to want to minimize the "controversy"... because I assume good faith, I will assume that is not the case here. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Are you joking? You didn't want to read the article, so you just skim-read the start of each paragraph in hopes of finding the information you were looking for? This is an encyclopedia, not a treasure hunt. We don't organise information to best suit people who don't care. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

We don't organise information to best suit people who don't care. Who is this "we", Kemosabe? I write articles with an eye towards giving the reader what they want, as efficiently as possible. If a reader wants to learn how much the movie took in, the reader should be able to go to the "Box office" section, and not have to read the article. If the reader just wants the reviews, they should be able to go to the "Reception" section and not have to read the entire article. And yes... if someone wants to know what the "Controversy" is... they should... wait for it.... be able to go to a "Controversy" section. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

But you never suggested that there should be a "Controversy" section, you just wanted to insert a random paragraph break in an inappropriate place with no explanation for why you thought that should happen. If you genuinely wanted to improve this article and thought we could do so by moving all the controversy-related content into its own section, then why didn't you just say that? - adamstom97 (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Cut me a break. First off, my para break was not 'random'. And second, I didn't suggest a "Controversy" section because I knew that was not going to happen... I am not into futility. I can't even get a para break past you guys here! Anyway, unless you insult me again, I'm not responding to anything else you have to say. Have a swell day. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

You're just being silly, you didn't even try to suggest any meaningful improvements or explain what issues you have with the article. If you want to have a serious discussion about adding a controversy section then I am willing to take part in that, and I'm sure other editors are as well. I was already starting to think about how to address the reception section moving forward, and reviews/commentary related to the controversies is part of that. I have concerns about how a dedicated controversy section would work, but that is something we can discuss. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I am open to discussing how to adequately address and organize the "controversy" information in this article, because it seems apparent there has been a lot of discussion about the different factors of it, though I believe any such discussion or changes ought to be brought about with merit in a civil matter without any prejudice. There is already a lot that has been said about this film for years, and recent commentary has perpetuated it to the point where I think a formal discussion may be had, though I would suggest giving it some time. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

This is simply WP:NOTAFORUM. Unless you have something to civily and constructively contribute, I would act upon your word and stop editing this article and remove it from your watchlist. That would be the best for all. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bisettes: Please raise your concerns and suggestions here to avoid WP:Edit warring over this subject. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

You have accused me of being less than neutral. As such, I've publicly posted my proposed section below, with links, for all to see. If you are truly committed to a neutral inclusion of a controversy section, respond to my topic below explaining why you feel it is not neutral. Bisettes (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposed controversy section

Bisettes's proposed wording

Criticism amidst Israel-Palestine conflict The announcement of Sabra's inclusion in the film led to criticism from anti-Zionist critics and activists. In particular, concerns were raised due to the stereotypical portrayals of Palestinians and Arabs in the original comics, in which many of the Arab characters she interacts with are perceived to be misogynistic, antisemitic, and violent. Additionally, the casting of Shira Haas drew criticism from critics of the Israeli Defense Forces, as the Israeli army was condemned by the UN and other human rights organizations for war crimes and attacks on civilians during the Gaza War of 2023. Marvel did not put out an official statement on Haas' participation in the Israeli army. In April 2023, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) organization shared a message from Alia Malak of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel regarding plans for a boycott against the film, due to its inclusion of the Sabra character. The message accused Marvel of "promoting Israel’s brutal oppression of Palestinians," and called for a "peaceful protest to challenge Marvel Studios’ – and its owner Disney’s – complicity in anti-Palestinian racism" and the "glorification of settler-colonial violence." Malak further stated that "filmgoers would have boycotted a movie featuring a superhero that represented the South African apartheid regime." Despite the changes Marvel made to the film, several people protested at the film's premiere. Upon release, reviewers noted the minor role Sabra played in the final film. Bisettes (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC) References

(edit conflict) Starting this discussion properly, separate from the contentious discussion above. There are clearly several controversies surrounding this film and some editors have expressed interest in a dedicated section discussing those. I am not against this, but I do think we should work out how that is going to work. I'm not sure it is clear how much of the information for Sabra should be kept in the production section, how much should just be in a controversy section, and how much should be in both. I also think the added sentence about the Israeli army in Bisettes's proposed section is not really relevant to this article, and I'm not sure about this wording: "neutral reviewers, anti-Zionists, and pro-Israel activists alike". In addition to the controversy surrounding Sabra, I guess we should discuss comparisons to Trump and the whole "anti-American" thing, but what about comments in relation to Mackie being Black, as currently noted in the marketing section? I realize that's a lot to cover, but we might as well start working through these things if people are so intent on changing the article to reflect them. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

How is a sentence about the accusations against the Israeli army irrelevant when discussing the fact that the actress in question (Shira Haas), is being criticized for participating in the army in question?

As far as the wording of "neutral reviewers, anti-Zionists, and pro-Israel activists alike," I used this to try to show a neutral position showing that all sides noted that the character wasn't present much in the final product. You can check the sources I included to see what I said this.

As far as discussions of Trump, as well as Mackie being black, these could be in their own section, but I believe criticism as it relates to the Israel-Palestine conflict should be on its own. Bisettes (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

No reliable source has tied Haas to the Israeli Armed Forces in relation to this film, and how is that even relevant to her casting? The wording is just sites speculation by using broad terms without much merit or evidence to support those ideological beliefs, so we should not state those as facts. As far as what has been included already, we note different view points on Haas's casting and the inclusion of and changes to Sabra already, not sure what else about the wars could be relevant in context to that without becoming trivial. I think the Trump comparisons are unwarranted and have WP:RECENTISM bias due to unrelated events, but if enough sources discuss it, that can be expanded upon. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Shira's wikipedia page directly cites an Israeli page where she gives and interview saying she volunteered for the IDF. You can consult her page and translate the page into English if you do not speak Hebrew. Bisettes (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I've further updated my proposed section to remove potentially "less than neutral" wording, as well as make it more concise. Please see the revised version. Bisettes (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Since there has been no discussion for at least half an hour now, and the original section has been trimmed down and neutralized, I have re-added it to the main page, in line with our discussion here. Bisettes (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Uhm, no, that is NOT how Wikipedia works. Please familiarize yourself on our WP:Consensus policy. Building a consensus takes time and communication from multiple individuals, and is not just one person unilaterally deciding upon how something ought to be addressed. I have reverted your addition and, if you readd it again without letting this discussion progress, that would become problematic. There is WP:NORUSH here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

So to be clear, despite meeting all necessary criteria, citing all claims, using exclusively neutral language, and meeting the points of both you and Adam, you still feel like it's not enough? There's really no way to interpret this other than you not wanting this section to actually directly name the reason for the backlash, as you consider doing so to be biased. The page you linked says the following: "in determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" carry no weight whatsoever." Limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change." What do you actually OBJECT TO here that's causing you to call me "less than neutral" for including relevant information? I'm trying to be civil here, but it's really frustrating to want to include relevant information to a current topic, only to be told that, despite not breaking any rules, a section needs to be wait to be arbitrarily approved by others. Bisettes (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bisettes, let me point out WP:STRUCTURE, and how it describes what you want to do as wrong:
Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear true and undisputed, whereas other segregated material is deemed controversial and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.
Besides the point, much of the content appears routine coverage about a war so far reaching that coverage relating to it in other matters becomes irrelevant because of its expectedness and mundanity, making it routine coverage. Literally anyone could connect any topic to the war over there, but that doesn't mean that it's relevant. The same thing happens with Donald Trump, which you may look at User:GreenMeansGo/The Trump Horizon for further reading. Just because the big global event somehow connects to a ton of other stuff does not mean it is relevant to the other stuff. BarntToust 00:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

And the jist of the "Trump Horizon" page is this: Some subjects have wide enough coverage to have a source available for anything; that doesn't mean they should be inserted into everything. The whole Arab-Israeli conflict is a subject so widely covered that the controversy and conflict inherent in their issues will spill over on anything in the way. That doesn't signify a case for inclusion in the Wikipedia articles about any of the unsuspecting subjects caught in the social crossfire. BarntToust 00:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

You're making a totally false comparison. If you read any article about the boycotts of the film, they very clearly state the reasons mentioned above. This would be akin to saying that the the section on Roman Polanski's Wikipedia page is wrong to mention his pedophilia just because France has allowed him to remain a citizen. You're being incredibly dishonest here.

It's clear that this section meets the Neutral Point of View standards. If an actress' participation in an army accused of war crimes is a reason that people are boycotting a film she's in, then it would be beyond absurd to argue that this is irrelevant to the topic and is "too wide" of a source. You wouldn't say that An Officer and a Spy (film) should remove the part on Polanski's sexual crimes causing the film to receive backlash, so why are you claiming that that kind of information is irrelevant when it pertains to mentioning criticism here? Bisettes (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Would you argue that Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom should remove all of the references to the conflict between Amber Heard and Johnny Depp as well? Bisettes (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

This is a Captain America movie, and those in support of or in affiliation with the Military of the Jewish State, whose are getting angry about everything regarding Arabic people, is a broad conflict which results in literally everything getting caught in the path of the blunderbuss. You share specific examples of very closely tied conflicts directly related to the films, which are by nature different from the tried and tired broad social conflict which targets everything happening to involve the intersection of "Jew" and "Arab" done in a way offensive to either party's ideals. Pundits being miffed about routine things probably doesn't need to be on Wikipedia. BarntToust 02:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Polanski being a sexual... whatever... is something directly affecting a palpable aspect of that movie. Heard's divorce and legal she-bang with Depp patently affected the development of the film according to reliable sources.

So far, we've got 'and the Jewish media was angry. and a few Palestinian protesters showed up at a routine event for the film that bears no significance for it in the long run'. Yay. Palestine protesters show up literally everywhere from my Twitter feed to the darn Super Bowl. What makes it special in this context? BarntToust 02:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

This is also a specific example of a closely tied conflict to the film. It's been widely discussed that she was criticised for her role in the IDF, with some calling it good, and others calling her backlash antisemitism. You can easily find many cases of calls for boycotting the film (for its inclusion of Sabra), and criticism of Shira (for her role in the IDF), such as this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, and all the comments of this one. What makes this meaningfully different, beyond your clear bias here? Should the rape allegations against Nate Parker section be removed from the Birth of a Nation page? Should the page for The Flash remove mention of Ezra Miller's legal issues? Should the All the Money in the World page remove mention of Kevin Spacey's allegations? You're being incredibly dishonest here. Bisettes (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

okay. Maybe the "wide criticism" of her role can go in #Reception?

May I remind you not to accuse editors of "dishonesty" when they offer a viewpoint about the relevance of content. You have not edited since September of last year and your ride-or-die first actions are to start a content fight over a contentious topic on Wikipedia? This seems rather questionable behaviour to me. BarntToust 02:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm well aware that I reverted the deletes on my edits, and I stand by it, as my edit should not have been deleted in the first place. Perhaps you should tell the person who first reverted it not to tell me I'm being biased, as they did when they first commented on my user page, despite my section meeting all standards for neutrality.

With that said, I apologize if you're truly responding in good faith. Please understand that it's pretty frustrating to write something that meets Wikipedia's standards, have it get reverted, get called biased on my talk page, and then have to make an argument justifying something that is (from my point of view) evident from my initial edit. Regardless, if multiple people didn't see how it was relevant at first, then it can never hurt for it to be further explained.

With all that said, I originally had this section in reception before it was removed. If you're in consensus that it can go there, I can put it back, and I'm willing to hear any ways you think the section could be kept but improved in the process. Bisettes (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:ONUS: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Well? I'm not seeing a consensus developed. I'm willing to hear substantial arguments on your behalf for why this needs its own section beyond being noted as simple reaction to her casting's significance. What we had before this all happened, offered with sufficiency the opinions of the Jewish media on the subject. BarntToust 02:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Captain_America:_Brave_New_World#Pre-production, paragraph two gets pretty well on with the whole subject, in fact it's a meaty, substantial paragraph describing the reaction from the relevant perspectives on the subject. That represents the subject perfectly as it is. Your whole "In April 2023, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) organization shared a message" paragraph is 1. sourced to a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, which establishes zero relevance to their plans for actions, and 2., as Trail noted below, did not amount to anything notable. The notable aspects of the subject of "Arabic and Jewish culture war impact on CAP: BNW" extends nowhere else beyond what we have written now. It definitely does not warrant a break of WP:STRUCTURE style. BarntToust 02:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

And man, seriously? Why did your mind go to "Roman Polanski being a pervert" as an argument for your perspective? BarntToust 02:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

We already have responses from different sides of Haas's casting and Sabra's inclusion. I'm not sure if any of these other ones add anything new that wasn't included already. Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not mean this article ought to follow suit. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

If you describe relevant information as part of an "Arabic and Jewish culture war," I really don't know how to even respond. I will mention, however, that Arabic is a language, not an ethnicity, and the majority of Israeli Jews are Arab themselves. You may read the Mizrahi page to learn about this if you'd like.

Regardless, if you truly think that the topic is adequately covered, and there's no reason to mention the backlash to Shira's participation in the IDF, then I will struggle to argue to argue it's "truly" noteworthy unless it can be directly linked to an impacted box office result for the film, as @Trailblazer101 mentioned below. I suppose in the coming weeks, we will see pieces that describe the link between its box office, the protests, the response to Sabra's inclusion and her actress' actions, and the subsequent cutting of Sabra's screen-time. Bisettes (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Such online boycotts of films have typically not been included in these articles simply because they have not had any substantial impact on them. If it did prevent this film from releasing in another country, then it would be notable, but because and only because such boycotts have not had a serious impact on this film, they are not particularly notable, especially considering Haas's role is significantly minute and not how many characterized it as during development and pre-release. A lot of these concerns and complaints seem like preemptive strikes. that disregard what the creatives said their approach for the character was in this film. Unlike Aquaman and The Flash (whose controversies are reliably sourced to have affected their productions and marketing practices), the same is not immediately known here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Wow, looks like my hopes of this being a less contentious discussion than the one above have gone out the window! I think it is clearly too early for any changes to be made to the article so please refrain from further edit warring Bisettes. I am still willing to work on a potential controversy section once I start working through the article's reception, but I am definitely against the inclusion of details that are not directly relevant to this film (such as general criticisms of the IDF) or supported by enough reliable sources to warrant inclusion. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I concur that there clearly needs to be more time before approaching this again. I still think there could be a section dedicated to this, but I will note I have never been a fan of how such sections have been written at other articles. I think we ought to revisit this once the film is out of theaters, considering this is still clearly a contentious topic (I'm not even sure why it has to be, but I digress). Trailblazer101 (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Could the "discussion" around Sabra simply be included into this part of the reception with a brief mention once the discussion around the film begins to be settled in a month or so: The political subject matter was a subject of critical commentary.

We might even learn by then what the film was like before the reshoots. Her sections are among the least coherent in the released film. Residentgrigo (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The tricky thing with moving these details to the reception section is that I feel some of it should probably stay in the production section since it is actually about the making of the film. Even if the controversy didn't actually impact the character's portrayal in the film, we learned about how she is portrayed in response to the controversy. So if we decide to create a controversy section with details on the Sabra controversy, we need to determine how much of the information should stay in the production section and how much should be moved or copied to the reception section. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we can decide what to do about something that hasn't happened yet. We do not know what extent articles will discuss Sabra's inclusion in this film post-release, and I'm not really sure if any of that would be Reception of the film or just remarks about the character itself. It is too WP:CRYSTAL to make a decision on that at this time. What "political subject matter" would that even be referring to? The film hardly delved into a political message and the creatives have even said it was not intended to be a major political piece, but rather a paranoid thriller. The Israeli aspect is already covered by the initial criticisms of Sabra and responses to it, while the comparisons to contempory American politics are adequately noted, even though these were not intentional. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Post-credits scene

I'm not sure it is necessary to have a note and third-party reference to link from "other worlds" to the multiverse page. We only need to use a note for things that are not clear from the film itself, and I don't think that is the case here. Even for readers that are not familiar with the multiverse side of the MCU, discussion of alternate worlds/realities is a general concept that does not require additional film knowledge to understand. And I don't think it is an Easter Egg link because someone clicking on "other worlds" shouldn't be surprised to arrive at a multiverse page that lists alternate worlds. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I felt it was necessary because the rest of this film does not discuss the multiverse directly, if at all. The usage of the word "worlds" vs. "universes" was another factor, because there is a slim off-chance someone thinks worlds means another planet. My mind also could just be a bit fuzzy right now because I need a break, so I don't feel as strongly if this is retained or not. Just felt it may be useful/helpful. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Coming back to this after taking some time to clear my mind, I still think it may be beneficial to note this because there is the potential for ambiguity in the "other worlds" wording that this note clears up. I for one do not expect every reader to understand it pertains to the alternate universes within the MCU's multiverse specifically, but would understand it as referring to the broad concept. So, I think it comes down to a technicality. I find this to be comparable to the notes we have for Thanos at The Avengers and Cosmo and Howard at GotG, while all would be apparent to genre-specific fans, this one in particular is referring to a franchise-specific multiverse, and is not as direct in its usage/application as was the Avenger Initiative tease in Iron Man. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly enough to continue this thread, I just feel it is a bit unnecessary and maybe an instance where a simpler solution makes more sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)