Talk:Doctor Strange (2016 film): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:48, 27 November 2017 editHijiri88 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,390 editsm →"Tibetan sovereignty"?← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:02, 27 November 2017 edit undoTriiipleThreat (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers53,696 edits →"Tibetan sovereignty"?: rNext edit →
Line 177:		Line 177:
	:::It doesn't matter if a billion Chinese would be alienated by such an action, only that Cargil ''feels'' that they would be alienated, which is how the information in the article is presented. Infact, the article doesn't even go that far into detail. It only states that Cargil believes that the casting would involve the film in the Tibetan-sovereignty debate. Theres no need for expert sources because we are not debating Tibetan sovereignty, we are just stating the thoughts and opinions of the filmmakers that lead them to make their decisions.--] (]) 15:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)		:::It doesn't matter if a billion Chinese would be alienated by such an action, only that Cargil ''feels'' that they would be alienated, which is how the information in the article is presented. Infact, the article doesn't even go that far into detail. It only states that Cargil believes that the casting would involve the film in the Tibetan-sovereignty debate. Theres no need for expert sources because we are not debating Tibetan sovereignty, we are just stating the thoughts and opinions of the filmmakers that lead them to make their decisions.--] (]) 15:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
	::::{{tq\|It doesn't matter if a billion Chinese would be alienated by such an action, only that Cargil ''feels'' that they would be alienated, which is how the information in the article is presented.}} Umm... citation needed? The article says he "explained" that this was the reason. Not "he expressed his personal opinion" or anything of the sort. {{tq\|Theres no need for expert sources because we are not debating Tibetan sovereignty, we are just stating the thoughts and opinions of the filmmakers that lead them to make their decisions.}} That's not how it works. We don't present factual claims in Misplaced Pages's voice about real-world issues unless they can be verified in reliable sources ''anywhere'' on Misplaced Pages, be they in articles on Tibetan sovereignty or in articles on MCU movies. That said, if it weren't for the word "explained" implying that Cargill had some kind of specialist knowledge of this that entitles him to "explain" it to the rest of us, there would probably be no problem. Maybe "opined"? ] (<small>]]</small>) 20:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)		::::{{tq\|It doesn't matter if a billion Chinese would be alienated by such an action, only that Cargil ''feels'' that they would be alienated, which is how the information in the article is presented.}} Umm... citation needed? The article says he "explained" that this was the reason. Not "he expressed his personal opinion" or anything of the sort. {{tq\|Theres no need for expert sources because we are not debating Tibetan sovereignty, we are just stating the thoughts and opinions of the filmmakers that lead them to make their decisions.}} That's not how it works. We don't present factual claims in Misplaced Pages's voice about real-world issues unless they can be verified in reliable sources ''anywhere'' on Misplaced Pages, be they in articles on Tibetan sovereignty or in articles on MCU movies. That said, if it weren't for the word "explained" implying that Cargill had some kind of specialist knowledge of this that entitles him to "explain" it to the rest of us, there would probably be no problem. Maybe "opined"? ] (<small>]]</small>) 20:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
			:::::I think to most of us and those reading the article that "explained" meant Cargil was explaining his thoughts on the matter, not explaining undebatable facts especially since the Tibetan-sovereignty issue is preceded by a subjective comparison to the Fu Manchu stereotype. But if changing this one small word, that passed the GA review, will settle things then so be it.--] (]) 21:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
	:Check around the 18:00 mark, Cargil says,”The Ancient One was a racist stereotype who comes from a region of the world that is in a very weird political place. He originates from Tibet, so if you acknowledge that Tibet is a place and that he‘s Tibetan, you risk alienating one billion people who think that that’s bullshit and risk the Chinese government going, ‘Hey, you know one of the biggest film-watching countries in the world? We’re not going to show your movie because you decided to get political.”—] (]) 11:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)		:Check around the 18:00 mark, Cargil says,”The Ancient One was a racist stereotype who comes from a region of the world that is in a very weird political place. He originates from Tibet, so if you acknowledge that Tibet is a place and that he‘s Tibetan, you risk alienating one billion people who think that that’s bullshit and risk the Chinese government going, ‘Hey, you know one of the biggest film-watching countries in the world? We’re not going to show your movie because you decided to get political.”—] (]) 11:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:02, 27 November 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Doctor Strange (2016 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Doctor Strange (2016 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Doctor Strange (2016 film) is part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 29, 2017	Good article nominee	Listed
April 11, 2017	Good topic candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 23, 2015.The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that various incarnations of Doctor Strange, the upcoming 2016 Marvel Studios film, have been in development since 1986?

Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Comics: Marvel / Films Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Related work groups:
/
	This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.
	This article is supported by Comic book films work group.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Film: British / Chinese / Comic book / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Chinese cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Comic book films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

This was the 3rd most viewed article on Misplaced Pages for the week of October 30 to November 6, 2016, according to the Top 25 Report.

Stingers

 In the mid-credits scene, Strange is paid a visit by Thor, who asks for his help in searching for Odin.

That isn't what happened. Thor doesn't ask for his help, he only explains that he is looking for Odin and needs Loki to find him. What happens is that Dr. Strange then offers to help, so that Thor and Loki will leave. IIRC Thor says offscreen he doesn't like tea, then you see him drinking a very large beer, very quickly, which Strange magically refills. Strange explains that he keeps a list of dangerous threats to Earth including Loki and asks why Thor needs him. Thor explains he needs Loki to find Odin. Strange asks if they find Odin will they then leave Earth and Thor says they will. Strange then says iirc "I'd better go with you". Thor doesn't ask Strange for help, Strange offers his help to Thor.
It would be better to be more brief and say Strange meets Thor (instead of "is paid a visit" which implies things you can't be sure about) and offers to help Thor find Odin. 1 -- 109.76.152.14 (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I realise the restrictions of WP:FILMPLOT mean that it may be necessary to remove the description of the mid-credits scene entirely, but if it is to stay it should at least be accurate. It is at least mentioned in the Casting section by explaining that Chris Hemsworth makes a cameo appearance as Thor. -- 109.76.152.14 (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Without having read this post, I edited the article's plot section to add a short statement that is almost exactly quoted from the above: "Strange offers to help, so that the Asgardians will leave quickly." But this addition was quickly reverted. Since the scene is described at all, and the scene itself contained a very pat resolution, it seems that the description should include the resolution. Can we get a consensus as to whether or not the plot description should include, in some wording, the information that Strange offers his help, and wants Loki out of New York? --DavidK93 (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Strange offering his help should certainly be there. It's crucial, and is the main point of the stinger, implying that he'll be in Ragnarok. Buh6173 (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Wording is less wrong but still not very good. There is a difference between "agrees to help" and what Strange actually says "I'd better go with you". Thor didn't ask for help, nor did Strange agree to help. The wording does not accurately represent what was shown on screen. Strange says he will join Thor on his quest, might be more accurate as it avoids the words offers or agrees and skips directly to the point.
The encyclopedia that anyone can edit sure does like locking articles and banning open editing. Flagged editing that requires approval is a much better answer than locking articles. -- 109.77.222.239 (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually Strange's exact words are "Allow me to help me to you." I concur "agrees to help" may not be accurate since Thor doesn't actually ask for it but "decides to help" is fine since it is not dependent on Thor's expressed consent.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Tony Todd almost voiced Dormammu

What a wasted opportunity. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

GA nom reminder

Since Derrickson confirmed the film has ended its theatrical run, this is just a reminder that we have until March 28, 2017 to nominate the article to become a good article, per the guidelines for the MCU films Good Topic. Definitely think this is doable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I was probably going to nominate this article for GA relatively soon, since it is no longer in theaters and in pretty good shape. Does anyone have any objections to it being nominated in the next couple of days, over waiting until the 28th? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there was much in the special features that we haven't already covered. So I say go ahead.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. When I watched through there, there was not much I noticed that we had not already covered, but I think Adam added some bits from the commentary which were good. Will get the nom set up shortly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I added a few bits from the commentary. I am happy with where the article is as well, and the only thing I see changing really is the awards table. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Doctor Strange (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 16:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the 2017 WikiCup. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Lead
No concerns

Plot
"who has taught all at Kamar-Taj" All is somewhat ambiguous here - on a first read I thought it meant she taught all topics. I think every student (or similar) would be more direct and clarify that Kamar-Taj is a place of learning.
Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"mysteriously walked again" The tense on walked makes it unclear that it was not a one-time occurrence. I suggest mysteriously regained the use of his legs or something similar.
Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"Pangborn directs Strange to Kamar-Taj. There, Mordo, a sorcerer under the Ancient One, takes in Strange." These are two short sentences that read a little choppy. I suggest combining them as Pangborn directs Strange to Kamar-Taj, where he is taken in by the sorcerer Mordo, or similar.
Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"he secretly reads from the text Kaecilius stole pages from," suggest 'he secretly reads the text from which Kaecilius stole pages to avoid repetition of from and ending the phrase with a preposition.
Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"comparing him to Kaecilius, who wants eternal life." suggesting drawing a comparison to Kaecilius' desire for eternal life.
Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"Kaecilius uses the stolen pages to summon the powerful Dormammu of the Dark Dimension, where time is non-existent. This destroys the London Sanctum, and sends Strange from Kamar-Taj to the New York Sanctum." Some crucial details are missing to make this understandable to someone who hasn't seen the movie. It needs to be rewritten to convey that Kaecilius hopes to achieve eternal life by stopping time and how/why the London Sanctum was destroyed. I only watched it once, but I believe the sanctum was destroyed to let Dormammu through, not because Dormammu was summoned. It's also unclear that the sanctums are connected through portals, and that Strange was accidentally sent to the NYC sanctum through such a portal.
Will think on this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Let me know what you think of the changes I made here to help this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
It works for me. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"from the Dormammu's power" The Dormammu? Probably an artifact from when this once said the dark dimension?
Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"wounds the Ancient One, and escapes " comma not needed
Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"creates an infinite time loop inside...same moment forever." infinite and forever aren't needed - They're both redundant and wrong, since the loop does end.
I don't think these are necessarily wrong, given they are intended to be infinite and forever when Strange creates them. I'll see if I can make it any better though. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"stating that Earth has, " comma not needed
Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Cast
"Actor Wong was also pleased with the changes made to the character, and described him as "a drill sergeant to Kamar-Taj" rather than a manservant, who does not practice martial arts in the film, another racial stereotype." This second half of this line seems clumsy, but I have no alternate suggestion.
Fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Production
"Dimension, before" comma not needed
Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"the directors Marvel was considering were believed to be..." Believed by whom?
Believed by the report, from the given citation. Worded to avoid "X reported/reported by", which can be handled by the given source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
How do you feel about "By March, IGN believed the directors were..."?
It wasn't just IGN.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
But IGN gave the report in the given citation. They cite their report to the Hollywood Reporter. This is why I think the article should say who believed it or be rewritten to avoid a weasel word. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Right so just saying IGN is misleading, and they weren't the only ones to pick up THR's story. Honestly, I think the believed is understood and no cause for concern. Perphaps "by many" or "the media" but those are just as vague.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that "by many" or "by media" would not help. Since a different director list attributed to THR was given just two sentences before this one, what about "In March, The Hollywood Reporter" revised its list of directors under consideration to..."? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
That's just shifting from one publication to another. I thought the point was not to call out a single publication since several reported it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with naming the original source. My concern was the vague "believe", and (if I understood correctly) User:Favre1fan93's concern was repetitive wording. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@TriiipleThreat:@Argento Surfer: could we make it "By March, it was reported that Marvel was considering Andrews, Levine, and Scott Derrickson for directors."? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I absolutely loathe the phrase "it was reported/revealed". The report/reveal isn't what's notable. Everything on Misplaced Pages has been reported. It should be phrased to emphasize the important detail. I'm thinking we just lose the word believe and say "By March, Marvel was considering Andrews, Levine, and Scott Derrickson to direct the film".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Me too. I have made the change. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Music
No concerns here

Release
"It was screened at the EW PopFest on October 28, 2016..." This should be presented chronologically.
Moved. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

There are lots of quotes about how the trailers and clips were received, but the tie-in comic is only mentioned as being released. Reviews for the issues are not included on Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-in comics either. I think a brief mention of their reception should be included. This aggregator would provide a quick overview of critical reviews without overtaking the paragraph.
As the only reputable review for both tie-in comics is from IGN for the first one, I don't think that is enough to include. If more reputable sites reviewed them, I'd be inclined to agree with your sentiment. But since many didn't, I think what we cover (release and contents) is sufficient. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Good point. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Reception
No concerns.

Future
No concerns.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Taking a quick-but-not-exhaustive look around other MCU articles, the others have a "Sequel" section instead of a "Future" section. Based on the article prose I get the impression that while a sequel is very likely, it has not actually been confirmed. The Film MOS doesn't cover sequels - has this been discussed elsewhere? RocknRolla and The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day are two examples of film articles with a sequel section despite the lack of an actual sequel. Is there a good reason to use "Future", which carries a strong possibility of becoming dated, instead of just going with "Sequel"? I'm not worried about this particular article falling out of date, but there is the possibility that article could be used as a model when other editors create new film articles in the future.
For the MCU articles, we tend to use "Future" when nothing has been officially confirmed, and change it over to "Sequel" once it has. For the editors who work regularly on these articles, if I am to speak for them too, we feel it provides a quick distinction when looking over the article to know what has and has not been confirmed to be getting more films within a specific character franchise (ie Iron Man films, Captain America films, etc.). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
That works for me. Thanks. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Citations and are in all caps. No need to shout.
Fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
no concerns

C. It contains no original research:
No concerns

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig matches were attributed quotes and common phrases like "Visual effects supervisor Stephane Ceretti". No concerns.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
No concerns

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
No concerns
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
No concerns
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Frequent edits, but most are good ones and vandalism is quickly reverted.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
No concerns

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Infobox image has WP:ALTTEXT, other images have suitable captions.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Nice work User:Favre1fan93 and User:TriiipleThreat. I appreciate the quick responses to this review. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Doctor Strange (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.latimes.com/1988-12-11/entertainment/ca-536_1_marvel-comics/
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6OuAOCreC?url=http://www.alexcox.com/writing.htm to http://www.alexcox.com/writing.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

About my changes

"Beyond time" is a direct quote (spoken at least twice). Is there one for "non-existent"?
There is no "escape to Hong Kong". They go there to attack the Sanctum.
"Moment" is a poor word choice, indicating a very brief interval. The loop is significantly longer than that. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

We don't need direct quotes, in fact we generally don't use direct quotes in plot summaries. They still escape from the heroes to Hong Kong, regardless of what they end up doing there. And no, the interval is pretty brief. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

So it's okay to make up a description for the Dark Dimension rather than use what is given? Where is this policy described? Casablanca seems to break this "guideline", as do Citizen Kane, The Godfather, etc.

A deliberate attack at a time of their choosing is not an "escape".

Synonyms of "moment":

"a minute portion or point of time : instant" (Merriam Webster)

"a very brief period of time" (Oxford English Dictionary) Clarityfiend (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

We aren't making up a description, we are using the film's ("beyond time") but with wording that is appropriate for an encyclopaedia—we shouldn't be so poetic. They escape. And exactly, a "brief period of time". - adamstom97 (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

You are making something up: "beyond time" (whatever that means) is not the same as "non-existent".

Yes they escape, just not to Hong Kong. They regroup someplace, then saunter (not flee) to Hong Kong.

"Moment" is not generally used to describe several minutes in duration. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

If you're not going to budge from your "Strange" position, it's probably time for WP:third opinion. I'm turning in now. Back tomorrow. Same bat channel. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. If time is non-existent in the Dark Dimension, what is Strange looping? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to be childish, especially when you really haven't "gotcha". That is the whole point of the scene; there is no time in that dimension as we understand it, but Strange introduces it with the Time Stone and confuses/scares Dormammu until he agrees to leave. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

That is WP:original research, on top of your previous OR presumption.

Your version is so sloppy. E.g. "Strange and Mordo become disillusioned with the Ancient One after Kaecilius reveals that the Ancient One's long life is due to her drawing power from the Dark Dimension." Strange doesn't become disillusioned at this point because he hadn't even become "illusioned", i.e. he hadn't accepted the Ancient One's goals. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

No once again. Strange is the first one to take issue with the Ancient One, and then Mordo after him, so it should be both of them. Perhaps you should watch the film again before accusing others of making this stuff up. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Wrong again. Strange does not embrace the Ancient One's goals until he talks to her as she is dying (which is noted in the next sentence, hence out of order and misleading). Yet another mistake: "Strange holds them off with the help of the Cloak of Levitation until Mordo and the Ancient One arrive." The villains depart before Mordo and the Ancient One show up, so once again the wording is misleading, making it sound like their arrival tipped the balance. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I think either "moment" or "short period of time" are fine - they're effectively synonyms. I'm inclined to go with the shorter one because a) it's shorter and b) the summary is already nearing the upper word count boundary. I'm not sure what the issue is with the escape to Hong Kong - "...frees himself and leaves" is a longer version of "escapes", and Clarityfiend's version leaves out where he goes after doing so. I have no opinion on how to describe time in the dark dimension. I haven't seen the film since November and don't remember exactly how it was explained. I do think "non-existent" is more clear for users unfamiliar with the topic. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It may be clearer, but it's just plain wrong. "Beyond time" is how they describe the Dark Dimension in the film (twice). AFAIK, they don't call it "non-existent". Clarityfiend (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

This is taking up way too much time. If you're satisfied with a substandard, inaccurate synopsis, so be it. I've got other fish to fry. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Dr. Strange (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant projected total

The information that "It was projected to earn $255 million for its total domestic gross" is irrelevant, as the source, http://pro.boxoffice.com, aren't box office analysts. Mentioning that they projected that total is unneeded. Additionally, considering the film made less money than they projected, adding their projection may cause doubt about the film's financial success. Disneyisatale (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

As stated, this info is not irrelevant. BoxOffice is a reputable source covering box office numbers for films (including projections), and including it provides context around the film as to what the industry felt it could have made. Having it does not induce doubt that the film was or was not a financial success. Some readers may choose to feel that way, but as it is used and wording, is not the purpose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree with (talk) on this. I don't think it will create any doubt about the films financial success as those numbers are readily stated. The extra information is in no way superfluous or inflammatory. My main concern was y'all reverting each other's edits back and forth. It's a pretty insignificant, silly thing to get hung up on. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The thing about projections is that they are constantly in flux and there are multiple algorithms/sources. To pick a single one, reputable or not, to portray as the definitive projection seems problematic. I do not agree that the inclusion casts any "doubt about the film's financial success", but I do think that whether or not a film meets the projection is more a reflection on the projection and not the film. As such, I do take issue with the concept of leaving the projection "until it surpasses that amount". If we want to include projections, okay. If we want to include projections until the box office run is complete, fine. Removing projections if and only if it meets of surpasses that amount seems suspect. - DinoSlider (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Did someone suggest leaving the projection until it surpasses that amount? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I quoted from Favre1fan93's edit summary for a similar revert on a different film here. Hopefully I interpreted the statement correctly. - DinoSlider (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff. I think including the projection is fine regardless of how accurate/inaccurate it ends up being. If the issue is that it's one projection from one source, then add another source or two and convert the number into a range. It provides a basis for expectations for a film. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes Dino, you interpreted correctly. I'll explain my thinking a bit, in case it is not clear to anyone. Generally, before a film is released (at least with MCU films), we get various projection numbers for what it will make, sometimes a range (as Argento mentioned). To me, once a film has released and we start getting box office number, these numbers are only relevant to keep until the film reaches said projection, if at all. For example, Disneyisatale also took issue with the projection number at Spider-Man: Homecoming that it will gross $325m domestically (as of this comment, it is at around $314m). Should it achieve $325m, the projection sentence and info can be removed, because why do we need to see a projection estimate for something that ultimately came true? In the case for Doctor Strange, the film did not ultimately achieve the highest projection number, so in my eyes it is relevant to include the info as simply as it is. I also understand Argento's suggestion about potentially including a range. However, the other, lower-end projections for the film were all surpassed, hence why they weren't included per the reasoning I said earlier in this comment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

At $314 million, Spider-Man was at about 97% of the projection. At what threshold do we agree that it has met the criteria? Hypothetically, what if it finishes at $324 million? On the other side, would it be noteworthy again if it surpassed the projection by a large amount? If so, what amount would that be? Sorry for the intellectual exercise, but I prefer to eliminate as much gray area as possible ... even if it is just a rule of thumb. - DinoSlider (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

"because why do we need to see a projection estimate for something that ultimately came true?" - Because it provides context for the amount, whether it exceeded, met, or missed expectations. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

RE Dino: In my opinion, when approaching a projected number, I feel if the resulting gross surpasses or gets within 5-10 million of the projection, the projection isn't needed anymore. (unlike this article where the difference is ~20million) On the other side, if a film vastly outgrosses a projection and commentary speaking to that is available (ie in Deadline.com's weekly box office report articles), then I think a mention of the projection would be fine. "Vastly" I think ultimately depends on what the original projection numbers were.

RE Argento: I still think if a gross surpasses a projection, that projection isn't needed anymore. And if no projection data remains (and wishfully thinking the article had some to begin with), one could assume the final gross exceeded or met the expectations. In a case like this film, while the low end isn't needed in my opinion, it might be clearer if the sentence read: "It was projected to earn upwards of $255 million for its total domestic gross." For this film, it shows it met the majority of the other projections, just not the highest end. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you're expecting more of our regular readers than I do. If a projection wasn't mentioned in an article, it wouldn't occur to me that its omission implies anything. I think your wording is acceptable, and in some cases it might even be appropriate to remove the actual dollar amount of the projection in favor of something like "the total domestic gross far exceeded the projections". Argento Surfer (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I might have more wishful thinking about regular readers and editors. I know whatever is decided here, I can try to apply to MCU related films, because I tend to help craft the box office sections and I don't know how regularly other film articles include projection numbers, should they be available. I can add in that wording I suggested if others are agreeable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Doctor Strange (2016 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Doctor Strange (2016 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=1964
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deadline.com/2014/06/marvel-starts-doctor-strange-search-tom-hardy-benedict-cumberbatch-early-wish-listers
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.screendaily.com/news/marvels-doctor-strange-set-to-shoot-in-uk/5077642.article?blocktitle=LATEST-FILM-NEWS&contentID=40562
Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6lVJ9z218?url=http://www.clactonandfrintongazette.co.uk/news/north_essex_news/14818960.Former_Colchester_schoolgirl_lands_role_in_latest_Marvel_blockbuster/ to http://www.clactonandfrintongazette.co.uk/news/north_essex_news/14818960.Former_Colchester_schoolgirl_lands_role_in_latest_Marvel_blockbuster/
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/movies/doctor-strange-review.html?_r=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

"Tibetan sovereignty"?

Both of the cited sources are videos, and neither of the citations includes a time. Could someone tell me where in the 26-minute video this information is verified? How casting a Chinese character in a Nepalese-set film would relate to the Tibetan sovereignty issue is ... confusing, if not itself confused. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe it comes from the second video, which is used as a reference multiple times throughout the article, so giving one time would be inappropriate. But I would note that just because you find something confusing does not mean it is out of place here. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

which is used as a reference multiple times throughout the article, so giving one time would be inappropriate Technically, the way to deal with that would be to format the ref differently each time it is cited. Similarly to how multiple pages of the same book or article can be cited. I would note that just because you find something confusing does not mean it is out of place here. Umm... what? If you're going to note that then I should probably note that popular understandings of just about everything relating to China, Tibet, Buddhism, Central Asia... and pretty much everything in between is woefully inadequate, and the kind of entertainment sources cited in this article are generally not considered reliable for just about any of it, being written both by and for the people whose understanding is inadequate. That said, it's 21:57 and I have an early day tomorrow, so I'll check back in once I've actually checked the source. If Triiiplethreat's quote below is accurate, then ... yeah, it is a gross oversimplification and probably inaccurate. As far as I can tell, no one in China denies "that Tibet is a place" or "that Tibetan", so how a billion Chinese would be alienated by a fictional movie doing otherwise is ... yeah, weird and confusing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if a billion Chinese would be alienated by such an action, only that Cargil feels that they would be alienated, which is how the information in the article is presented. Infact, the article doesn't even go that far into detail. It only states that Cargil believes that the casting would involve the film in the Tibetan-sovereignty debate. Theres no need for expert sources because we are not debating Tibetan sovereignty, we are just stating the thoughts and opinions of the filmmakers that lead them to make their decisions.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if a billion Chinese would be alienated by such an action, only that Cargil feels that they would be alienated, which is how the information in the article is presented. Umm... citation needed? The article says he "explained" that this was the reason. Not "he expressed his personal opinion" or anything of the sort. Theres no need for expert sources because we are not debating Tibetan sovereignty, we are just stating the thoughts and opinions of the filmmakers that lead them to make their decisions. That's not how it works. We don't present factual claims in Misplaced Pages's voice about real-world issues unless they can be verified in reliable sources anywhere on Misplaced Pages, be they in articles on Tibetan sovereignty or in articles on MCU movies. That said, if it weren't for the word "explained" implying that Cargill had some kind of specialist knowledge of this that entitles him to "explain" it to the rest of us, there would probably be no problem. Maybe "opined"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I think to most of us and those reading the article that "explained" meant Cargil was explaining his thoughts on the matter, not explaining undebatable facts especially since the Tibetan-sovereignty issue is preceded by a subjective comparison to the Fu Manchu stereotype. But if changing this one small word, that passed the GA review, will settle things then so be it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Check around the 18:00 mark, Cargil says,”The Ancient One was a racist stereotype who comes from a region of the world that is in a very weird political place. He originates from Tibet, so if you acknowledge that Tibet is a place and that he‘s Tibetan, you risk alienating one billion people who think that that’s bullshit and risk the Chinese government going, ‘Hey, you know one of the biggest film-watching countries in the world? We’re not going to show your movie because you decided to get political.”—TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Categories: