Jump to content

Talk:WandaVision: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 1010667312 by Rusted AutoParts (talk) other users should be able to respond.
Tags: Undo Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 501: Line 501:
:::::::::You really misinterpreted the scenario to that editor in my opinion because you are injecting your POV throughout. Doctor Who doesn’t count in This scenario since their main cast is too massive to even list on their main page. Churchill in the crown was an actual main character in the shows first season. I’m talking about when [[Michael C. Hall]] played JFK. And again no they are the same because the fuss is over how long they are in the respective show or movie. I’m closing this discussion because you’re clearly just refusing to get the point and I am disinterested in going around in circles again. [[User:Rusted AutoParts|<span style="font-family:Rockwell; color:red"><i>Rusted AutoParts</i></span>]] 17:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::You really misinterpreted the scenario to that editor in my opinion because you are injecting your POV throughout. Doctor Who doesn’t count in This scenario since their main cast is too massive to even list on their main page. Churchill in the crown was an actual main character in the shows first season. I’m talking about when [[Michael C. Hall]] played JFK. And again no they are the same because the fuss is over how long they are in the respective show or movie. I’m closing this discussion because you’re clearly just refusing to get the point and I am disinterested in going around in circles again. [[User:Rusted AutoParts|<span style="font-family:Rockwell; color:red"><i>Rusted AutoParts</i></span>]] 17:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::Still the editor on that talk page gave some helpful info. I binged so much shows due to lockdown I must have forgotten about Churchill being a main charachter. Apologies. Doctor Who sure does count in this discussion. Also the JFK actor was a noteable actor. The only thing I'm trying to explain is that there's a difference between being a MAIN CHARACHTER and being MAIN BILLED. And that with this article we should try and keep that in mind. Melamed and Rupp were as much a main character as phil and the mailman. 17:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::Still the editor on that talk page gave some helpful info. I binged so much shows due to lockdown I must have forgotten about Churchill being a main charachter. Apologies. Doctor Who sure does count in this discussion. Also the JFK actor was a noteable actor. The only thing I'm trying to explain is that there's a difference between being a MAIN CHARACHTER and being MAIN BILLED. And that with this article we should try and keep that in mind. Melamed and Rupp were as much a main character as phil and the mailman. 17:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Scenarioschrijver20 mate, as I said before, wikipedia guidelines are pathetic and rigid. If they want to keep saying that Debra and Fred are main casts, so be it. No one cares about that. There are tons of authentic articles and websites out there compared to this nonsensical Wikipedia. [[User:Anubhab030119|Anubhab030119]] ([[User talk:Anubhab030119|talk]]) 17:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


== Foreshadowing ==
== Foreshadowing ==

Revision as of 17:42, 6 March 2021

Cast breakdown

Breakdown of each episode's main on-end billing, plus cast list. Actors in bold indicate the first appearance of the character, with the episodes they appear in after.

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Future episode articles

Now that's we've essentially gone through all the episodes the press have seen and were able to create articles about, how are we feeling about starting new episodes as mainspace articles right upon release? I'm still of the mindset on Fridays, we should begin any article in the draft space, because I am a bit concerned we'll have unique production/commentary bits immediately upon release to justify the article. Anyone else have strong feelings either way on this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it doesn't hurt to start in draftspace, especially if we are going to have less production info from the start. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Part of having this discussion is knowing come Friday some one will immediately start the episode in the mainspace. If we have consensus for this, we can add hidden notes here and try to mitigate the initial creation in the mainspace as much as possible. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the teaser released before the Jan 29 episode strongly indicating we might not be advancing a decade, I've none the less started compiling what little remaining info we have for the last 3 decades in my sandbox for us to use one we know when we're getting those episodes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If episode 5 turns out to be set in the 80s for the sitcom portion, we have enough material that we can start an episode article right in the mainspace. All the material is housed in my sandbox which can be copied to the article. I'll make a hidden note in the episode table pointing here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97, Trailblazer101, and Facu-el Millo: pinging you all just in case you didn't see my comment above to know material is ready to go for an episode 5 article if the sitcom is the 1980s one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just stating again, if episode 6 is the Halloween/1990s episode, material is again ready in my sandbox to aid an article right upon release. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

This article has a breakdown of various viewership statistics for the first week of the show's release. There will be nielsen data released at some point as well. There is definitely stuff that can be used in here, but I was wondering where we thought the best place for this would be since it mostly applies to the first two episodes but doesn't differentiate between the two. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can probably create an "Audience viewership" section like the Netflix series to state the data. And yeah, the Nielsen data that will come out soon will probably be very useful. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did just look through the link you provided, and a lot of it seems to be about engagement. While we could use some of that, knowing that Nielsen provides data now, I think it'd be better to wait for that to be released, rather than trying to paint a viewership picture with this information. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some additional viewership data from Parrot, but again, it's just looking at "demand", not really anything concrete when we know Nielsen ratings should be coming at some point. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so I have a question about the Nielsen ratings. Per the way it is formatted in Variety's article, they say the Nielsen ratings are for the week of Janurary 11-17, and next to each series it gives the total number of episodes available and the minutes. So come the report that will cover the third episode, will the minute data not be technically accurate for just episode three? Because I'm viewing this as Nielsen tracking minutes watched for any available episode of a series in that week. That's why they have the separate list for the "acquired" shows that are on available to stream. If this is the case, how do we go about reporting the info? Also separately, should we include a viewership section here on the main page? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they report on specific episodes, just total minutes watched, so it isn't straightforward. I am happy to go with a different approach for future episodes if we think that makes sense. We just have to make sure we explain the method being used to be clear what is being measured. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so I guess my point is come the next report, we can't really put the minute views on "Now in Color" as we did for the first two because the data doesn't reflect information just for that episode, unlike this first report which is clearly for the first two episodes, because only two episodes are being measured. That's why I think a section here will be important. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, here's more Parrot data. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

It may come across as a metaphysical question, but does the fiction actually take place in the 1950s, 1960s, et al.?

Depending on the answer—which in turn depends on assessing the extent of the time reality bending of the lead character and the extent of what "setting" (vs. "theme") actually means, I assume—the current categories Category:Television series set in the 1950s; Category:Television series set in the 1960s; Category:Television series set in the 1970s; Category:Television series set in the 1980s Category:Television series set in the 1990s; Category:Television series set in the 2000s; Category:Television series set in the 2020s may be put into question (other than whatever Earth-199999 decade the Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Four is set in).--Asqueladd (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As of 4 episodes in, we are to believe that, yes, within the Westview anomaly, what's happening is set in those decades, so the categories are fine. Should the reasoning why that is happening in the anomaly be explained, I think we can reevaluate. The 2020s cat is fine, because that's where this is occurring in the MCU timeline. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is those categories do not apply, since it only appears to be those decades inside the town while is is actually 2023. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That is a fiction within a fiction and the show doesn't actually take place in those decades. —El Millo (talk) 07:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of the episode articles have relevant decade cats, so if we want to remove all of them from here except the 2020s, that would be fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, the WandaVision sitcom we're seeing is what S.W.O.R.D. is watching. So, it's a show within a show; and therefore, the categories wouldn't apply. There might even be a question of whether it's really a sitcom, but we can let that stay since the sitcom is a big part of the show.— Starforce13 02:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead then and remove the other year categories. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time frame?

I have not watched this series yet, but this line from the lead sounds wrong from seeing the trailer which makes the series seem to take place in the 1950s: "...[it] takes place after the events of the film Avengers: Endgame (2019)." How is this possible? If it's some sort of spoiler, perhaps it shouldn't be in the lead? RobP (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible. You should watch first. IKhitron (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a spoiler given this has been stated in the press since it's official announcement, but yes you should probably watch. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just a reminder Wikipedia doesn't have a spoiler policy. QueerFilmNerdtalk 03:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chronologically WandaVision is set after Endgame since the end of Episode 1 is set in present day and Episode 4 (Sword PoV) confirmed it is set 3 weeks so not before Endgame Kohcohf (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Version of Peters character

I just swapped out the reference used on the article for the EW recap of episode 5, because it explicitly states how he was "Peter Maximoff" in the X-Men films. However, it also claims that who appeared at the end of the episode is the X-Men film series version, so I think we could readjust his info with this source. Particularly, state something to this affect in the "Cast" section, and not link "Pietro" to the MCU version. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that last part. Other commentators are not fully convinced on which version it is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear exactly what is happening, and any of the sources out there at the moment will just be speculating or assuming. That is why I think it is safer to leave it as saying he is playing Pietro in the MCU, who was previously portrayed by ATJ (that tracks from the episode with Darcy saying Pietro has been recast), and adding the casting note that Peters was Peter in the X-Men films. Then we can adjust from there once we get more info. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the Disney+'s audio description for the fifth episode, it says "In Westview, Wanda stares at the version of Pietro from "X-Men Phoenix". It confirms that he is the Fox's Quicksilver. - ErnestoCabral2018 (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that is actually what it says then I would question the reliability of the description, since "X-Men Phoenix" is not correct. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Audio descriptions use the easiest way to help the audience understand what's going on. So, sometimes they can describe characters or scenes using non-canon terms, and shouldn't be taken as facts. There's no doubt in my mind that this will turn out to be Peter from the X-Men films (although at first he could play Pietro's part because of the spell). But let's wait until it's official.
By the way, it says "from the X-Men movies" not "X-Men Phoenix". — Starforce13 03:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry. I heard wrong. I listened to the audio again and it does say "Pietro from the X-Men films". - ErnestoCabral2018 (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the description of the character mentions Schaeffer and Livanos taking advantage of "what's real and what's not, and performance, and casting, and audience, and fandom", it seems the good place to also mentions that Peters already played Pietro in the X-Men franchise, which is just factual information and not implies anything beyond itself. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that someone created an article for the X-Men character, Peter Maximoff, including information from WandaVision. YgorD3 (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, I tried sorting that page out the best I could.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of the character on that page raises issues distinct from coverage on this page. It is a disservice to readers to not even mention the discussion in reliable sources of the implications of the appearance of a potential crossover. BD2412 T 06:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this is also being discussed at Talk:Peter Maximoff#Factual accuracy.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Counting installments of the MCU

Should we call WandaVision the 24th installment and first television series of the MCU? Or should we keep the count to the films only? Are the Marvel Television shows considered canonical anymore? I ask because the Disney+ shows are considered to be at the same level as the films, considering that they are part of Phase Four. TdanTce (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is best just to count the films and not try include TV series in the count. Especially when we start getting to multiple seasons... - adamstom97 (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think 100% it counts as the 24th installment. Marvel, Disney, and Kevin Feige have all been very clear that these shows are just as important and relevant to the MCU now as the films. "Installment" doesn't mean film, it just means that this is the next chapter, which it is in every sense of the word. Would be inaccurate to not count this towards it. MarvelousMusician397 (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this discussion is irrelevant because we stopped using "nth installment" in favor of "nth film". If there are still articles that say "installment", they just need to be updated to say "film" because otherwise, installments become a mess with TV series that could get multiple seasons. — Starforce13 17:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial actors

@Favre1fan93: I appreciate trying to stick to MOS:TVCAST where possible, but I do think there is value in grouping together certain actors to make it easier for the reader to understand since we are using prose rather than an easy-to-read list. I also don't think the commercial actors should really count as part of the proper cast list since they are in their own special category, which is why I think the current format at the episode articles works well where we just include them all at the end of the paragraphs rather than in the same sentence as the other cast members. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm viewing this more so as adjusting things week to week, and then examining after episode 9 airs to see with the prose how the groupings, while retaining TVCAST suggestions, will benefit us. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no worries. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Main cast order

We are once again beating a dead horse here, as nothing has changed from the multiple previous discussions to follow WP:TVCAST. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, is it possible to reorder the main cast according to each actor place in the credits? I mean, in the following way: Olsen, Bettany, Parris, Rupp (after Parris per episode 2), Melamed, Peters, Park (after Peters per ep. 5), Dennings, and Hahn (credited last in every episode). This was made on the Marvel Netflix shows articles where there were main actors who appeared later but they are put according to their place on the credits. I'm just asking, I don't know if it's a good idea or really doesn't matter. AxGRvS (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The casting section on this page is currently very inaccurate. This discussion has been started countless times but some people are set on following a guideline that says we are only ever allowed to acknowledge one specific source for the main casting list, ignoring the many other sources that clearly say otherwise. I'm hoping people will stop this once the series is over but until then it seems like a lost cause to try to fix it. MarvelousMusician397 (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:TVCAST exists for exactly this reason, so editors don't come with discussions like this asking for versions of the cast they feel is "correct" or "best". Per that guideline, we follow the order given to use in episode 1, and append any new cast members to the end of the list once they are credited. And for the record, the Marvel Netflix series are formatted in this manner as well, so I don't know where that comment came from. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what I "feel", this is, like I said in my previous comment, what has been proven by basically every other source except this one specific one we are forced to use. In all other media related to the show, in interviews, in the development of the show, in press, etc etc etc, the main cast is said as being Olsen, Bettany, Hahn, Parris, Park, and Dennings. MarvelousMusician397 (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We follow the primary source because media coverage doesn't always have everything especially when the studios intentionally keep some casting a secret to avoid spoilers. And the cast changes throughout the series, making most secondary sources obsolete. For example, none of the secondary sources included Peters as a main character. So, MOS:TVCAST exists to avoid these debates.— Starforce13 20:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick 2 cents, Peters could have been just a cameo or him being included in the billings like that could have been a contract thing. (That's all I'll say on the topic for now) Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are examples. In Daredevil, Ayelet Zurer, Vondi Curtis-Hall, and Rosario Dawson appear after episode 1 but they are credited according to their place on the credits, before Vincent D'Onofrio. The same with Luke Cage: Erik LaRey Harvey and Dawson appear later but they are credited before Alfre Woodard, who appeared first. The same happens with Wil Traval in Jessica Jones, with Ramon Rodriguez, Sacha Dhawan, and Dawson in Iron Fist, and also with Ebon Moss-Bachrach in The Punisher. That's why I am asking for this. AxGRvS (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, those are the ones that need changing but I won't get into that bc I don't know the reasoning. The cast billing block for WandaVision in particular, is constantly changing from episode to episode, which makes any order debatable, and so it's more important than ever to follow MOS:TVCAST.— Starforce13 16:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see previous discussions on this Talk. There are at least 3 previous discussions about the main cast order. The clear consensus have always been going by MOS:TVCAST, not personal preferences. You are beating a dead horse here. — YoungForever(talk) 00:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop claiming people are asking for their "personal preferences" when that is not whats happening. Talk about beating a dead horse. At least try and be professional about this instead of resorting to false claims. This is not just directed at you, it's been incorrectly said multiple times now. MarvelousMusician397 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with Marvelous here. The cast list in this article is extremely misleading. Two extremely minor characters are being given more preference over main characters just to follow some dumb guidilne. Anubhab030119 (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These "minor" characters received main on end billing on the credits, that's why they are added. AxGRvS (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stephen Ford Jimmy Woo spin-off

Is it worthwhile to mention Stephen Ford working on a pitch based off his tweet for a Jimmy Woo X-Files-type spin off? Because this doesn't seem super concrete at this time, I'm leaning towards no, but wanted discuss it here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's too much speculation for wikipedia at this moment. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also leaning towards no on including this as it seems too early at this time. The article also states Nothing’s set in stone yet and it’s not even confirmed that Ford has landed a proper meeting with Marvel, but from what we can glean from his tweet, he at least seems to have the ear of someone at the studio. So, it doesn't appear official or notable yet. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely something to keep an eye on, the fact that the actors have commented on it is helpful but if nothing comes of it and we don't hear any more about it then I don't think we would have enough to warrant including it. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought as much. Thanks all! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Schaeffer comments on the potential spin-off (not Ford's proposal specifically) here, which I just added to the article as "SchaefferColliderFeb2021". - adamstom97 (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 6 decade

I think because other sites call episode 6 the 90s episode, we should as well. I'm aware some sites abd reviewers call it a 00's episode. But it would be weird if they just skipped a decade. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

or at least keep the late 90's because that would make more sense. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Also counting in the statement made by the theme-song writers, saying that they found the 90s the hardest to write for. Due to the fact they were in college at that time, and doing a quick 1+1, you could say they were in college in the 90s.[reply]
The series can do whatever they want with the narrative and deviate from the established "one episode, one decade" most of the episodes followed.. All major reviews for episode six have stated the episode has skipped the 90s era sitcoms and was full on 2000s era sitcoms, namely Malcom in the Middle. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can understand. But if you count the episode and take the statement of the theme song writers. It's clear there is a 90s episode. And given that Malcolm released in the very early 00's, I think the halloween episode is clear to be at least late 90's/early 00's. Episode 5 clearly had some full house references which was on until mid 90's. So to claim that episode 6 was late 90's doesn't seem that far fetched. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Dick van Dyke show was a major inspiration for the 50s episode, while that actually aired in the 60s. The Parent Trap reference in the show makes it pretty clear that this one is late 90s/early 00s themed. Also, of course, as stated above, Lopez & Anderson-Lopez state this is the 90s episode. Seems odd to go against that, just because Malcolm in the Middle is the main sitcom reference. UnderIrae (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think it's fair to at least claim a late 90's/early 00's for episode 6. Episode 7 will probably be the 00's episode. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I can agree that maybe episode 6 can be late 90's/early 00's. But if we are speculating this then, wouldn't it make sense for episode 7 to also follow this with 2000's to early 2010. P.greenlink (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Episode 6 is late 90's/early 00's and then episode 7 late 00's/early 2010's. We would then match several other sites, the posters and the theme-song writers Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The movie marquee includes The Incredibles, which was released in 2004. Also, Malcom in the Middle premiered in January 9, 2000. - Richiekim (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incredibles could have been a small mix-up. And the other movie listed is the parent trap which came out in 1998. Tommy or Billy can't remember which one, wears a minecraft beanie, which released between 2007-2010. And like I said, it's been confirmed there's a 90's episode by the people who wrote the theme-songs. I don't think episode 6 was early 90's but it was at least late 90's/early 00's. Also I've found an article which explains the detail mistakes: https://screenrant.com/weandavision-timeline-break-rule-1990s-incredibles-malcolm-middle/ and for those intrested, the link to the interview with the theme song writers confirming a 90's episode: https://screenrant.com/wandavision-show-theme-song-1990s/ Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Incredibles is not a mix up. There's nothing to indicate that either. Like Favre1fan93 said, the show 'can do whatever they want with the narrative and deviate from the established "one episode, one decade" most of the episodes followed.' Except that it doesn't support his point, but rather that this is a late 90s/early 00s episode.UnderIrae (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will not go into discussion whether or not the incredibles was a mix-up or not. But counting in that the marque showed a movie released in 2004 and one in 1998. I think claiming late 90's/early 00's isn't wrong. And that's all I was getting at. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as we need consensus, 90's has been confirmed by both the theme song writers and Paul Bettany. But due to the references in the episode but also taking the show's storyline in mind, I still think it is not a full 90's but a late 90's/early 00's. (I do have suspision that in the bts special, there's a big chance they will confirm the episode decades) Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting all decades

I think we need to revisit all the decades for the series and make sure we are being consistent here. I think it is clear that the production considers episodes 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 to be set in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s, even if the influences and homages in each episode do not necessarily line up with that. For instance, we know the first episodes is a 1950s sitcom but it is primarily influenced by the 1960s series The Dick Van Dyke Show. The sixth episode is obviously influenced by Malcolm in the Middle, but we know that the production considers it to be a 1990s sitcom, and the theme song for the seventh episode is literally called "W-V 2000". I think we have gotten quite mixed up in people's opinions of the allusions, including editors here and reviewers/commentators. My proposal is that we treat the "type/setting of sitcom" and the influences as different things. So in the opening lead paragraph, infobox, plot summary, and development section of each episode we use the decade that we know the production used, and then in the second lead paragraph and writing sections we can give all of the influences that we currently have and just tweak the wording depending on if the influences line up exactly with the production decade or not. That way we are being consistent across all the episodes while still providing everything we know about each one. This will hopefully be a good compromise for those who have been unable to agree on the current format as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It would improve readability. Right now it's just a mess trying to include every influence in the decade.— Starforce13 02:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. —El Millo (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, scratch this proposal as this article with Shakman about the title sequences confirms the sitcom setting for each episode: 101 is the 1950s, 102 is the 1960s, 103 is the 1970s, 105 is the 1980s and early 1990s, 106 is the late 1990s and early 2000s, and 107 is the mid-to-late 2000s. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Audience viewership

WandaVision has broke numerous records for a television series, particularly from streaming Disney+. This numbers and analytics need to be added, to explain how many people have watched the show, and still updating it until the final episode arrives. Alvrix3104 (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heckner and Dennings

Seeing as both Heckner and Dennings were 'cast' as a role in the circus. Should we add that to their charachter summary or leave it be? Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a very insignificant part of the character. And she didn't even stay in that character for long. Only the relevant, character-defining details should go to the cast section. — Starforce13 16:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We can note in the episode seven article, because that's where it is relevant. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree, just wanted to see what other people were thinking. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So thank you for your input Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes

I think we should have an article for Agnes, the main neighbor, because I think she's gonna be an integral character after "Episode 7". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minemaster1337 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agatha has an article Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WHERE? Minemaster1337 (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agatha Harkness. QueerFilmNerdtalk 02:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A misterious broadcast

Hello. Could you tell me, please, if the site [1] is a reliable source. Not for the theory, of cource, but for the spoken broadcast itself. Thanks. IKhitron (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is an unreliable source, and the bits you wan't to use can be found somewhere, in a source that is actually reliable. —El Millo (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. A pity. That's the problem, there is no reliable source, at least for now, because too few people payed attention to this at all. I know it's true, there was such a text in the subtitles, but I'm not a source, too. IKhitron (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence in Epi. 7 section

"It was Agatha who sent Wanda the Pietro imposter and also killed Sparky"

Can this sentence please be changed as it is not understandable.

It should be: "It was Agatha who sent Wanda the imposter posing as Pietro and also killed Sparky" Mighty Asgardian616 (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10 episodes are confirmed

From:WandaVision premiered with its first two episodes on January 15, 2021, and will run for nine episodes until March 5. It is the first series in Phase Four of the MCU. The series received praise from critics for its sitcom settings and tropes, dark tonal shifts, and the performances of Olsen and Bettany. To: WandaVision premiered with its first two episodes on January 15, 2021, and will run for ten episodes until March 12. It is the first series in Phase Four of the MCU. The series received praise from critics for its sitcom settings and tropes, dark tonal shifts, and the performances of Olsen and Bettany.


This was confirmed by disney with the reveal trailer of the 8th episode: https://twitter.com/disneyplus/status/1365300587928166408 87.123.204.98 (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's still 9 episodes, confirmed just this week by Feige himself. The Disney+ tweet could be counting today's episode as one of the "two" or they could be referring to the special on March 12 about the making of WandaVision. — Starforce13 21:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your proof for that? Kevin Feige apparently also confirmed that the last 3 episodes would be 1 hour long. Did not happen so where is your proof?IchGlaubeDoch (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Hour long" and "half hour long" usually translates to about 22 minutes and 42 minutes because of how TV structure works. Saying "two more episodes" is ambiguous because sometimes it includes the current and sometimes it doesn't. We have plenty of reliable sources in the article confirming the episode count. Disney+ themselves released their March release schedule which shows March 5 as the WandaVision finale. This is a moot discussion. — Starforce13 23:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure there will be two episodes next week, 41-42 minutes each. This is because one of the sources mentioned that the total length is exactly 6 hours, and it was 4.37 until now. Let's wait and see, but we can't add something about all off this now, we haven't enough information. IKhitron (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously leaks on Reddit aren't official sources, but it's more likely that there will be one 50-minute episode next week than two 40-minute episodes. Any idea of a tenth episode is either just misinterpreting official tweets ("two more episodes" included the eighth, presumed unwatched because it had only just been released), or wild fan theories. Jimthree60 (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to "Previously On" redirect

The Episode 8 description indicates "Previously On" is a redirect to the WandaVision page. Since that phrase is used in (in terms of practicality) countless television shows, it seems improper to co-opt it for any one show, whether or not it's the episode title. I'd sooner see "Previously On" point to either a disambig with specific instances or the indicated Recap page with a link to a disambig, and add "Previously On (WandaVision)" as the redirect to here. Morfusmax (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are case sensitive. There's already a Previously on redirect, which is different from the title Previously On redirect. DonQuixote (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What seems to be more of a pain is that the redirect has removed the episode page article altogether. I assume it will need to be restored with "Previously On (WandaVision Episode)" as the main title at some point, but that hasn't happened yet. Jimthree60 (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article will be Previously On, and is currently being created in the draft space at Draft:Previously On. Editors are welcome to contribute there until it is ready for the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft has moved. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler in Cast list

"Bettany portrays both the original Vision, who, after being killed in Avengers: Infinity War (2018), is reassembled and reactivated by S.W.O.R.D. (Sentient Weapon Observation Response Division), as well as a new version recreated by Wanda within her alternate reality." Is this not a bit of a spoiler for anyone who has not started the series? Azursmile (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but there's no policy against including spoilers on wikipedia. Jimthree60 (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but isn't it good form to avoid them outside of the Plot? It's reasonable to assume someone might browse the cast list before watching the show, or maybe after a couple of episodes. Also, what's the benefit of calling out in the cast list that there are two distinct Visions, flashbacks, etc when they are played by the same actor? Azursmile (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the point of the cast list to list the all the roles that the main actors are playing? In an encyclopedia that's meant to record facts I'm not sure what better choice there is. Some variation of this discussion occurs on every thread documenting a still-broadcasting show, or newly-released movie, or whatever. The answer is always the same: it's not wikipedia's job to maintain the mystery of the show. Jimthree60 (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On dutch wikipedia, we added a spoilerwarning. I don't know if it's usual on the English wikipedia to do that. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SPOILER. DonQuixote (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for the link. Wasn't aware English Wikipedia stopped using it. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2021

In: “ WandaVision premiered with its first two episodes on January 15, 2021, and will run for nine episodes until March 5. It is the first series in Phase Four of the MCU. The series received praise from critics for its sitcom settings and tropes, dark tonal shifts, and the performances of Olsen and Bettany.” change “the performances of Olsen and Bettany” to “the performance of Olsen, Bettany, and Hahn”. B101899 (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That line is sourced to a Rotten Tomatoes critical consensus a little way down the article: "Part loving homage to TV history, part off-kilter mystery, WandaVision is a wonderfully weird and strikingly bold step into the small screen for the MCU—and a perfect showcase for Elizabeth Olsen and Paul Bettany". If you find a reliable source describing praise of Hahn's performance as a notable element of critics' reception of the series, feel free to re-open this request (change "answered=yes" to "answered=no"). Volteer1 (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mid credits

Why is the mid credit scene from episode 8 mentioned here, while the same from episode 7 isn't? Anubhab030119 (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there's hard reason. It's just that unlike ep8, it might be impossible to describe what's happening in the ep7 mid-credits scene in an accurate but precise short sentence that keeps the episode plot within the 100-200 word limit.— Starforce13 20:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because of its relevance to the plot. It's not important whether it's a mid-credits scene or if it happens before the credits roll, only if it's relevant to the overall plot. —El Millo (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Young Wanda actress

I added Sophia Gaidarova as the actress portraying young Wanda alongside Michaela Russell, but my edit was reverted because Gaidarova was not portraying the actual Wanda. Can somebody explain me when or where was this confirmed? AxGRvS (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The flashbacks in ep 6 were more of Fake Pietro trying to convince Wanda that he remembers their childhood, but then Wanda says that's not how she remembers it. So, it's hard to tell if those were really the real young Wanda - especially if we got to see the real young Wanda from about the same age in ep 8. Does that makes sense? — Starforce13 20:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No E8 revealed that it was indeed the Stark Industries Bomb that destroyed her and (real) Pietro's home. That was referenced in Age of Ultron when the real Pietro (played by AT-J) mentioned the event to Ultron and implied that was the reason they volunteered for HYDRA. Mighty Asgardian616 (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2021

The Rotten Tomatoes’s score of the episode 7 is wrong. It’s actually 88% and not 83. 160.155.18.138 (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Rotten Tomatoes score comes from Rotten Tomatoes. You can't possibly have better Rotten Tomatoes data than Rotten Tomatoes themselves.— Starforce13 20:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Forbes (EvanoraHarkness)

Since she appeared in 2 episodes at least according to the credits. Should we include her in the guest role section? Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, she should be added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Jo Rupp

why is she 3d billed in this show? aside from the pilot, she's barely in it! and she's a lesser star than parris park or dennings, so it's not like she's being elevated for that reason.

what she more instrumental to the original story, and got edited out or something? 66.30.47.138 (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because of her billing in the credits. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:TVCAST. We follow on screen credits as the episodes progress, not a "bulk" overview of the series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However the way both melamed and rupp are in the article is a confusing way for people. They are mentioned in a way it looks like they play a big part in the series. While Melamed only appereared one episode and Rupp was more recurring (in episode 7 she was there a split second). Neither are main charachters but are mentioned as such because they received main-billing. But no source says they are main charachters... and they are not included in any promotional material. There's a difference between being a main charachter abd getting main billing. Some shows give guest stars/recurring stars main billing if they are played by noteable actors like Fred and Debra. If their charachters were portrayed by C-list actors like the ones playing the mailman and phil jones, they wouldn't have received that kind of billing. I vouch to change it in the main article but keep it like that in the episode articles. Ps, if the loki series will use the same form of billing as WandaVision and Richard E.Grant makes an appearance for one episode, there's a huge chance he will receive the same kind of billing as rupp and Melamed. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for fuck sakes we explained this to your thoroughly already, they are main cast billed because that’s how they are billed in the episode. We don’t need a source or promotional material, the episodes exist and clearly show them there. It’s a WP:COMMONSENSE thing at that point. Rusted AutoParts 16:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly refrain from using foul language. And "If their charachters were portrayed by C-list actors like the ones playing the mailman and phil jones, they wouldn't have received that kind of billing." Quite some shows give guest-stars/recurring stars main-billing when they are played by noteable actors. For instance when Kylie Minogue apperead on doctor who, she was a guest star but received main billing. It's common sense to see that Melamed and Rupp were not main characters. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We been through this several times already. You are clearly beating a dead horse. — YoungForever(talk) 16:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I waited like we decided until after the final episode was released so we have all the info like what was requested. Also: For instance when Kylie Minogue apperead on doctor who, she was a guest star but received main billingScenarioschrijver20 (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You really don’t seem to understand how this works. Or you’re just being purposefully obtuse. It doesn’t matter how long they were in an episode or if they were only in one or three out of nine, they were billed in the main cast. They are main cast. Benjamin Bratt was in like 4 minutes of Doctor Strange and wasn’t previously announced until the poster, yet he’s credited in the billing block and considered main cast. Do we yank him from that section because of this? No. Rusted AutoParts 16:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
”I waited like we decided until after the final episode was released so we have all the info like what was requested” I don’t recollect most of the participants agreeing to revisit this. Like I said then “On March 5 nothing will change because Rupp and Melamed are credited as main cast so they’ll star on the main cast”. It’s a dead issue, and one that will not be reopened. Rusted AutoParts 17:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Movie and tv are different. In the history of television there has never been a tv show that had a main charachter for just one episode. Also if the Harts were played by C-list actors like phil and the mailman they would never have received that kind of billing. I'm just saying we need to understand the difference between main billing and being a main character. The way it is there now it's like the harts are important charachters who play a big role throughout the serie. Also: For instance when Kylie Minogue apperead on doctor who, she was a guest star but received main billing. Also a few people said march 5. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
“ In the history of television there has never been a tv show that had a main charachter for just one episode” is objectively wrong. Amber Benson was only credited as main cast for one episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The Crown quite often has historical figures appear for one episode and credit their actor as main. They’re separated simply because of the big cast it has, WandaVision is only 9 episodes and did it just twice so that separation is not warranted Literally last year Big Sky credited Ryan Philippe for just the one episode. Also movies and tv are very much the same in this instance since you’re making suck a fuss about how much they were in the show. Rusted AutoParts 17:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To amber benson I have a response from another user in this discussion: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_television#Starring Also with the crown I've seen the episode and those historical figures like Churchill were played by noteable actors. Noteable actors tend to receive main billing even if they aren't main characters. Doctor Who does that as well. Big Sky hasn't fully released yet and the guy apperead in a few eps and he's a noteable actor. And no, movies and tv aren't very much the same in this instance, a movie is one feature while a tv show has several features. Also a quote from Favre's talkpage regarding wandavision cast:"Come the final episode's release, another discussion can be started if we as editors need to reevaluate how actors appeared in the credits" 17:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scenarioschrijver20 (talk • contribs)
You really misinterpreted the scenario to that editor in my opinion because you are injecting your POV throughout. Doctor Who doesn’t count in This scenario since their main cast is too massive to even list on their main page. Churchill in the crown was an actual main character in the shows first season. I’m talking about when Michael C. Hall played JFK. And again no they are the same because the fuss is over how long they are in the respective show or movie. I’m closing this discussion because you’re clearly just refusing to get the point and I am disinterested in going around in circles again. Rusted AutoParts 17:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still the editor on that talk page gave some helpful info. I binged so much shows due to lockdown I must have forgotten about Churchill being a main charachter. Apologies. Doctor Who sure does count in this discussion. Also the JFK actor was a noteable actor. The only thing I'm trying to explain is that there's a difference between being a MAIN CHARACHTER and being MAIN BILLED. And that with this article we should try and keep that in mind. Melamed and Rupp were as much a main character as phil and the mailman. 17:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Scenarioschrijver20 mate, as I said before, wikipedia guidelines are pathetic and rigid. If they want to keep saying that Debra and Fred are main casts, so be it. No one cares about that. There are tons of authentic articles and websites out there compared to this nonsensical Wikipedia. Anubhab030119 (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foreshadowing

Is this useful? Though Olsen says in it, "I mean if she could have two fake babies and everyone tell her that they don't really exist, and then her just go nuts—that would be unbelievable, but I don't think they're gonna do that." Kailash29792 (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. That's just wishful thinking on Olsen's part. And this series is borrowing elements from House of M and other comics, so it was bound to have similarities to any comments she made. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WandaVision&oldid=1010667922"