Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 00:11, 5 November 2023

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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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.

Article milestones Date Process Result March 29, 2017 Good article nominee Listed April 11, 2017 Good topic candidate Promoted November 18, 2019 Good topic removal candidate Demoted 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 is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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. Film: Comic book / Marvel Cinematic Universe / American 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 Comic book films task force. This article is supported by the Marvel Cinematic Universe task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Disney Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Nepal Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Cinema Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance). 2010s Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened: October 23 to 29, 2016 (10th) October 30 to November 5, 2016 (3rd) November 6 to 12, 2016 (25th)

White washing and Casting Criticism section

The way the Cast section and whole article written in relation to casting is a form of Historical Negationism for the casting. Indeed, the Cast section gives one sided choices of the director, Scott Derrickerson, and his reasoning and justifications for his choices. However, beyond just his side, his casting choices was meet with outcry, especially from asian demographics. Personally, the white washing of the Ancient one is a reason why I don't like this film series. And indeed, at the historical time of release of this movie, its whitewashing and ghost in the shell (2017) whitewashing were talked about much in the media around its release, such as talk about how the oscars didn't have any non-white nominees (https://en.wikipedia.org/88th_Academy_Awards#Criticism_regarding_lack_of_diversity). Thus, this article as it is, has is a form of historical negationism for its lack of historical relevance and prominence of that issue at the time of its release and because its cast choices are one-sided as if it wasn't with criticism from the public, especially asian communities. I suggest a subsection, such as "Casting Criticism" like Ghost in the Shell (2017) has. That would remedy this issue. Such subsection would give criticism against the one sided choices and reasoning quoted of the director in the Cast subsection. Ap4lmtree2 (talk) 07:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

If you didn't watch the film, I'm not really sure how you can have an opinion on whether or not you like it. But ok.

I'm sorry you had to "search and read" to find the information you were looking for, but the information is present in the article. I'm not convinced that a full section is needed. All the sources currently used to support the whitewashing elements are either prior to or right at the film's release. Do you have reliable sources discussing this casting issue after the film was released and viewers could evaluate the decision based on the film, rather than their pre-conceived notions? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Note - my comments are based on an earlier version of this user's concern, not the revised one currently showing. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Moving it to its own section would give it WP:UNDUE weight by prominence of placement. Like Argento stated the uproar seems to have died down after release and did not lead to entire movement like OscarsSoWhite as in the OP's example.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that there should not be any more weight given to this. The current wording pretty clearly acknowledges the issues here while establishing the filmmaker's reasoning, which is also important since this article is about the film and how it was made. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

RE: @Argento Surfer. It is not the case that I didn't watch the film. Nowhere did I say I didn't watch this film. Thus, I must conclude you are not listening to begin with or you have closed ears. RE: TriiipleThreat. This is one of a few whitewashing films. I will admit that maybe I was greater disappointed in this film because I watch comic book films more than say, Aloha (2015). RE: . I said Ghost in the Shell film wikipedia doesn't practice Historical Negationism like this article does. This article gives the point of views and justification of the director and makers of this film. I ask you this, what were the director and makers of this film responding to? I see now that someone added this to the article, "Still, Swinton's casting was widely criticized as whitewashing." That mitigates this issue albeit it mitigates it to appear as if it wasn't more wide blown nor widely appalled. Rather, it says just one sentence. This article has the director talking 95+% of the time in response to people who aren't identified, not even anonymously, and thus, aren't there. He must be right and just as he is the only person in the big room left standing, but he was the only one person there to begin with in his argumentation, according to this negationism. Again, ghost in the shell film, which also whitewashed, doesn't have this historical negationism. However, like RE: TriiipleThreat if you wish to argue that all is lost in the midst of constant and lots of whitewashing, then fine, that works too. I could argue that each and every single dot in reality is not important even though I actually believe otherwise.

You said "The white washing controversy is the main reason I didn't watch nor like this film series." (emphasis mine) As I noted above, you removed that sentence before I replied. So really, I'm just listening closer than you want me to.

Also, the line you say was added to the article was actually present before you started this discussion. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I edited my post because I fast forward the Tilda Swinton parts the media player I have on my computer. It was indeed an error for me to say that. I can search for computer logs to support that I did watch this film, but skipped over those parts. However, it has been a while. It is important that I support I watch the film in order give an opinion on the film because your argument is that I have to watch and have first hand experience of the film to know or not there is whitewashing. You argument is that unless I see it with my own eyes, I cannot know there is whitewashing, and that is the most important thing when talking about whitewashing in this film. Indeed, I cannot tell there is whitewashing based on criticism of the film, I had to see it first hand experience. Let me look for logs if you want to stick to that argument, so I could counter it that I have direct firsthand experience. The second part of your argument is that being turned off by seeing trailers of casting or knowing there is whitewashing is not a valid experience unless I actually see it first hand by watching it. Even though the casting has whitewashing in the trailers, maybe the whitewashing isn't so bad if i actually see it. Maybe I will like the whitewashing or the whitewashing is something only 30 seconds, you say. Again, I can find computer logs to dispute this very important thing about me personally rather than the film. My credibility rather than what the film is is what is at stake here. To prove my credibility. I will give some things I remember. I remember some Benedict Wong being in some kind of library. I also remember some kind of round disc moving stage that the actors were on at one time. I remember things about a necklace too. I get your point that watching and paying attention to the story is important to know the film. However, my argument is it is not important to detest the film nor to criticize the film's whitewashing unless one is talking about the story itself. This is not about whether it was good whitewashing or bad whitewashing or harmless whitewashing or benign whitewashing based on how that whitewashing was done by the cast or how the story related to that casting. I detest the film because it had whitewashing period. It is very difficult for any ethnic group to see films where their ethnic group is valued less or mocked or some other negative light. It does provide that ethnic group realities and realism what facts of their own society in how that society values and see that ethnic group viewer. It is difficult for me to watch the first dark night, batman begins (2005), and I tolerate and watch sometimes ghost in the shell (2017), but I think it could have been better if it had an asian lead. I disliked Iron Fist tv series. I watched about 30 minutes of one episode. I didn't see the full series. Given, it might have a good story though. Likewise, you have a good point that this Doctor Strange movie might have a good story, especially if it were a comic book or a novel rather than visual movie. Ap4lmtree2 (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Geez that's a lot of text. Look, I don't care if you watched the film. I don't care if you only watched the portions with actors whose skin color you approve of. If you look back at my first comment, I followed my comment about you not watching the film with "but ok." Hopefully I have clarified my comment and we can move on.

The material you were asking for is in the article. It was in the article before you asked for it. I do not see any reason to address criticism of a casting choice outside of the cast section, especially since few or none of the reliable reviews carried the concerns past the film's release. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

"Untitled Doctor Strange sequel" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled Doctor Strange sequel. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 19:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

"Untitled Doctor Strange sequel" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled Doctor Strange sequel. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

"Drive responsibly" warning at end of film

Forgive me if it's already mentioned somewhere, but the "Please drive responsibly" notice at the end of the film probably ranks a mention. I think it should be covered somewhere, just unsure where (maybe "Production"?).

References as follows:

• Peters, Megan (September 6, 2017). "Doctor Strange easter egg is hidden within the credits". Comicbook.com. Archived from the original on October 10, 2021. Retrieved October 10, 2021.
• Armitage, Hugh (October 29, 2016). "11 Doctor Strange Easter eggs you might have missed". Digital Spy. Archived from the original on November 8, 2019. Retrieved October 10, 2021.

Thanks. Sean Stephens (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that is noteworthy. It seems more like insignificant trivia, which is why it has only been discussed in those types of sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Media and drama good articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles that are good articles
• GA-Class Comics articles
• Low-importance Comics articles
• GA-Class Comics articles of Low-importance
• GA-Class Marvel Comics articles
• Marvel Comics work group articles
• GA-Class comic book films articles
• Comic book films task force articles
• WikiProject Comics articles
• GA-Class film articles
• GA-Class Marvel Cinematic Universe articles
• Top-importance Marvel Cinematic Universe articles
• Marvel Cinematic Universe task force articles
• Marvel Cinematic Universe Did you know articles
• GA-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• GA-Class Disney articles
• Mid-importance Disney articles
• GA-Class Disney articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject Disney articles
• GA-Class Nepal articles
• Low-importance Nepal articles
• WikiProject Nepal articles
• GA-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• GA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• Low-importance American cinema articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• GA-Class 2010s articles
• Mid-importance 2010s articles
• WikiProject 2010s articles
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report