1846:
and commercial response and an uncertain future slate of films and TV shows—included a bizarre aside that, while discussing the uphill battle the movie faced at the box office, saw an undisclosed source take a shot at DaCosta for concluding production on the movie remotely, as she moved to London to set up her delayed follow up project, Hedda with Tessa
Thompson. Peculiar airing of dirty laundry through sources talking to Hollywood media’s biggest trades is nothing new or unique to Disney and Marvel, but the practice continued even after The Marvels came out. A few weeks later, The Hollywood Reporter published a piece salaciously framed as accusing DaCosta of having “bailed out” on a cast-and-crew screening of The Marvels, only to reveal in its own reporting that DaCosta had not only not been invited to the screening, but her absence from it was because she was celebrating her birthday on the same day. These weren't allegations of a poor job on DaCosta's part as a director or any kind of professional impropriety, but scandalous framings of pretty run-of-the-mill scheduling conflicts. But now Disney is taking an even more unprecedented step into the light to frame DaCosta for The Marvels’ failings: directly from the mouth of CEO Bob Iger himself
2918:
responding to a strawman version of the comment). So the only possible response to Iger's comment, and what we got, is to report it, or for a few people to take issue with it. We're taking a few people taking issue with it and giving that far too much weight. This undue weight is not just specifically for Iger's comment either, but for the article as a whole. This is taking up just under half the box office section, which is ridiculous. It's also kind of ridiculous that what I was proposing before has been rejected by you guys as not enough when in reality it was still taking up nearly half the box office section. Really, due weight would be this, which is still taking up nearly a quarter of the box office section:
1862:
tangled storyline, and that 'eyebrows were raised again' when DaCosta began working on another project, Hedda starring Tessa
Thompson, while still in postproduction on this one. Later in November, The Hollywood Reporter ran a story with a headline that read, 'Why Marvels Director Nia DaCosta Bailed on the Cast-and-Crew Screening' scheduled for November 8, which coincided with her 34th birthday. A rep for DaCosta clarified that she had not, in fact, been invited to the screening and learned only of its existence when alerted by some crew members
3374:" Per other comments in this section, the Deadline calculations are just that, estimated calculations. Those are not the exact loss figures to a tee, so I do not believe we should prop them up in the lead as definitively 100% solid given they are only well-placed estimates. Noting it was a bomb covers that it lost money. I still think we should leave it to the Box office section to adequately explain all the figures in full, as to not overload the lead with more information that most general readers may not necessarily be looking for.
946:
928:
2790:
film's performance, and were sceptical that not enough executive oversight was the issue. Several characterized his statement as throwing the director "under the bus". Kaitlyn Booth at
Bleeding Cool noted that Iger did not suggest Disney's other 2023 box office failures required additional supervision, including Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania and Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. This came amid a wider narrative in the Hollywood media which some commentators felt was unfair to DaCosta, and which some attributed to Disney.
1032:
with this statement, with some pointing out that Marvel is known for having a lot of executive oversight on all of their projects. Others felt Iger was wrongfully putting all of the blame on DaCosta, and noted several instances where DaCosta had appeared to be unfairly targeted by Disney before Iger's comments. Gizmodo's James
Whitbrook said the studio's "increasingly public critiques of DaCosta are just starting to feel weird", and he noted that The Marvels was not Disney's only 2023 film to fail at the box office.
880:
415:
777:
750:
676:
1467:, so implying since no one has responded means you can add it is completely wrong and not how Knowledge works. If you wanted a response, you could always ping an involved editor. Remember, we all have other commitments and cannot always respond when most convenient for one party or another. I still don't see how trimming down this information is beneficial as it limits our readers from reading what publications have commented about Iger's comments. Sometimes, less is not always more.
2724:
somehow isn't enough, even though we currently have that it's sceptical whether oversight was even an issue, that he threw the director under the bus, and that Disney has already been targeting the director in the media, then we could incorporate the responses who said that "The
Marvels was not Disney's only 2023 film to fail at the box office." Again, even my proposed wording is pretty ridiculous pushback that makes the whole paragraph one-sided, so I don't think it's necessary.
1774:
new wording and sources regarding the sexist implications of Iger's comment, plus I removed the quote from
Whitbrook as it no longer seemed necessary with the new additions and updates. I'm happy to revert the paragraph to the previous version if others are concerned with me changing it while the discussion is ongoing, I just felt it would be helpful to go ahead and make these changes as I feel they are a clear improvements that may also help us end this discussion. -
787:
666:
645:
395:
3142:. They use the widely reported $ 270m production cost figure, which is a rounding of the more accurate $ 274.8m, but they don't round other figures in the table, which makes it look like they based that figure off a 5-second Google search. Then they go into detail in the expenses section with "Interest and overhead" but neglect to mention the $ 50m+ tax relief anywhere in the table. The source they cite is "Deadline Estimates".
1904:
primary source's narrative). This is not excessive at all and as I explained above, analysis by secondary sources is the standard procedure in reception sections. We don't take a primary source's (ie. corporate narrative) explanation of a failure as the absolute truth especially when there are media outlets saying "actually, here's why we don't think the corporate narrative is correct". Agree with adamstom97 that you should
613:
375:
474:
443:
593:
305:
273:
1002:
211:
484:
2529:"There were negative stories about DaCosta in the media, which some commentators thought were unfair to the director." Also the oversight stuff is something I'd like to fix as well. If we can't find a source that attacks Iger's actual comment and not a strawman of it then I'd rather not include the attack at all. There would still be more than enough pushback on Iger's comment anyway.
892:
315:
2902:
corroborate what Iger said, then please provide them. Multiple commentators with different POVs is great (as seen further down in the
Reception section with the mixed reviews of the film's plot). But I didn't find any secondary sources that outright said "Iger's version of events seems like the truth"; what I found was secondary sources saying "this sounds like hinky PR spin".
242:
2030:
edits have added "Disney and the media" (which still isn't correct), and we shouldn't have "and the media" anyway, this is about Iger's comment. As for the oversight thing, until now that was unsourced. So yes, for both these things they have been unsourced while others here keep claiming they are while calling me disruptive for pointing out they're not.
2595:
film's performance, and were sceptical that not enough executive oversight was the issue. Several characterized his statement as throwing the director "under the bus". There were also other negative stories about DaCosta in the media, which some commentators thought were unfair to the director, and which James
Whitbrook from Gizmodo attributed to Disney.
2293:
have added "Disney and the media" (which still isn't correct), and we shouldn't have "and the media" anyway, this is about Iger's comment. As for the oversight thing, until now that was unsourced. So yes, for both these things they have been unsourced while others here keep claiming they are while calling me disruptive for pointing out they're not.
2655:
film's performance, and were sceptical that not enough executive oversight was the issue. Several characterized his statement as throwing the director "under the bus". This came amid a wider narrative in the
Hollywood media which some commentators felt was unfair to DaCosta, and which James Whitbrook from Gizmodo attributed to Disney.
2565:
multiple sources giving their opinion that Disney may be behind this narrative about DaCosta, and the fact that those opinions exist are key context for the landscape that Iger's comments (and the responses to his comments) exist within. Just saying "there were negative stories about DaCosta in the media" doesn't cover it. -
1593:
material present, rather than trying to chop it down, which risks potentially sugarcoating the details or leaving out some crucial or useful elements. I don't see how trimming this down would benefit our readers, nor do I think it is overly long enough to warrant such a reduction in the commentary already written.
2959:
bunch of editors that a. support your idea and b. will actually care enough to join talk page and c. will directly contradict other "experienced" editors, absolutely nothing will change. if gonein60's post supporting your position did nothing to change anything I would not expect anything to change in the future
2719:
film's performance, and were sceptical that not enough executive oversight was the issue. Several characterized his statement as throwing the director "under the bus". This came amid a wider narrative in the
Hollywood media which some commentators felt was unfair to DaCosta, and which some attributed to Disney.
1092:"targeted" at all. Some things happened that were commented upon, calling it an unfair targetting of the director is an opinion from Whitbrook. For the third bit, why do we need to replace it at all? Is it really necessary to have three sentences attacking Iger? Two of which are just from the rando Whitbrook.
3531:
Indeed there is a clearly politically motivated interpretation of the film's Absolutely terrible performance. This talk page is probably the best example of that since people are still trying to manipulate reality even in the face of this clear reliable sourced information on its performance. Will be
3344:
The marvels has always been an outlier when it comes to how poorly it did at the box office. How it is worded, where the information is, source requirements..etc ... but this latest source is making it extremely difficult to not have this article call it a bomb and link to the list showing that it is
2958:
you are attempting to remove text in the article that defends/protects/shifts blame from the "first black girl" director, of the biggest box office bomb in marvel history, arguably biggest bomb of all time. that is not going to be a popular position on wiki and in the talk page. unless you can find a
2838:, and I would still argue condensing the information would be a disservice to our readers. There was a clear opposition to the responses to this situation from Iger and THR's comments that warranted this much of a reaction that it ought to be covered and documented here by looking at the facts as is.
2772:
this discussion. I noticed that as well. However, it is not uncommon for newly-sourced information to be added to an article while it is under discussion. If you are trying to rephrase anything that we have already agreed upon above, I think that's out of the question at this point. No one is willing
2456:
That is five independent, reliable sources discussing two situations where DaCosta was unfairly framed by Hollywood media as part of a wider narrative to discredit her, with two of those sources attributing the campaign to Disney and a third acknowledging this theory but not subscribing to it. So, as
2292:
lease point to where in the Mary Sue and Vanity Fair articles they are saying that Disney has unfairly targeted the director in the past? All they have in their articles is "insiders" or whoever else making comments about the director. Only Whitbrook is saying Disney. For some reason the recent edits
2238:
For the second one "and noted several instances where DaCosta had appeared to be unfairly targeted by Disney before Iger's comments" We should specifically attribute this to Whitbrook's opinion if it's kept in. And I think there are other good reasons for not including it at all. His first example of
2135:
s debacle. It never paints the saga as an "unfair targeting" of DaCosta, nor does it claim that Disney or the "the media" in particular was responsible for what transpired. If you are drawing any of those conclusions from the article, then you are reading between the lines. This is a simple reporting
1903:
In this paragraph, there's one sentence summarizing the corporate narrative (ie. Iger's statement which is a primary source; 34 words) followed by 4 sentences where outlets respond to what extent they agree or disagree with the corporate narrative (in this case, secondary sources don't agree with the
1535:
Your argument continues to be "we should just take the primary source for its word" and we should have minimal secondary analysis of it. The previous discussion outlined why I (and other editors) think the section works & why we disagree with your argument on removing analysis; you haven't really
1161:
DaCosta began working on another film while “The Marvels” was still in postproduction — the filmmaker moved to London earlier this year to begin prepping for her Tessa Thompson drama “Hedda.” (A representative for DaCosta declined to comment.) “If you’re directing a $ 250 million movie, it’s kind of
1076:
The first bit you want to remove is very relevant, as it contradicts his point. The next bit you want to remove is a set of facts, not an opinion, which give important context to the comments. The last bit is just an opinion, but I don't think it is inappropriate to finish the paragraph with a direct
3806:
My read of the ending was that the Khans were helping Carol move into Maria's old home (like the boxes have Carol's stuff); this house is in Louisiana & given how Jersey City is a big part of the Ms. Marvel show/origins, it doesn't make sense that her family would relocate that far away. Found a
3550:
IMO, the lead-in should, as Auzewasright has pointed out, classify The Marvels as a box-office bomb. That's seems like an obvious classification at this point and would adhere to the language used for the other films evaluated by Deadline (such as The Flash and Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny-
3329:
Will the film be as costly a loss as John Carter despite now leading the list? That´s far too early to tell but the way this article is worded rn suggests that breaking even is possible after the theatrical run and we now have 237 million reasons it won´t be. That might be more than the film cost...
3178:
i.e. the studio's share of the box-office, which is typically half the box office. Given that the box-office was weighted towards overseas (which is typically a lower share around 40%) then $ 88 million looks reasonable to me. If anything that television and streaming revenue looks a tad generous to
3159:
They clearly state that these are estimates, it is not meant to be precisely accurate. Only Disney could report that. It is enough for us to give our readers an idea of how much money the film lost, based on calculations made by a reliable source. Not all box office amounts become theatrical revenue
3115:
While the new source doesn't actually use the term "box office bomb", it does say "bomb" and breaks down how much money the film lost. Consensus of the original discussion was to wait until we have better sources with a more holistic view of the film's financial performance before adding "box office
3100:
The reason for the confusion is that many users have tried to use the film's financial performance to win culture war arguments, accusing Knowledge of having a political agenda. There's a reason we've waited a while to confirm these numbers. I'm not opposed to adding it myself, though we should hear
2917:
Iger's comment wasn't a big controversy so there's not going to be all these commentators and big publications staking out sides, and it's not like any commentator can actually judge if there was enough executive supervision as well (hence why the people claiming that it can't be the reason are just
2753:
I've been including some version of that proposed wording in most of these back-and-forth responses, I'm not throwing a wrench right at the end of this extremely long discussion and sabotaging it. The wrench was thrown in a couple days ago when the proposed wording for the pushback to Iger's comment
2713:
Cheers, though the proposed wording wasn't just about "some" vs Whitbrook. My original point in starting this whole thing wasn't just the unsourced statements, but that having so much pushback to Iger's comment was inappropriate considering this wasn't a massive controversy. That issue is even worse
2363:
on the "weird" comment and doesn't explicitly specify it was Disney/Marvel, then that source doesn't support the claim of Disney. Citation placement (mid-sentence even) is important when inline citations do not support all claims in the sentence they are cited for.This issue isn't the hill I want to
2284:
We're still running into the same issue of statements unsupported by the sources. I've read all three of the sources for Several commentators also noted instances where DaCosta appeared to be unfairly targeted by Disney and the media before Iger's statement. and it's still only Whitbrook making that
2265:
Responding to both of you here, there's no secondary source pushing back on the oversight comment as far as I can tell, maybe you can link it with the quote? And again, pointing out that Disney usually has a lot of oversight on their projects doesn't contradict Iger at all, as Iger is saying that in
1969:
I also don't appreciate this dropthestick and bludgeoning responses. This has only gone on this long because you guys keep refusing to remove unsourced statements from the article and when I point it out to you you just put your fingers in your ears and claim it is sourced even though you can't show
1867:
You also mentioned concerns about the paragraph not being well sourced but now think it has too many sources? The section went from 6 sources to 10 sources and I don't think incorporating those sources overly increased the length of the paragraph. The entire paragraph is currently 222 words with 160
1592:
I think how the article has presently addressed all the different claims is an accurate assessment and compilation of the information available. From my experience, more details are better when handling commentary as it allows us to provide readers with varying perspectives and conclusions about the
1572:
Responding to both of you here, there's no secondary source pushing back on the oversight comment as far as I can tell, maybe you can link it with the quote? And again, pointing out that Disney usually has a lot of oversight on their projects doesn't contradict Iger at all, as Iger is saying that in
1527:
c) I think direct commentary from a secondary source on the behavior of those involved (Iger in this case) is useful; these sections are typically a mix of paraphrasing and short quotes. Given your previous argument against Whitbrook, it mostly feels like you're coming up with another reason because
1307:& Vanity Fair) commenting on the event. Their analysis is relevant because we don't assume a primary source's (ie. Iger's) explanation of events is true; we go to secondary sources which can evaluate the truth (ie. is this corporate spin?). This article is following an incredibly common process.
1121:
I agree with adamstom97 that there's an appropriate amount of detail & industry response on Iger's comment. Whitbrook isn't some rando - he's the Deputy Editor of io9/Gizmodo so including his commentary makes sense in a Reception section. As Trailblazer101 pointed out, this type of commentary is
1106:
I do not see enough justification for removing relevant commentary. Commentary and perspectives from these sites and figures such as Whitbrook help make up the backbone of sections for our readers so they are provided with detailed discussion and analysis of the cited material, rather than only just
3130:
Is it just me that's confused about how Deadline's "P&L" is constructed? The "theatrical" revenue of $ 88m doesn't match any of the figures given for "box office" or their total. Then the revenue section includes home entertainment, TV and streaming (is this even knowable?) - so they're using a
2670:
My latest suggested wording, which GoneIn60 is happy with, only says that "some attributed to Disney" which I feel is a good compromise based on our back-and-forth. To replace "some" with Whitbrook is misleading because we have more than just Whitbrook making this claim, and I am not interested in
2307:
Anyway... neither of the two sources you added claims Disney has unfairly targeted the director in the past. Only the Forbes one can be used to support the claim that she was unfairly targeted by the media, but again, this is about the response to Iger's comment, throwing in "and the media" is just
1845:
Also not ideal? The weirdly public way Disney has decided to paint director Nia DaCosta in the wake of its release. It started earlier this month, just as The Marvels was preparing to release, when a damning report from Variety about the struggles the MCU was facing—in both terms of waning critical
1031:
Disney CEO Bob Iger also attributed the film's failure to the large amount of MCU content that Disney had produced for its streaming service, but he added that insufficient day-to-day supervision by Disney executives during production was partially to blame as well. Multiple commentators took issue
3700:
As the MCU is a multimedia franchise in which many characters and works connect with one another, we are not going to highlight every project that has one character appear from another one, as in the case of WandaVision. The film's connections to SI seem almost absent than what had been originally
2922:
Disney CEO Bob Iger also attributed the film's failure to the large amount of MCU content that Disney had produced for its streaming service, but he added that insufficient day-to-day supervision by Disney executives during production was partially to blame as well. Some commentators felt Iger was
2499:
That gets to the heart of this debate. This just boils down to a flash-in-the-pan theory about Disney that got a few opinion writers amped up and made headlines for a hot minute. Nothing has really been published about it since that I can find. What the media did is kind of separate without actual
2378:
Yeah that's why I broke it up with bold before and after, I don't need people to go through it. If you know how to do the collapsible thing feel free to edit my comment! Yes, I agree, we can't say all these commentators/publications are claiming Disney has unfairly targeted the director if they're
2288:
During this whole convo (until earlier today) the oversight and multiple commentators claims have been unsourced and every time I say that the response I get is they are sourced while refusing to say where, and calling me disruptive and whatever else. Now we finally have a source for the oversight
1999:
During this whole convo (until earlier today) the oversight and multiple commentators claims have been unsourced and every time I say that the response I get is they are sourced while refusing to say where, and calling me disruptive and whatever else. Now we finally have a source for the oversight
1945:
We still have the issue of "Several commentators" when it's just Whitbrook. As for 34 words, it's only 16 words about the oversight, and 126 words pushing back against it. That seems entirely undue weight to me unless this was truly a massive controversy. As far as I can tell this wasn't a massive
1861:
a narrative has been floated suggesting that filmmaker Nia DaCosta, who is the first Black woman to helm an MCU movie, abandoned The Marvels since its November 10 opening. In the Variety story 'Crisis at Marvel,' it was reported that the film required 'four weeks of reshoots' in order to unravel a
1773:
After Sariel provided some more sources commenting on this situation, I saw that they had some good stuff in them and updated the paragraph to include some of that. This includes better wording and more sources for the supervision comments, another source supporting the unfairly targeted sentence,
1038:
Disney CEO Bob Iger also attributed the film's failure to the large amount of MCU content that Disney had produced for its streaming service, but he added that insufficient day-to-day supervision by Disney executives during production was partially to blame as well. Some commentators felt Iger was
3242:
That kind of information is not typically included in the lead and best reserved for the dedicated box office section where all of that information is discussed in adequate detail, rather than bloating the lead with more information than is necessary there. We would need another source to call it
2833:
If there are other sources that exist that provide a different perspective, then please provide them. I think this has gone on long enough to establish a clear, agreed upon wording that ought not to be changed unless more concrete evidence warrants it. Removing the Mary Sue source doesn't seem to
2723:
It still provides tons of pushback to Iger's oversight statement, it just cuts the bits which were responses to a strawman. As GoneIn60 has said, the Mary Sue piece calling it sexism isn't appropriate either. If nearly 60 words in opposition to Iger's "insufficient day-to-day supervision" comment
2234:
For the three things I proposed to remove, can someone explain why the first one shouldn't be removed? Iger said there wasn't the usual executive oversight because of Covid, and then we're saying they're known for having a lot of oversight on their projects. There's no actual contradiction there.
1143:
For the three things I proposed to remove, can someone explain why the first one shouldn't be removed? Iger said there wasn't the usual executive oversight because of Covid, and then we're saying they're known for having a lot of oversight on their projects. There's no actual contradiction there.
1091:
For the first bit, Iger said there wasn't the usual executive oversight because of Covid, and then we're saying they're known for having a lot of oversight on their projects. I'm not understanding the contradiction. As for the second bit, it's not a fact that she's been unfairly targeted, or even
3546:
Aren't the indisputable facts you mentioned already grounds for the classification to apply? Even with the $ 55 million subsidy taken into account, it would still have topped the chart of box-office bombs by over $ 30 million, and it would still rank among the top box-office bombs of all time as
2589:
Here's what I've written which incorporates it all but is still a bit much imo, so I'd like to remove the under the bus thing (which is also a bit repetitive considering what's immediately preceding it) and/or Whitbrook attributing it to Disney. If I'm alone in this then I won't keep debating it
2556:
You may feel that they are missing the point of Iger's original comment by saying this, but that is irrelevant. We are just representing what most people have said about his comments, not what we think they should have said. If there is a good source that defends Iger against these comments then
2029:
Please point to where in the Mary Sue and Vanity Fair articles they are saying that Disney has unfairly targeted the director in the past? All they have in their articles is "insiders" or whoever else making comments about the director. Only Whitbrook is saying Disney. For some reason the recent
1557:
It is important to point out that Marvel is known for a lot of oversight because it contradicts Iger's comment, we don't just take his word for it. The "unfairly targeted" comment is clearly attributed to multiple sources, and the last line from Whitbrook has been defended multiple times in this
1425:
of Holydiver82's edit history). We've all walked through basic policies and processes both in this discussion & previous ones but I agree with adamstom97 that Holydiver82 is intentionally misrepresenting other editors especially when they quote random essays that don't prove their point (ie.
1306:
We don't require secondary sources to name their sources; the point of reliable sources is that we (as Knowledge editors) trust that these sources have done their due diligence before publishing articles. In this case, we have an event (Iger's comments) and then industry outlets (such as Gizmodo
3365:
does not mean that there is a general consensus for it to be done on all other film articles. That is why this is being discussed is to determine how best to present the information for this article. What we can say in the lead is a summary of what is already included in the box office section,
2789:
Disney CEO Bob Iger also acknowledged the large amount of MCU content produced for Disney+, but added that insufficient day-to-day supervision by Disney executives during production was partially to blame for the film's failure. Some commentators felt Iger was wrongfully blaming DaCosta for the
2718:
Disney CEO Bob Iger also acknowledged the large amount of MCU content produced for Disney+, but added that insufficient day-to-day supervision by Disney executives during production was partially to blame for the film's failure. Some commentators felt Iger was wrongfully blaming DaCosta for the
2654:
Disney CEO Bob Iger also acknowledged the large amount of MCU content produced for Disney+, but added that insufficient day-to-day supervision by Disney executives during production was partially to blame for the film's failure. Some commentators felt Iger was wrongfully blaming DaCosta for the
2594:
Disney CEO Bob Iger also acknowledged the large amount of MCU content produced for Disney+, but added that insufficient day-to-day supervision by Disney executives during production was partially to blame for the film's failure. Some commentators felt Iger was wrongfully blaming DaCosta for the
2564:
This retains the attribution to Disney, which is key and should not be removed. Again, you seem to be confusing your own personal interpretation with what the sources are saying. You have tried to explain why Whitbrook is wrong in his opinion, but that isn't the point. The point is that we have
2536:
Disney CEO Bob Iger also acknowledged the large amount of MCU content produced for Disney+, but added that insufficient day-to-day supervision by Disney executives during production was partially to blame for the film's failure. Some commentators felt Iger was wrongfully blaming DaCosta for the
2528:
My reading of the sources is that only Gizmodo suggested she was "unfairly targeted" by Disney (I've previously gone over Whitbrook's shoddy sourcing/reasoning for that), and only Forbes that she was "unfairly targeted" by the media. I would rather leave out "unfairly targeted". Can we just say
2272:
Well the oversight thing appears to be unsourced, and again, the point is Iger is saying there wasn't enough oversight on this film, so then responding well there's usually oversight on Disney films is a complete non-sequitur. Knowledge stating "multiple sources" are saying that Disney has been
1635:
Well the oversight thing appears to be unsourced, and again, the point is Iger is saying there wasn't enough oversight on this film, so then responding well there's usually oversight on Disney films is a complete non-sequitur. Knowledge stating "multiple sources" are saying that Disney has been
2901:
responses, multiple editors have explained multiple times why pushback to a primary source's corporative narrative should be included (ie. we don't assume a PR spin is the truth & instead go see what secondary sources think). I agree with Trailblazer101 - if you have secondary sources that
1200:
the fact that no one has responded to this comment is not indication that consensus is in your favour. I and the other editors in this thread have explained why we oppose your changes and have not been convinced by this latest comment. Unless other editors who support your position want to get
1970:
where. Given it only takes a minute to read the articles to check and these responses to me must've taken much more time, I can only guess that you guys have in fact read the articles, discovered they were indeed unsourced, and still lied to me that they were while attacking me as disruptive.
1658:
change which was reverted, so it is up to you to garner a consensus (which doesn't seem likely to be in your favor). Therefore, if you do reimplement your preferred changes again, it will be reverted. That's how this works. Not everyone is going to agree with you and you won't always get your
2280:
There are little numbers at the end of the sentences with links to articles, but the content in the articles don't support what's written in the Knowledge page. I don't know how many times I can say the same thing for it to get through. Everybody here just puts their fingers in their ears in
2067:
I've been dropping in from time to time watching this discussion progress, and initially, it did seem like a misunderstanding on Tikaboo's part. But at this stage, I'm beginning to see where they're coming from. Here's the deal. Whitbrook summarizes what he believes were the series of events
1984:
You clearly have your own personal interpretation of this situation and are choosing to ignore simple facts and reason as you continue to make the same arguments against multiple well-reasoned and experienced editors. We have gone ahead and addressed some of your concerns while improving the
1735:
There are little numbers at the end of the sentences with links to articles, but the content in the articles don't support what's written in the Knowledge page. I don't know how many times I can say the same thing for it to get through. Everybody here just puts their fingers in their ears in
3071:
I wonder how the conversation evolves? It's listed as the #1 among a list cataloguing the biggest box-office bombs of 2023, which should dissolve any issues with ambiguous language. Deadline is, to my understanding, considered a very reputable source for Hollywood financials. From a numeric
2754:
was hugely expanded for some reason. I really don't think I'm being unreasonable, my proposed wording it still so much pushback, and if including the "not the only Disney film to fail at the box office in 2023" thing then there's probably even more pushback than before I even started this.
2099:
Did all of this happen? Yes, and it was regurgitated by multiple sources to some extent. But to Tikaboo's point, the claim that "several commentators" believe that DaCosta was "unfairly targeted" by "Disney and the media" has issues. First, it may or may not be true that this undisclosed
1356:
other articles do it is not a reason to include it in this article. editors commenting on here have been around long enough to know that.LOL. if that is the only reason to include gossip from unnamed sources you probably should try a bit harder. including it very much is failing into
2738:
We have just gone through a lot of painful back-and-forth to settle on this wording, we're not just going to turn around and replace it all an hour later. I have been showing a lot of goodwill here in trying to come up with a compromise, it would be nice to get some in return. -
3160:
for the studio, for instance the cinemas take a cut. The fact that home entertainment and streaming is included doesn't really have an impact on the "box office bomb" decision, if we ignore those values it just makes the film even more of a bomb during the theatrical run. -
1375:
it is done at other articles, we are saying it is a common practice because it is correct and that is why it is being done here as well. You are intentionally misrepresenting our arguments to try to discredit everyone else, which isn't going to get us to change our minds. -
1853:
Before the film premiered, insiders tried to make her look bad for exiting the film early due to delays and prior commitments; then, she wasn't invited to the crew screening of the film and had The Hollywood Reporter falsely claiming she 'bailed' on her crew for missing
1687:
To imply these statements as "unsourced" or "incorrect" is inaccurate based on the cited sources themselves and what has been explained to you in this very discussion. Consensus is not in your favor here. Your removal was by no means a fix of the material. No means no.
2353:. There is a big difference between "a source familiar with the production" and equating that with being a representative of Disney. In post-production, there are multiple entities involved that are not Disney/Marvel, and it could have been any of those that spoke to
2649:
Forbes only mentions that "there's a theory" which it isn't convinced by. That doesn't support Knowledge's statement that there are plural commentators saying that Disney has been unfairly targeting the director. How's this, which is more in line with adam's
2182:
Regarding sources, I absolutely reject that this sentence is unsourced or that the citations have been misleadingly placed. Whitbrook's article clearly outlines his interpretation of these events and this aligns with the current wording of the sentence. The
2119:
source isn't very strong in my opinion. It states "insiders", plural, which no other source seems to corroborate, and it is extremely opinionated in an emotional, triggered manner. Very fringe. I highly recommend replacing this one with a better source. The
3551:#2 and #3 respectively). However, in the box-office section where the actual numeric losses are reported, it would make sense to highlight the fact that Deadline didn't factor in the subsidy to highlight how their actual calculations may have some issues.
3453:
that Disney received a $ 55 million subsidy credit from the UK government, bringing the total production cost down from $ 274.8 million to $ 219.8 million. So the true loss is really closer to $ 187 million. For whatever reason, this was not factored into
3325:
I also clicked though the top 10 losses and all but Turning Red, a Covid victim first and foremost, use much more leaded language in the lead in regarding the films failures. If The Flash, a comparable 2023 failed in the same genre is a "bomb", the so is
1789:
Thanks for incorporating those sources! I slightly rephrased it (split the general pushback from the 2 sources commenting on Disney's other box office failures & added attribution to those sources in the sentence; added that 4 sources used the thrown
1931:. It is correct for there to be more discussion of the responses than the original statement because Iger only gave a short statement but many reliable sources responded with much more to say. Our paragraph accurately represents that, in my opinon. -
1949:
While not forgetting that we are still incorrectly stating that "Several commentators" allege that Disney has unfairly targeted the director in the past when only Whitbrook is making that claim, we may as well go into the detail on other parts as
2014:
You keep saying things are unsourced when they are literally sourced to multiple reliable sources. You can keep telling yourself that they are unsourced but that doesn't make it true, and trying to gaslight us into believing you isn't working. -
2083:
during the press tour. She says the film's date was pushed back four times, and after the third time, she had no choice but to work remote due to prior commitments. Marvel was aware and "figured out the best process" for her to finish the film
1558:
discussion already. As has been pointed out several times, other editors do not agree with these attempted changes. Just because we are losing interest in responding to the same arguments does not mean you have consensus to make the changes. -
2308:
muddying this up and should be removed. The sentence needs to only be that one person, Whitbrook, has claimed that the director has been unfairly targeted by Disney in the past, unless you can find other commentators saying the same thing.
2634:
proposed above.Tikaboo, some of your points were valid and some good things have happened, but this discussion has grown long in the tooth. It's time to reach a compromise and move on to more important things that need our attention! --
1926:
Just to add here, whether the amount of commentary included is "excessive" or not is based on the amount of commentary that exists in reliable sources, not the number of words attributed to the different parties here. It is called
2537:
film's performance, and several characterized his statement as throwing the director "under the bus". There were also other negative stories about DaCosta in the media, which some commentators thought were unfair to the director.
2773:
to take the time right now. If there is something new that was added you'd like to discuss, let's move that to a new section below (of which I most likely won't be participating in). This section is becoming a cluttered mess. --
3718:
but it is heavily connected to Wanda vision. Adult Monica's debut, her relationship with Carol, her getting powers and the Skrulls asking her to go to saber station is in Wanda vision. Monica is as much a lead in the movie as
3310:
Indeed it is standard practice to include in the lead the film's status on the 100 box office bomb list. And comes off rather odd to not call it a bomb when it's at the number 1 biggest bomb on the list of 100 biggest bombs
1946:
controversy just because there's a few articles. You can go through this page and make it 100x larger if you include commentary all the reliable sources have made. We've decided not to do that because it would be excessive.
2165:
The intention of this sentence is to indicate that Iger's comments were not the first or only time that DaCosta was "thrown under the bus" by Disney or some representative of Disney in the entertainment media. It would be
1151:
We should specifically attribute this to Whitbrook's opinion if it's kept in. And I think there are other good reasons for not including it at all. His first example of Disney unfairly targeting the director is from this:
1965:
When deciding what to include in this article we should aim for high quality (the "high quality" bar I'm suggesting is just that the commentary isn't responding to a strawman) and due weight, currently we're failing on
1291:
since when has the article on the marvels followed "what is common" instead of requiring extremely good sources to make claims? how is gossip from unnamed sources relevant information for an article about the film?
2250:
which is sourced to "according to miffed Marvel staffers grumbling at the Nov. 8 screening," which again is a stretch to attribute it to Disney, given their description as "Marvel staffers". Could be any low level
2178:
reports, but there is no such problem when we have multiple, independent sources drawing those conclusions and our wording is clear that we are talking about opinions ("commentators") and allegations ("appeared to
1171:
which is sourced to "according to miffed Marvel staffers grumbling at the Nov. 8 screening," which again is a stretch to attribute it to Disney, given their description as "Marvel staffers". Could be any low level
3584:
With the addition of the Deadline source, I no longer think we need to be cagey with the wording in the Box office section, either, and think we can simplify it to just calling it a bomb upfront. I would propose:
2104:
source represents Disney. That appears to be the sole opinion of Whitbrook. If anyone else has drawn that conclusion, it does not appear to be supported in the other cited sources. Also Whitbrook oddly misquotes
3227:
This page definitely needs to include the loss estimate in the lead with the budget and box office earnings. As well as link to the biggest box office bomb page which is standard for pages of films on that list
1702:
You could point to me where the oversight statement is sourced from, and where "multiple commentators" say that the director has been unfairly targeted in the past by Disney? So far nobody has managed to do so.
2254:
It removes "with some pointing out that Marvel is known for having a lot of executive oversight on all of their projects" which is irrelevant given the Iger's comment is that there wasn't enough oversight this
2227:
It removes "with some pointing out that Marvel is known for having a lot of executive oversight on all of their projects" which is irrelevant given the Iger's comment is that there wasn't enough oversight this
153:
2258:
It rewords slightly and attributes "noted several instances where DaCosta had appeared to be unfairly targeted by Disney before Iger's comments" to Whitbrook since he's the one making the claim, not "multiple
2158:
I appreciate the thought put in here GoneIn60 but I think you are being a bit generous to Tikaboo, who has not expressed any of this in any clear or reasonable way and has burned a lot of good will with their
1491:
It rewords slightly and attributes "noted several instances where DaCosta had appeared to be unfairly targeted by Disney before Iger's comments" to Whitbrook since he's the one making the claim, not "multiple
2205:
I don't know how I could've been any more clear or more reasonable? I said the same thing over and over again but it was like talking to a brick wall. Here's every time I pointed this out to you guys and was
1985:
paragraph, but our previous statements still stand. There is no consensus for your ridiculous position and you need to go away, unless you come up with a new argument that is supported by reliable sources. -
2276:
You could point to me where the oversight statement is sourced from, and where "multiple commentators" say that the director has been unfairly targeted in the past by Disney? So far nobody has managed to do
1868:
on Iger's narrative and the response to that narrative which is a slight increase from the original 167 words with 128 words on Iger's narrative; so a 32 word increase on the response to Iger's narrative.
3565:
It also didn't include the millions of extra cost for the multiple delay and reshoots. So it's the best estimate we have from reliable sources but probably missing additional costs as well as tax credits
3372:, grossing $ 206 million worldwide against a gross production budget of $ 274.8 million, making it the lowest-grossing film in the MCU and one of the few MCU films not to break even in its theatrical run.
3267:: "The film received generally positive reviews from critics but grossed only $ 73.6 million with a projected loss of $ 197 million for Disney, making it one of the biggest box-office bombs of all time."
404:
287:
1636:
unfairly targeting the director is also unsourced, it's only a poorly sourced opinion from Whitbrook. Could you please address any of these points? If you can't then I'd ask you don't revert again.
2315:
Iger wasn't suggesting the film should've had more than the usual oversight, he was saying there wasn't the usual oversight. So again we've just reworded the non-sequitur into another non-sequitur.
2273:
unfairly targeting the director is also unsourced, it's only a poorly sourced opinion from Whitbrook. Could you please address any of these points? If you can't then I'd ask you don't revert again.
1956:
Iger wasn't suggesting the film should've had more than the usual oversight, he was saying there wasn't the usual oversight. So again we've just reworded the non-sequitur into another non-sequitur.
1882:
Knowledge is claiming that "Several commentators" allege that Disney has unfairly targeted the director, but only Whitbrook is making that claim. Mary Sue and Vanity Fair are not making that claim.
2805:
I think adamstom97's update works as is & I don't see an issue with including the Mary Sue piece when it is clear that it is an opinion. Reception sections should include a range of opinions.
1338:
is in no way relevant to Sariel's comment, which was a very clear explanation for why we are including additional commentary and context for Iger's comments. The more appropriate link here may be
2262:
It removes "James Whitbrook said the studio's "increasingly public critiques of DaCosta are just starting to feel weird" since that comment is a repeat of the slightly reworded statement above.
1717:
Both of these are clearly sourced in the article and you are showing bad faith by pretending not to see that as a way to continue this argument when it is clear that consensus is against you.
3898:
3331:
3085:
Feel free to delete or close this thread if this is redundant or misplaced. Skimming through the discussions honestly left me more confused on where to ask this question than I was before.
3983:
3461:
s analysis.As for calling it a "bomb", I would not be opposed to it at this point if framed correctly. The statement in the article should say something along the lines of "considered a
3209:
Based on Deadline's calculations and use of the term "bomb", I support implementing the changes now that we have another reputable source backing things up with more facts and evidence.
622:
457:
3428:
gone ahead and updated the wording to reflect the current sources and provided a seamless flow for the information in the Box office section. Hopefully this puts any concerns to rest.
2231:
It removes "noted several instances where DaCosta had appeared to be unfairly targeted by Disney before Iger's comments" since this is only sourced as an opinion from James Whitbrook.
2113:" source; the actual quote is "a source familiar with the production". Whether or not that's misleading and alters the meaning is irrelevant. Don't put it in quotes when paraphrasing.
1263:
agree with all your edits. Especially removing the opinions and poorly worded items from unnamed sources. Very much not in line with the article being based on facts and good sources
3767:, so those are not included here. As Trailblazer pointed out, characters and plot lines are often continued in other MCU properties but are not treated as sequels or next seasons. -
3903:
3273:: "It is one of the biggest box office bombs of all time, grossing $ 83.7 million against a production budget of $ 100–150 million and losing the studio an estimated $ 175 million."
2973:
I'm sorry, but vague accusations that editors are trying to intentionally "protect" the director of this film are inappropriate, remember to assume good faith in these discussions.
1576:
Can you point out in the sources who else is claiming that Disney has unfairly targeted the director in the past? From my reading of the sources only Whitbrook is making the claim.
817:
384:
283:
2269:
Can you point out in the sources who else is claiming that Disney has unfairly targeted the director in the past? From my reading of the sources only Whitbrook is making the claim.
1277:
It is relevant commentary on the studio's handling of the film's performance. It is common to include what reliable websites state in their commentary pieces about these things.
905:
760:
602:
453:
424:
291:
3243:"the biggest box-office bomb" as you have called it, which Deadline's does not support, though linking to that list article of biggest box-office bombs shouldn't be an issue.
2324:
If you guys think Iger's comment was such a massive controversy that we need 126 words in opposition to his 16 words then pick commentary that isn't responding to a strawman.
3893:
3291:: "It grossed $ 39.2 million worldwide on a $ 150 million budget, becoming one of the biggest box-office bombs of all time, losing an estimated $ 100–144 million for Disney."
2787:
Okay, how about this, which is basically the same as now but removes that Mary Sue piece, which there isn't consensus for anyway since we both opposed it when it was added:
3963:
3933:
2671:
continuing to argue in circles about that one point. Do you have any different issues with the wording other than your feeling that only Whitbrook is making this claim? -
834:
202:
2235:
I've read the sources for this statement and it doesn't fit either so seems like a wiki editor made a mistake trying to include their responses to the oversight comment.
2191:
is just as explicit as Whitbrook. I agree that it is opinionated, but we are using it for their opinion. I have also gone ahead and added a couple additional sources. -
1144:
I've read the sources for this statement and it doesn't fit either so seems like a wiki editor made a mistake trying to include their responses to the oversight comment.
2581:
Some commentators felt Iger was wrongfully blaming DaCosta for the film's performance, and several characterized his statement as throwing the director "under the bus".
3988:
910:
147:
3279:: "It grossed $ 284 million at the worldwide box office, resulting in a $ 200 million writedown for Disney, becoming one of the biggest box office bombs in history."
2187:
article is much less explicit than Whitbrook in calling out Disney, but it does draw the same conclusions as him and is a good quality source to include as support.
2000:
thing (still not for the multiple commentators one) and it's just low quality, responding to a strawman of what Iger said. And the undue weight issue is even worse.
1179:" well again, other than sounding like high schooler, it's just unnecessary, and as we've seen his evidence for Disney doing these public critiques is just guesses.
3082:- would result in concluding that The Marvels is classified as a box-office bomb. Even more so with the readily available stats that the page itself already cites.
2430:
2289:
thing (still not for the multiple commentators one) and it's just low quality, responding to a strawman of what Iger said. And the undue weight issue is even worse.
2143:, but it is in dire need of better sourcing. Also, move citations next to the portions of the claim that they support if they do not support the entire sentence. --
2415:
3978:
1138:
Some commentators felt Iger was wrongfully putting all of the blame on DaCosta, noting that The Marvels was not Disney's only 2023 film to fail at the box office.
870:
860:
3517:
be considered a reliable source, & as HarryHenry1 pointed out above, there's a political motive behind manipulated interpretation of the film's performance.
3888:
2494:
onto DaCosta. There’s no public evidence that’s true, but I do know that she has been unfairly targeted unlike any other director I’ve seen in the MCU in ages."
507:
2247:
2088:
1168:
4003:
3913:
3998:
3993:
824:
2552:
Nearly every story that discusses Iger's comments calls out the oversight part of it, and the wording we currently have fairly represents those thoughts:
3943:
3883:
3072:
standpoint the numbers that Deadline is postulating would position The Marvels as the biggest box-office bomb of all time according to the statistics in
513:
79:
3450:
2554:
Multiple commentators took issue with this statement, questioning how more executive oversight than Marvel is already known for could be an improvement.
2313:
Multiple commentators took issue with this statement, questioning how more executive oversight than Marvel is already known for could be an improvement.
1954:
Multiple commentators took issue with this statement, questioning how more executive oversight than Marvel is already known for could be an improvement.
3908:
517:
1650:
I already explained my opposition to this. You repeatedly asking for further explanation won't convince me to then support the changes you want. Per
829:
3973:
3958:
3938:
3928:
2622:
source, we have a generalized statement that this widely-accepted theory exists. It's not just an opinion of one person anymore. If we only cited
732:
722:
572:
559:
549:
2630:" claim, that would be perfectly acceptable by Knowledge's standards. The claim should stay, and I prefer either one of the two concise versions
1826:
and it's still only Whitbrook making that claim. My original issue with devoting so much pushback to Iger's statement is even worse now as well.
3437:
3094:
3055:
2557:
there could be potential to add a rebuttal, but it is not up to us to do that ourselves by leaving out the commentary that we don't agree with.
2358:
2240:
1159:
If we do include his "unfairly targeted" allegation then I don't think it's good enough to leave what those are unsaid. This is his example: "
1153:
1107:
including the facts or statements from officially involved persons. Outside perspectives from commentators enhance the articles, not detract.
85:
3968:
3948:
3296:
Admittedly, multiple others do not specifically use the words "box office bomb", but including the loss estimate is normal even for those.
2562:
This came amid a wider narrative in the Hollywood media which commentators felt was unfair to DaCosta, and which some attributed to Disney.
2459:
This came amid a wider narrative in the Hollywood media, which some attributed to Disney, in which DaCosta appeared to be unfairly targeted
3257:
It is fairly typical to include some variation of "is one of the biggest box office bombs " in the lead of the article with a link to the
2379:
just noting instances of "sources" criticising the director. Sneaking in "and the media" to try and make it work is also not good enough.
2163:
Several commentators also noted instances where DaCosta appeared to be unfairly targeted by Disney and the media before Iger's statement.
1824:
Several commentators also noted instances where DaCosta appeared to be unfairly targeted by Disney and the media before Iger's statement.
4008:
3491:"). We should keep the Deadline numbers in the box office section but I don't think the lead needs to get bogged down by the specifics.
800:
755:
44:
2404:
2076:, a source "close to the production" (misquoted by Whitbrook, see below) claims that DaCosta bailed on the film before it was finished.
3918:
3701:
expected, hence why that is not in the lead. Ms. Marvel's connections are the only main one that ought to be highlighted in the lead.
812:
2490:"There’s a theory that Disney is seeding some of these negative stories, especially in the trades, to try and offload some blame for
3335:
2321:
well again, Iger is not saying that additional supervision above normal was required, it was that the usual supervision was missing.
1962:
well again, Iger is not saying that additional supervision above normal was required, it was that the usual supervision was missing.
698:
525:
2923:
wrongfully putting all of the blame on DaCosta, noting that The Marvels was not Disney's only 2023 film to fail at the box office.
1077:
response to Iger's comment. We could replace it with a different, similar opinion but I personally don't see the need for that. -
1039:
wrongfully putting all of the blame on DaCosta, noting that The Marvels was not Disney's only 2023 film to fail at the box office.
3953:
3923:
3812:
3258:
2435:
acknowledges others calling out Disney but they only call out "the highest profile entertainment publications on the market" and
2128:
source's criticism as well as DaCosta's denial that her "dismount" from the film was "dramatic". The same coverage is given over
1414:
962:
3066:
1651:
697:
and its affiliated companies on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
333:
99:
30:
3878:
3816:
104:
20:
3820:
2349:, which will end up hurting this discussion more than it helps. My final thought is this. We still need to be careful about
3513:
s neglect of the subsidy (which is also indisputable), however, sticks out as peculiar & hurts the credibility of what
2248:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/why-marvels-director-nia-dacosta-missed-cast-crew-screening-1235648288/
1481:
The editors all came in to respond to holydiver so I don't think it's because of a lack of a ping. Maybe you could respond?
1169:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/why-marvels-director-nia-dacosta-missed-cast-crew-screening-1235648288/
808:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
3659:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
345:
337:
168:
74:
1887:
insufficient day-to-day supervision by Disney executives during production was partially to blame for the film's failure.
1822:
We're still running into the same issue of statements unsupported by the sources. I've read all three of the sources for
2095:
followed, which appeared to be nothing more than a clickbait headline, because it included an explanation from her reps.
689:
650:
497:
448:
253:
135:
2483:
about Disney, writing as if it were fact. I don't think the revised proposal would suffer if you drop that source. The
3852:
Ah, I did not realize this was an error, or that multiple sites had come to the same interpretation. I'll restore it.
3603:
Incredible Hulk was a the first MCU box office bomb but yes this is also clearly a bomb and not an underperformance.
3282:
953:
933:
65:
2080:
3046:", editors updated the exact phrasing in the article to reflect statements made in new sources (mostly Deadline's).
2835:
2396:
3808:
3362:
3039:
1335:
1012:
341:
328:
278:
210:
198:
194:
190:
185:
2457:
an attempt at a compromise, here is a suggestion for alternate wording that I feel is accurate to this breakdown:
3727:
3690:
3668:
The movie is a continuation of Wanda vision and secret invasion and not Just the Ms Marvel Tv show so please add
3608:
3150:
1149:"and noted several instances where DaCosta had appeared to be unfairly targeted by Disney before Iger's comments"
1122:
pretty standard in such sections (see also the spectrum of views included in the critical response subsection).
221:
3857:
3706:
3594:
3433:
3379:
3248:
3214:
2843:
1813:
1693:
1664:
1626:
1598:
1529:
1472:
1282:
1112:
521:
1016:
1673:
You can just say "hey, by bad for reverting, I didn't know you were fixing unsourced, incorrect statements".
129:
3679:
2319:
both noted that Iger did not suggest Disney's other 2023 box office failures required additional supervision
1960:
both noted that Iger did not suggest Disney's other 2023 box office failures required additional supervision
1486:
with some pointing out that Marvel is known for having a lot of executive oversight on all of their projects
1059:
James Whitbrook said the studio's "increasingly public critiques of DaCosta are just starting to feel weird"
1045:
with some pointing out that Marvel is known for having a lot of executive oversight on all of their projects
694:
109:
2243:
but we don't know if it's from Disney, Variety only says it's from a source "familiar with the production".
2241:
https://variety.com/2023/film/features/marvel-jonathan-majors-problem-the-marvels-reshoots-kang-1235774940/
1497:
James Whitbrook said the studio's "increasingly public critiques of DaCosta are just starting to feel weird
1177:
James Whitbrook said the studio's "increasingly public critiques of DaCosta are just starting to feel weird
1156:
but we don't know if it's from Disney, Variety only says it's from a source "familiar with the production".
1154:
https://variety.com/2023/film/features/marvel-jonathan-majors-problem-the-marvels-reshoots-kang-1235774940/
1052:
noted several instances where DaCosta had appeared to be unfairly targeted by Disney before Iger's comments
3723:
3686:
3604:
3522:
3301:
2944:
2346:
1905:
1718:
945:
927:
2560:
As for the new wording we are discussing, here is an alternative that avoids saying "unfairly targeted":
1422:
3843:
3828:
3772:
3673:
3625:
3571:
3537:
3496:
3393:
3350:
3316:
3270:
3233:
3184:
3165:
3121:
3106:
3051:
3002:
2978:
2964:
2907:
2898:
2810:
2744:
2704:
2676:
2570:
2519:
2466:
2196:
2020:
1990:
1936:
1917:
1909:
1873:
1799:
1779:
1726:
1563:
1541:
1464:
1435:
1427:
1381:
1362:
1347:
1339:
1326:
1312:
1297:
1268:
1234:
1206:
1127:
1082:
259:
125:
3638:
That production cost is only up to September of 2022. There was a lot post production costs past then.
3285:: "...making it one of the biggest box-office bombs of all time, losing Disney over $ 160–190 million."
3567:
3533:
3346:
3312:
3229:
3180:
2960:
2285:
claim. My original issue with devoting so much pushback to Iger's statement is even worse now as well.
1358:
1322:
1293:
1264:
3643:
3556:
3552:
3407:
3403:
3264:
3146:
3090:
3086:
2994:
1162:
weird for the director to leave with a few months to go,” says a source familiar with the production.
792:
3838:
I think I just forgot when I was cleaning up the recent plot changes, support changing this back. -
1517:" - that's a primary source's narrative on what occurred with secondary sources pushing back on that
241:
3853:
3801:
3702:
3590:
3429:
3375:
3244:
3210:
2839:
2586:
For the unfair Disney thing, it's only one guy attributing it to Disney so I don't think it is key.
1928:
1809:
1689:
1660:
1622:
1594:
1524:" - the entire sentence has 4 sources with second half citing Gizmodo (Whitbrook) & Vanity Fair
1468:
1278:
1108:
879:
414:
175:
161:
55:
2925:
2820:
2792:
2755:
2725:
2686:
2657:
2597:
2539:
2451:
and includes a tweet that explicitly calls out Disney (not the greatest source but it's something)
2380:
2338:
2325:
2031:
2001:
1971:
1890:
1827:
1737:
1704:
1674:
1637:
1608:
1577:
1500:
1460:
1445:
1244:
1216:
1195:
1180:
1093:
1062:
961:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
3474:
3276:
3194:
2778:
2640:
2505:
2369:
2148:
1552:
1536:
come up with a new argument so I didn't respond because I didn't think it needed to be rehashed.
226:
70:
3639:
1047:" which is irrelevant given the Iger's comment is that there wasn't enough oversight this time.
1017:
Talk:The Marvels#Does Deadline's listing of The Marvels as a "bomb" justify that classification?
776:
749:
3620:
was not a box office bomb. See that film's article for detail on its box office performance. -
1488:" which is irrelevant given the Iger's comment is that there wasn't enough oversight this time.
3518:
3297:
2929:
2824:
2796:
2759:
2729:
2690:
2661:
2601:
2543:
2442:
2384:
2329:
2035:
2005:
1975:
1894:
1831:
1741:
1708:
1678:
1641:
1612:
1581:
1504:
1449:
1413:
I think everyone has tried to act in good faith towards a newer editor who is very focused on
1248:
1220:
1184:
1097:
1066:
675:
51:
3067:
https://deadline.com/2024/05/biggest-box-office-bombs-2023-lowest-grossing-movies-1235902825/
3839:
3824:
3797:
3768:
3621:
3492:
3389:
3198:
3161:
3117:
3102:
3047:
2998:
2974:
2903:
2806:
2740:
2700:
2672:
2631:
2566:
2515:
2462:
2192:
2016:
1986:
1932:
1913:
1869:
1795:
1775:
1722:
1559:
1537:
1431:
1418:
1377:
1343:
1308:
1230:
1202:
1123:
1078:
223:
3116:
bomb" to the lead, I think this new source satisfies that so I would support the change. -
3462:
3369:
3288:
3132:
3043:
2699:
I have made this change. Thank you for cooperating and helping us come to a compromise. -
3402:
I likewise agree with all of Trailblazer101's proposals throughout this comment section.
3016:
141:
3465:" and be cited by at least 2-3 highly reputable sources, including this recent one from
3073:
1889:
So that's 16 words from Iger, and 126 words pushing back against it. Bit excessive, no?
3425:
1655:
3587:
The film was a box-office bomb, and is considered the first bomb of the MCU franchise.
3145:
I'm not getting the impression that this is a terribly reliable source on the matter.
3872:
3470:
2774:
2636:
2501:
2365:
2144:
1791:
805:
681:
489:
3261:
when the movie lists high there, along with a loss estimate. Here's a few examples:
665:
644:
3793:
3175:
3078:
Any reasonable reading of this source- in conjunction with the existing sources in
2350:
2167:
1621:
My point still stands. I'm not convinced by arguments to condense the information.
394:
3074:
https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_biggest_box-office_bombs#Biggest_box-office_bombs
2124:
source is quite objective, presenting the facts in a neutral way. It mentions the
612:
374:
3488:
3484:
2614:
cited sources subscribing to the Disney theory (I don't count the off-the-rocker
1860:
1852:
1844:
1521:
1514:
332:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can
897:
320:
24:
3017:
Does Deadline's listing of The Marvels as a "bomb" justify that classification?
3449:
source is counting the production cost as $ 270 million, but we know from the
3006:
2968:
2911:
2152:
1783:
1453:
1439:
1070:
1061:" since this reads like a teenager writing, and again is just from Whitbrook.
887:
782:
671:
483:
479:
310:
304:
272:
2514:
Okay, thanks for the response. I will wait to see what Tikaboo has to say. -
1215:
Let me know what I'm missing with my last comment, I'm open to being wrong.
1011:
For information on the use of "box office bomb" in this article, please see
592:
473:
442:
1808:
I support all of these changes and improvements to the section. Good work.
1499:" since that comment is a repeat of the slightly reworded statement above.
804:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
3532:
interested to see if the truth and reality finally wins over manipulation
3065:
The earlier section seems to be closed, but with Deadline's article here:
2420:
does not explicitly call out Disney but does address the "narrative" from
349:
2819:
You don't think this much pushback for Iger's comment is too one-sided?
2246:
The other example is the director missing the premiere for her birthday
1167:
The other example is the director missing the premiere for her birthday
3677:(2019), a continuation of the television miniseries Wanda vision 2021,
225:
3483:
I agree with the updated language suggested by GoneIn60 ("The film is
1607:
Hey, the comment above yours addresses why I trimmed and reworded it.
1444:
Can anyone who wants to keep the current wording address what I said?
502:
1840:
All 3 sources report on the media coverage besides Iger's statement:
3861:
3847:
3832:
3776:
3755:, which is why that series is mentioned in the lead for that film.
3731:
3710:
3694:
3647:
3629:
3612:
3598:
3575:
3560:
3541:
3526:
3500:
3478:
3411:
3397:
3383:
3354:
3339:
3320:
3305:
3252:
3237:
3218:
3202:
3188:
3169:
3154:
3125:
3110:
2982:
2933:
2847:
2828:
2814:
2800:
2782:
2763:
2748:
2733:
2708:
2694:
2680:
2665:
2644:
2605:
2574:
2547:
2523:
2509:
2470:
2388:
2373:
2333:
2200:
2039:
2024:
2009:
1994:
1979:
1940:
1921:
1898:
1877:
1835:
1817:
1803:
1745:
1730:
1712:
1697:
1682:
1668:
1645:
1630:
1616:
1602:
1585:
1567:
1545:
1508:
1476:
1385:
1366:
1351:
1330:
1316:
1301:
1286:
1272:
1252:
1238:
1224:
1210:
1188:
1131:
1116:
1101:
1086:
3807:
few articles that also have the same interpretation of the scene:
2579:
Well we're already responding to the oversight comment from Iger:
2401:
explicitly calls out Disney and "Hollywood media's biggest trades"
2079:
Media outlets picked up on it, of course, which eventually led to
958:
3489:
Some publications have labeled the film the first box-office bomb
2364:
die on, so I will be exiting stage left. I've spoken my peace. --
1054:" since this is only sourced as an opinion from James Whitbrook.
3131:
slightly unconventional definition of "bomb" - we usually hear "
1463:
You still don't have any consensus to reimplement your changes.
1229:
We have already explained why we are opposed to your changes. -
3137:
a film that is unprofitable or considered highly unsuccessful
1164:" To be honest I'm surprised this isn't in the article anyway.
996:
235:
227:
15:
3179:
me, so I suspect the loss figure is a lower-bound estimate.
3079:
878:
611:
591:
413:
393:
373:
1243:
And I addressed them in detail, could you respond to them?
501:, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
3743:, that is why that show is listed in the lead along with
3715:
i can sort of understand Secret invasion but WandaVision
1026:
Do we need so much pushback back against Iger's comment?
512:
If you would like to participate, you can help with the
3080:
https://en.wikipedia.org/The_Marvels#cite_note-Bomb-125
160:
2239:
Disney unfairly targeting the director is from this:
3031:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
2266:
this specific case there wasn't the usual oversight.
1573:
this specific case there wasn't the usual oversight.
1201:
involved, consensus is to not make these changes. -
957:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
693:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
2997:to make it easier to follow the actual discussion.
2139:I wouldn't say the disputed sentence is completely
1136:
I did include outside perspectives in my proposal "
570:
3899:Top-importance Marvel Cinematic Universe articles
2897:Echoing what I said above about not veering into
2610:Originally, it was just Whitbrook in the list of
2393:There are five sources supporting this sentence:
3984:B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
3388:I agree with all of your thoughts here Trail. -
2487:sources sums it up quite nicely when it states:
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
2475:I could live with that, although I still think
348:. To improve this article, please refer to the
2479:goes overboard and heavily subscribes to this
2170:if we said that ourselves based solely on the
3904:Marvel Cinematic Universe task force articles
3034:A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
1522:Whitbrook since he's the one making the claim
906:WikiProject Film - American cinema task force
174:
8:
3722:If Ms Marvel is connected so is Wandavision
1515:which is irrelevant given the Iger's comment
1342:as that is how you are starting to sound. -
3894:B-Class Marvel Cinematic Universe articles
3509:lose a ton of money; that's indisputable.
3193:Deadline is definitely an accurate source
2939:
2834:provide any merit other than just because
2212:
2136:of a timeline, nothing more, nothing less.
1013:Talk:The Marvels/Archive 2#Box Office Bomb
922:
744:
639:
567:
524:the attached article or discuss it at the
437:
344:. To use this banner, please refer to the
267:
3964:B-Class Disney articles of Low-importance
3934:B-Class Comics articles of Low-importance
3101:from other users first before adding it.
2714:now with the current wording. How's this?
3424:Per the emerging consensus here, I have
2532:Maybe final version something like this:
2500:evidence that it was tied to Disney. --
1465:Silence is the weakest form of consensus
3989:Low-importance American cinema articles
924:
746:
641:
439:
269:
239:
3586:
3367:
3136:
2627:
2561:
2553:
2458:
2311:And to repeat the "oversight" issues:
2162:
2110:
3979:Low-importance United States articles
2768:It is true that the section expanded
7:
3889:Comic book films task force articles
3332:2A00:1F:8701:DF01:CC3C:D04:2F16:7F77
3025:The following discussion is closed.
1421:arguments about those sections (see
951:This article is within the scope of
798:This article is within the scope of
687:This article is within the scope of
495:This article is within the scope of
405:Marvel Cinematic Universe task force
326:This article is within the scope of
4004:All WikiProject Women-related pages
3914:American cinema task force articles
1371:No one is saying we should do this
845:Knowledge:WikiProject United States
258:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
3999:B-Class WikiProject Women articles
3994:WikiProject United States articles
848:Template:WikiProject United States
14:
3944:Marvel Comics work group articles
3884:B-Class comic book films articles
3753:The Falcon and the Winter Soldier
3747:. The same thing can be said for
422:This article is supported by the
402:This article is supported by the
382:This article is supported by the
3909:B-Class American cinema articles
3749:Captain America: Brave New World
3655:The discussion above is closed.
3259:List of biggest box-office bombs
2409:explicitly calls out Disney and
1000:
944:
926:
890:
785:
775:
748:
674:
664:
643:
482:
472:
441:
342:regional and topical task forces
313:
303:
271:
240:
209:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
865:This article has been rated as
727:This article has been rated as
554:This article has been rated as
3974:B-Class United States articles
3959:Low-importance Disney articles
3939:B-Class Marvel Comics articles
3929:Low-importance Comics articles
3862:14:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
3848:08:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
3833:06:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
3751:effectively being season 2 of
3366:something along the lines of "
1:
3683:(2022), Secret invasion 2023
3671:it is the sequel to the film
3174:The $ 88 million will be the
2945:Collapsed for being off topic
965:and see a list of open tasks.
903:This article is supported by
701:and see a list of open tasks.
620:This article is supported by
600:This article is supported by
42:Put new text under old text.
3485:considered a box-office bomb
2345:is going to respond to that
707:Knowledge:WikiProject Disney
534:Knowledge:WikiProject Comics
3969:WikiProject Disney articles
3949:WikiProject Comics articles
3759:is in no way a season 2 of
3739:is effectively season 2 of
2357:. If a cited source quotes
1015:for initial consensus, and
971:Knowledge:WikiProject Women
710:Template:WikiProject Disney
623:Comic book films work group
537:Template:WikiProject Comics
385:Comic book films task force
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
4025:
4009:WikiProject Women articles
3487:" instead of the current "
2618:source), but now with the
2341:, I hate to say this, but
2068:preceding Iger's comment:
977:WikiProject Women articles
974:Template:WikiProject Women
871:project's importance scale
733:project's importance scale
560:project's importance scale
425:American cinema task force
358:Knowledge:WikiProject Film
3919:WikiProject Film articles
3345:the top bomb of all time
3139:during its theatrical run
2685:No, "some" is fine then.
1189:05:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
1132:03:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
1117:02:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
1102:02:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
1087:21:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
1071:19:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
1019:for additional consensus.
939:
886:
864:
801:WikiProject United States
770:
726:
659:
619:
599:
566:
553:
467:
421:
401:
381:
361:Template:WikiProject Film
298:
288:Marvel Cinematic Universe
266:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
3657:Please do not modify it.
3056:23:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
3028:Please do not modify it.
3007:17:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
2983:16:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
2969:16:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
2934:20:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
2912:17:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
2848:17:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
2829:17:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
2815:17:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
2801:16:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
2783:16:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
2764:16:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
2749:16:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
2734:15:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
2709:14:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
2695:14:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
2681:12:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
2666:02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
2645:02:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
2606:20:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
2575:19:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
2548:19:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
2524:17:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
2510:17:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
2471:16:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
2389:15:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
2374:15:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
2334:14:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
2201:07:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
2153:05:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
2040:23:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
2025:23:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
2010:23:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
1995:22:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
1980:22:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
1941:22:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
1922:21:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
1899:21:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
1878:20:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
1836:19:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
1818:18:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
1804:15:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
1784:07:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
1746:19:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
1731:06:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
1713:02:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
1698:01:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
1683:01:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
1669:01:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
1652:WP:Bold, revert, discuss
1646:00:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
1631:23:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
1617:22:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
1603:21:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
1586:17:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
1568:16:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
1546:16:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
1509:14:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
1477:14:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
1454:12:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
1440:23:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
1415:editing a narrow segment
1386:21:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
1367:21:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
1352:20:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
1331:20:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
1317:20:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
1302:19:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
1287:04:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
1273:03:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
1253:13:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
1239:13:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
1225:12:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
1211:18:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
1025:
806:United States of America
603:Marvel Comics work group
3954:B-Class Disney articles
3924:B-Class Comics articles
3777:13:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
3732:05:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
3711:03:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
3695:03:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
3648:08:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
3630:13:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
3613:05:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
3599:22:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
3576:19:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
3561:19:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
3542:19:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
3527:18:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
3501:16:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
3479:16:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
3438:20:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
3412:17:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
3398:13:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
3384:22:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
3355:21:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
3340:21:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
3321:19:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
3306:18:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
3253:16:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
3238:15:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
3219:15:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
3203:15:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
3189:14:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
3170:08:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
3155:07:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
3126:07:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
3111:07:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
3095:01:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
2111:close to the production
1908:and avoid veering into
1659:proposals implemented.
1036:Can we trim it down to
695:The Walt Disney Company
883:
851:United States articles
616:
596:
418:
398:
378:
248:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
3879:B-Class film articles
1357:WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
1008:"Box office bomb" use
882:
615:
595:
417:
397:
377:
203:Auto-archiving period
100:Neutral point of view
3547:listed in Knowledge.
2628:attributed to Disney
1885:We have Iger saying
1321:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
793:United States portal
105:No original research
3618:The Incredible Hulk
3451:Carolyn Reid source
3363:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
3040:previous discussion
2583:but I can add more.
2087:Then the so-called
1336:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
1147:For the second one
819:Articles Requested!
526:project's talk page
334:join the discussion
3664:Connected Tv shows
2081:DaCosta's response
1851:b) The Mary Sue: "
884:
690:WikiProject Disney
617:
597:
498:WikiProject Comics
419:
399:
379:
254:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
3013:
3012:
2836:you don't like it
2301:
2300:
1859:c) Vanity Fair: "
1556:
1023:
1022:
993:
992:
989:
988:
985:
984:
954:WikiProject Women
921:
920:
917:
916:
743:
742:
739:
738:
638:
637:
634:
633:
630:
629:
436:
435:
432:
431:
336:and see lists of
234:
233:
66:Assume good faith
43:
4016:
3805:
3505:This. The movie
3490:
3486:
3460:
3030:
2940:
2217:Extended content
2213:
2134:
1863:
1855:
1847:
1550:
1523:
1516:
1417:in articles and
1199:
1175:The third one: "
1004:
1003:
997:
979:
978:
975:
972:
969:
948:
941:
940:
930:
923:
900:
895:
894:
893:
853:
852:
849:
846:
843:
795:
790:
789:
788:
779:
772:
771:
766:
763:
752:
745:
715:
714:
711:
708:
705:
684:
679:
678:
668:
661:
660:
655:
647:
640:
582:
568:
542:
541:
538:
535:
532:
492:
487:
486:
476:
469:
468:
463:
460:
445:
438:
366:
365:
362:
359:
356:
329:WikiProject Film
323:
318:
317:
316:
307:
300:
299:
294:
275:
268:
251:
245:
244:
236:
228:
214:
213:
204:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
4024:
4023:
4019:
4018:
4017:
4015:
4014:
4013:
3869:
3868:
3791:
3789:
3765:Secret Invasion
3724:Rationalistno13
3687:Rationalistno13
3666:
3661:
3660:
3605:Rationalistno13
3515:would otherwise
3463:box-office bomb
3458:
3370:box-office bomb
3368:The film was a
3289:Mars Needs Moms
3283:The Lone Ranger
3147:Barnards.tar.gz
3133:box office bomb
3063:
3044:box-office bomb
3042:on the use of "
3026:
3019:
3014:
2947:
2347:WP:Wall of text
2302:
2218:
2132:
1906:WP:DROPTHESTICK
1719:WP:DROPTHESTICK
1654:, you made the
1530:just don't like
1193:
1028:
1001:
976:
973:
970:
967:
966:
896:
891:
889:
850:
847:
844:
841:
840:
839:
825:Become a Member
791:
786:
784:
764:
758:
713:Disney articles
712:
709:
706:
703:
702:
680:
673:
653:
580:
540:Comics articles
539:
536:
533:
530:
529:
488:
481:
461:
451:
363:
360:
357:
354:
353:
319:
314:
312:
281:
252:on Knowledge's
249:
230:
229:
224:
201:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
4022:
4020:
4012:
4011:
4006:
4001:
3996:
3991:
3986:
3981:
3976:
3971:
3966:
3961:
3956:
3951:
3946:
3941:
3936:
3931:
3926:
3921:
3916:
3911:
3906:
3901:
3896:
3891:
3886:
3881:
3871:
3870:
3867:
3866:
3865:
3864:
3854:Trailblazer101
3802:Trailblazer101
3788:
3785:
3784:
3783:
3782:
3781:
3780:
3779:
3745:Captain Marvel
3720:
3716:
3703:Trailblazer101
3674:Captain Marvel
3665:
3662:
3654:
3653:
3652:
3651:
3650:
3636:
3635:
3634:
3633:
3632:
3591:Trailblazer101
3582:
3581:
3580:
3579:
3578:
3548:
3544:
3503:
3430:Trailblazer101
3423:
3422:
3421:
3420:
3419:
3418:
3417:
3416:
3415:
3414:
3400:
3376:Trailblazer101
3359:
3358:
3357:
3327:
3323:
3294:
3293:
3292:
3286:
3280:
3274:
3271:Mortal Engines
3268:
3245:Trailblazer101
3225:
3224:
3223:
3222:
3221:
3211:Trailblazer101
3207:
3206:
3205:
3191:
3172:
3143:
3062:
3061:
3060:
3059:
3058:
3021:
3020:
3018:
3015:
3011:
3010:
2992:
2991:
2990:
2989:
2988:
2987:
2986:
2985:
2949:
2948:
2943:
2938:
2937:
2936:
2919:
2895:
2894:
2893:
2892:
2891:
2890:
2889:
2888:
2887:
2886:
2885:
2884:
2883:
2882:
2881:
2880:
2879:
2878:
2877:
2876:
2875:
2874:
2873:
2872:
2871:
2870:
2869:
2868:
2867:
2866:
2865:
2864:
2863:
2862:
2861:
2860:
2859:
2858:
2857:
2856:
2855:
2854:
2853:
2852:
2851:
2850:
2840:Trailblazer101
2721:
2715:
2651:
2591:
2587:
2584:
2558:
2533:
2530:
2497:
2496:
2495:
2454:
2453:
2452:
2440:
2428:
2413:
2402:
2322:
2316:
2309:
2299:
2298:
2297:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2290:
2286:
2282:
2278:
2274:
2270:
2267:
2263:
2260:
2256:
2252:
2244:
2236:
2232:
2229:
2220:
2219:
2216:
2211:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2207:
2180:
2160:
2109:when writing "
2097:
2096:
2085:
2077:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2042:
1967:
1963:
1957:
1951:
1947:
1910:WP:BLUDGEONING
1883:
1865:
1857:
1849:
1841:
1810:Trailblazer101
1771:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1690:Trailblazer101
1661:Trailblazer101
1623:Trailblazer101
1595:Trailblazer101
1590:
1589:
1588:
1574:
1548:
1533:
1525:
1518:
1493:
1489:
1482:
1469:Trailblazer101
1428:WP:BLUDGEONING
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1340:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1279:Trailblazer101
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1173:
1165:
1157:
1145:
1141:
1119:
1109:Trailblazer101
1027:
1024:
1021:
1020:
1010:
1005:
991:
990:
987:
986:
983:
982:
980:
963:the discussion
949:
937:
936:
931:
919:
918:
915:
914:
911:Low-importance
902:
901:
885:
875:
874:
867:Low-importance
863:
857:
856:
854:
838:
837:
832:
827:
822:
815:
813:Template Usage
809:
797:
796:
780:
768:
767:
765:Low‑importance
753:
741:
740:
737:
736:
729:Low-importance
725:
719:
718:
716:
699:the discussion
686:
685:
669:
657:
656:
654:Low‑importance
648:
636:
635:
632:
631:
628:
627:
618:
608:
607:
598:
588:
587:
585:
583:
577:
576:
564:
563:
556:Low-importance
552:
546:
545:
543:
505:on Knowledge.
494:
493:
477:
465:
464:
462:Low‑importance
446:
434:
433:
430:
429:
420:
410:
409:
400:
390:
389:
380:
370:
369:
367:
325:
324:
308:
296:
295:
276:
264:
263:
257:
246:
232:
231:
222:
220:
219:
216:
215:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4021:
4010:
4007:
4005:
4002:
4000:
3997:
3995:
3992:
3990:
3987:
3985:
3982:
3980:
3977:
3975:
3972:
3970:
3967:
3965:
3962:
3960:
3957:
3955:
3952:
3950:
3947:
3945:
3942:
3940:
3937:
3935:
3932:
3930:
3927:
3925:
3922:
3920:
3917:
3915:
3912:
3910:
3907:
3905:
3902:
3900:
3897:
3895:
3892:
3890:
3887:
3885:
3882:
3880:
3877:
3876:
3874:
3863:
3859:
3855:
3851:
3850:
3849:
3845:
3841:
3837:
3836:
3835:
3834:
3830:
3826:
3822:
3818:
3814:
3813:ComicBook.com
3810:
3803:
3799:
3795:
3786:
3778:
3774:
3770:
3766:
3762:
3758:
3754:
3750:
3746:
3742:
3738:
3735:
3734:
3733:
3729:
3725:
3721:
3717:
3714:
3713:
3712:
3708:
3704:
3699:
3698:
3697:
3696:
3692:
3688:
3684:
3682:
3681:
3676:
3675:
3669:
3663:
3658:
3649:
3645:
3641:
3637:
3631:
3627:
3623:
3619:
3616:
3615:
3614:
3610:
3606:
3602:
3601:
3600:
3596:
3592:
3588:
3583:
3577:
3573:
3569:
3564:
3563:
3562:
3558:
3554:
3549:
3545:
3543:
3539:
3535:
3530:
3529:
3528:
3524:
3520:
3516:
3512:
3508:
3504:
3502:
3498:
3494:
3482:
3481:
3480:
3476:
3472:
3468:
3464:
3457:
3452:
3448:
3444:
3441:
3440:
3439:
3435:
3431:
3427:
3413:
3409:
3405:
3401:
3399:
3395:
3391:
3387:
3386:
3385:
3381:
3377:
3373:
3371:
3364:
3361:Just because
3360:
3356:
3352:
3348:
3343:
3342:
3341:
3337:
3333:
3328:
3324:
3322:
3318:
3314:
3309:
3308:
3307:
3303:
3299:
3295:
3290:
3287:
3284:
3281:
3278:
3275:
3272:
3269:
3266:
3265:Strange World
3263:
3262:
3260:
3256:
3255:
3254:
3250:
3246:
3241:
3240:
3239:
3235:
3231:
3226:
3220:
3216:
3212:
3208:
3204:
3200:
3196:
3192:
3190:
3186:
3182:
3177:
3173:
3171:
3167:
3163:
3158:
3157:
3156:
3152:
3148:
3144:
3141:
3140:
3134:
3129:
3128:
3127:
3123:
3119:
3114:
3113:
3112:
3108:
3104:
3099:
3098:
3097:
3096:
3092:
3088:
3083:
3081:
3076:
3075:
3069:
3068:
3057:
3053:
3049:
3045:
3041:
3037:
3036:
3035:
3032:
3029:
3023:
3022:
3009:
3008:
3004:
3000:
2996:
2984:
2980:
2976:
2972:
2971:
2970:
2966:
2962:
2957:
2956:
2955:
2954:
2953:
2952:
2951:
2950:
2946:
2942:
2941:
2935:
2931:
2927:
2924:
2920:
2916:
2915:
2914:
2913:
2909:
2905:
2900:
2849:
2845:
2841:
2837:
2832:
2831:
2830:
2826:
2822:
2818:
2817:
2816:
2812:
2808:
2804:
2803:
2802:
2798:
2794:
2791:
2786:
2785:
2784:
2780:
2776:
2771:
2767:
2766:
2765:
2761:
2757:
2752:
2751:
2750:
2746:
2742:
2737:
2736:
2735:
2731:
2727:
2722:
2720:
2716:
2712:
2711:
2710:
2706:
2702:
2698:
2697:
2696:
2692:
2688:
2684:
2683:
2682:
2678:
2674:
2669:
2668:
2667:
2663:
2659:
2656:
2652:
2648:
2647:
2646:
2642:
2638:
2633:
2629:
2625:
2621:
2617:
2613:
2609:
2608:
2607:
2603:
2599:
2596:
2592:
2588:
2585:
2582:
2578:
2577:
2576:
2572:
2568:
2563:
2559:
2555:
2551:
2550:
2549:
2545:
2541:
2538:
2534:
2531:
2527:
2526:
2525:
2521:
2517:
2513:
2512:
2511:
2507:
2503:
2498:
2493:
2489:
2488:
2486:
2482:
2478:
2474:
2473:
2472:
2468:
2464:
2460:
2455:
2450:
2446:
2445:
2441:
2438:
2434:
2433:
2429:
2427:
2423:
2419:
2418:
2414:
2412:
2408:
2407:
2403:
2400:
2399:
2395:
2394:
2392:
2391:
2390:
2386:
2382:
2377:
2376:
2375:
2371:
2367:
2362:
2361:
2356:
2352:
2348:
2344:
2340:
2337:
2336:
2335:
2331:
2327:
2323:
2320:
2317:
2314:
2310:
2306:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2291:
2287:
2283:
2279:
2275:
2271:
2268:
2264:
2261:
2259:commentators"
2257:
2253:
2249:
2245:
2242:
2237:
2233:
2230:
2226:
2225:
2224:
2223:
2222:
2221:
2215:
2214:
2204:
2203:
2202:
2198:
2194:
2190:
2186:
2181:
2177:
2173:
2169:
2164:
2161:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2150:
2146:
2142:
2137:
2131:
2127:
2123:
2118:
2114:
2112:
2108:
2103:
2094:
2090:
2086:
2082:
2078:
2075:
2072:In a leak to
2071:
2070:
2069:
2041:
2037:
2033:
2028:
2027:
2026:
2022:
2018:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2007:
2003:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1992:
1988:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1977:
1973:
1968:
1964:
1961:
1958:
1955:
1952:
1948:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1930:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1896:
1892:
1888:
1884:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1866:
1858:
1850:
1843:a) Gizmodo: "
1842:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1825:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1792:under the bus
1788:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1781:
1777:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1720:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1710:
1706:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1695:
1691:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1643:
1639:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1554:
1553:edit conflict
1549:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1534:
1531:
1526:
1519:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1492:commentators"
1490:
1487:
1483:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1442:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1374:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1197:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1163:
1158:
1155:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1139:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1120:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1055:
1053:
1048:
1046:
1041:
1040:
1034:
1033:
1018:
1014:
1009:
1006:
999:
998:
995:
981:
964:
960:
956:
955:
950:
947:
943:
942:
938:
935:
932:
929:
925:
912:
909:(assessed as
908:
907:
899:
888:
881:
877:
876:
872:
868:
862:
859:
858:
855:
842:United States
836:
833:
831:
828:
826:
823:
821:
820:
816:
814:
811:
810:
807:
803:
802:
794:
783:
781:
778:
774:
773:
769:
762:
757:
756:United States
754:
751:
747:
734:
730:
724:
721:
720:
717:
700:
696:
692:
691:
683:
682:Disney portal
677:
672:
670:
667:
663:
662:
658:
652:
649:
646:
642:
625:
624:
614:
610:
609:
605:
604:
594:
590:
589:
586:
584:
579:
578:
574:
569:
565:
561:
557:
551:
548:
547:
544:
527:
523:
519:
515:
514:current tasks
511:
509:
504:
500:
499:
491:
490:Comics portal
485:
480:
478:
475:
471:
470:
466:
459:
455:
450:
447:
444:
440:
427:
426:
416:
412:
411:
407:
406:
396:
392:
391:
387:
386:
376:
372:
371:
368:
364:film articles
351:
347:
346:documentation
343:
339:
335:
331:
330:
322:
311:
309:
306:
302:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
280:
277:
274:
270:
265:
261:
255:
247:
243:
238:
237:
218:
217:
212:
208:
200:
196:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
3817:The Mary Sue
3790:
3787:House ending
3764:
3760:
3756:
3752:
3748:
3744:
3740:
3736:
3685:
3678:
3672:
3670:
3667:
3656:
3617:
3519:CaptHayfever
3514:
3510:
3506:
3466:
3455:
3446:
3442:
3298:Auzewasright
3176:gross rental
3138:
3084:
3077:
3070:
3064:
3038:Following a
3033:
3027:
3024:
2993:
2921:
2896:
2788:
2769:
2717:
2653:
2623:
2619:
2615:
2611:
2593:
2580:
2535:
2491:
2484:
2480:
2477:The Mary Sue
2476:
2448:
2443:
2436:
2431:
2425:
2421:
2416:
2410:
2406:The Mary Sue
2405:
2397:
2359:
2354:
2342:
2318:
2312:
2189:The Mary Sue
2188:
2184:
2175:
2171:
2140:
2138:
2129:
2125:
2121:
2117:The Mary Sue
2116:
2115:
2106:
2101:
2098:
2092:
2073:
2066:
1959:
1953:
1929:WP:DUEWEIGHT
1886:
1823:
1772:
1496:
1495:It removes "
1485:
1484:It removes "
1443:
1412:
1372:
1176:
1160:
1148:
1137:
1058:
1057:It removes "
1056:
1051:
1050:It removes "
1049:
1044:
1043:It removes "
1042:
1037:
1035:
1030:
1029:
1007:
994:
952:
904:
866:
830:Project Talk
818:
799:
728:
688:
621:
601:
555:
518:notice board
516:, visit the
508:Get involved
506:
496:
423:
403:
383:
327:
260:WikiProjects
206:
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
3825:Sariel Xilo
3821:GamesRader+
3798:Adamstom.97
3761:WandaVision
3757:The Marvels
3737:The Marvels
3568:Holydiver82
3534:Holydiver82
3493:Sariel Xilo
3347:Holydiver82
3313:Holydiver82
3277:John Carter
3230:Holydiver82
3181:Betty Logan
3135:", meaning
3103:Harryhenry1
3048:Sariel Xilo
2999:Sariel Xilo
2975:Harryhenry1
2961:Holydiver82
2904:Sariel Xilo
2899:bludgeoning
2807:Sariel Xilo
2492:The Marvels
2417:Vanity Fair
2185:Vanity Fair
2122:Vanity Fair
1914:Sariel Xilo
1912:responses.
1870:Sariel Xilo
1796:Sariel Xilo
1794:" phrase).
1538:Sariel Xilo
1532:the source.
1432:Sariel Xilo
1430:behavior).
1359:Holydiver82
1323:Holydiver82
1309:Sariel Xilo
1294:Holydiver82
1265:Holydiver82
1124:Sariel Xilo
898:Film portal
573:work groups
321:Film portal
148:free images
31:not a forum
25:The Marvels
3873:Categories
3840:adamstom97
3769:adamstom97
3680:Ms. Marvel
3622:adamstom97
3553:Basilosaur
3404:Basilosaur
3390:adamstom97
3162:adamstom97
3118:adamstom97
3087:Basilosaur
2995:Collapsing
2741:adamstom97
2701:adamstom97
2673:adamstom97
2632:adamstom97
2567:adamstom97
2516:adamstom97
2463:adamstom97
2447:calls out
2439:themselves
2206:dismissed:
2193:adamstom97
2159:behaviour.
2017:adamstom97
1987:adamstom97
1933:adamstom97
1776:adamstom97
1736:response.
1723:adamstom97
1560:adamstom97
1378:adamstom97
1344:adamstom97
1231:adamstom97
1203:adamstom97
1079:adamstom97
350:guidelines
338:open tasks
284:Comic book
3741:Ms Marvel
3511:Deadline'
3426:WP:BOLDly
2626:for the "
2281:response.
2141:unsourced
2089:hit piece
2084:remotely.
1423:breakdown
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
3819:, &
3471:GoneIn60
3467:Deadline
3456:Deadline
3447:Deadline
2775:GoneIn60
2650:wording?
2637:GoneIn60
2616:Mary Sue
2502:GoneIn60
2366:GoneIn60
2145:GoneIn60
1419:rehasing
571:Related
292:American
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
3800:, and
3794:John315
3443:Comment
2926:Tikaboo
2821:Tikaboo
2793:Tikaboo
2756:Tikaboo
2726:Tikaboo
2687:Tikaboo
2658:Tikaboo
2598:Tikaboo
2590:though.
2540:Tikaboo
2422:Variety
2398:Gizmodo
2381:Tikaboo
2360:Variety
2355:Variety
2339:Tikaboo
2326:Tikaboo
2251:person.
2172:Variety
2126:Variety
2107:Variety
2102:Variety
2074:Variety
2032:Tikaboo
2002:Tikaboo
1972:Tikaboo
1891:Tikaboo
1828:Tikaboo
1738:Tikaboo
1705:Tikaboo
1675:Tikaboo
1656:WP:BOLD
1638:Tikaboo
1609:Tikaboo
1578:Tikaboo
1501:Tikaboo
1461:Tikaboo
1446:Tikaboo
1373:because
1245:Tikaboo
1217:Tikaboo
1196:Tikaboo
1181:Tikaboo
1172:person.
1094:Tikaboo
1063:Tikaboo
869:on the
731:on the
558:on the
250:B-class
207:30Â days
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
3719:Kamala
3445:– The
3195:Rov124
2770:during
2624:Forbes
2620:Forbes
2485:Forbes
2481:theory
2432:Forbes
2343:no one
835:Alerts
761:Cinema
704:Disney
651:Disney
531:Comics
503:comics
454:Marvel
449:Comics
256:scale.
126:Google
3640:Kilus
3326:this.
2351:WP:OR
2255:time.
2228:time.
2179:be").
2168:WP:OR
2091:from
1966:both.
1950:well.
968:Women
959:women
934:Women
458:Films
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
3858:talk
3844:talk
3829:talk
3773:talk
3728:talk
3707:talk
3691:talk
3644:talk
3626:talk
3609:talk
3595:talk
3572:talk
3557:talk
3538:talk
3523:talk
3497:talk
3475:talk
3469:. --
3434:talk
3408:talk
3394:talk
3380:talk
3351:talk
3336:talk
3317:talk
3302:talk
3249:talk
3234:talk
3215:talk
3199:talk
3185:talk
3166:talk
3151:talk
3122:talk
3107:talk
3091:talk
3052:talk
3003:talk
2979:talk
2965:talk
2930:talk
2908:talk
2844:talk
2825:talk
2811:talk
2797:talk
2779:talk
2760:talk
2745:talk
2730:talk
2705:talk
2691:talk
2677:talk
2662:talk
2641:talk
2602:talk
2571:talk
2544:talk
2520:talk
2506:talk
2467:talk
2461:. -
2424:and
2385:talk
2370:talk
2330:talk
2197:talk
2174:and
2149:talk
2036:talk
2021:talk
2006:talk
1991:talk
1976:talk
1937:talk
1918:talk
1895:talk
1874:talk
1832:talk
1814:talk
1800:talk
1780:talk
1742:talk
1727:talk
1721:. -
1709:talk
1694:talk
1679:talk
1665:talk
1642:talk
1627:talk
1613:talk
1599:talk
1582:talk
1564:talk
1542:talk
1528:you
1520:b) "
1513:a) "
1505:talk
1473:talk
1450:talk
1436:talk
1382:talk
1363:talk
1348:talk
1327:talk
1313:talk
1298:talk
1283:talk
1269:talk
1249:talk
1235:talk
1221:talk
1207:talk
1185:talk
1128:talk
1113:talk
1098:talk
1083:talk
1067:talk
522:edit
355:Film
340:and
279:Film
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
3809:IGN
3763:or
3507:did
2612:our
2449:THR
2444:CBR
2437:THR
2426:THR
2411:THR
2277:so.
2176:THR
2130:THR
2093:THR
861:Low
723:Low
550:Low
176:TWL
3875::
3860:)
3846:)
3831:)
3823:.
3815:,
3811:,
3796:,
3775:)
3730:)
3709:)
3693:)
3646:)
3628:)
3611:)
3597:)
3589:"
3574:)
3559:)
3540:)
3525:)
3499:)
3477:)
3436:)
3410:)
3396:)
3382:)
3353:)
3338:)
3319:)
3304:)
3251:)
3236:)
3217:)
3201:)
3187:)
3168:)
3153:)
3124:)
3109:)
3093:)
3054:)
3005:)
2981:)
2967:)
2932:)
2910:)
2846:)
2827:)
2813:)
2799:)
2781:)
2762:)
2747:)
2732:)
2707:)
2693:)
2679:)
2664:)
2643:)
2604:)
2573:)
2546:)
2522:)
2508:)
2469:)
2387:)
2372:)
2332:)
2199:)
2151:)
2038:)
2023:)
2008:)
1993:)
1978:)
1939:)
1920:)
1897:)
1876:)
1864:".
1854:it
1834:)
1816:)
1802:)
1782:)
1744:)
1729:)
1711:)
1696:)
1681:)
1667:)
1644:)
1629:)
1615:)
1601:)
1584:)
1566:)
1544:)
1507:)
1475:)
1452:)
1438:)
1384:)
1365:)
1350:)
1329:)
1315:)
1300:)
1285:)
1271:)
1251:)
1237:)
1223:)
1209:)
1187:)
1130:)
1115:)
1100:)
1085:)
1069:)
913:).
759::
581:/
520:,
456:/
452::
290:/
286:/
282::
205::
197:,
193:,
156:)
54:;
3856:(
3842:(
3827:(
3804::
3792:@
3771:(
3726:(
3705:(
3689:(
3642:(
3624:(
3607:(
3593:(
3585:"
3570:(
3555:(
3536:(
3521:(
3495:(
3473:(
3459:'
3432:(
3406:(
3392:(
3378:(
3349:(
3334:(
3315:(
3300:(
3247:(
3232:(
3213:(
3197:(
3183:(
3164:(
3149:(
3120:(
3105:(
3089:(
3050:(
3001:(
2977:(
2963:(
2928:(
2906:(
2842:(
2823:(
2809:(
2795:(
2777:(
2758:(
2743:(
2728:(
2703:(
2689:(
2675:(
2660:(
2639:(
2600:(
2569:(
2542:(
2518:(
2504:(
2465:(
2383:(
2368:(
2328:(
2195:(
2147:(
2133:'
2034:(
2019:(
2004:(
1989:(
1974:(
1935:(
1916:(
1893:(
1872:(
1856:"
1848:"
1830:(
1812:(
1798:(
1790:"
1778:(
1740:(
1725:(
1707:(
1692:(
1677:(
1663:(
1640:(
1625:(
1611:(
1597:(
1580:(
1562:(
1555:)
1551:(
1540:(
1503:(
1471:(
1459:@
1448:(
1434:(
1380:(
1361:(
1346:(
1325:(
1311:(
1296:(
1281:(
1267:(
1247:(
1233:(
1219:(
1205:(
1198::
1194:@
1183:(
1140:"
1126:(
1111:(
1096:(
1081:(
1065:(
873:.
735:.
626:.
606:.
575::
562:.
528:.
510:!
428:.
408:.
388:.
352:.
262::
199:3
195:2
191:1
188::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
