Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3/Archive 1

Archive 1

Kraglin info

Should the character return, here is info on his status as a member of the Guardians (pending an appearance in Infinity War). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Pre-production begin?

I've noticed on James Gunn's social media, he has been posting from Atlanta. Is it possible the film has begun pre-production? We obviously haven't heard anything for a while, but this lines up with what was said for filming starting at the end of the year. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It's something to look out for, but at the moment he doesn't seem to be posting anything Guardians-related. Perhaps he is waiting until after Infinity War comes out? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts too. I didn't want to make this a forum-y post, but something for us to keep our eye out for. I personally am not expecting any information regarding the films starting photography soon to give us much info until after Infinity War is out. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Per this, Gunn is working on a non-Marvel film at the moment. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the find Adam. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Defense of Gunn's firing

Here are a bunch of references, should we want to include them:

• Breznican, Anthony (July 21, 2018). "50,000 sign petition for Disney to rehire James Gunn for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on July 22, 2018. Retrieved July 22, 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) (Includes info on Joe Carnahan petition and reactions from Bautista and Sean Gunn)
• [1] Update to petition, July 23, 2018
• [2] Rooker leaving Twitter, Saldana and Pratt reactions
• [3] Bobcat Goldthwait asking Disney to remove his voice from World of Color at California Adventure
• [4] Second source for stars of the series' reactions
• [5] Third source for stars reactions, update on petition, July 23, 2018

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

There have also been some opinion pieces with good discussion on this:

• [6] Forbes
• [7] THR
• [8] Variety

- adamstom97 (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Here are a couple more:

• [9] Selma Blair via THR
• [10] THR
• [11] Deadline

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

A bunch of the above sources have been added to the article with this edit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Rehire Gunn billboards

Is this worth mentioning in the article at all? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Possibly as notable as the several thousand petitions that futilely demanded Affleck's removal as Batman. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I could go either way, as it was a big effort (and cost a lot of money) but they also did it knowing that it would likely not have any effect. Also, since he has basically moved on at this point I really don't see there being any change in his situation with the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

"still using Gunn's script"

@Adamstom.97: Regarding this: Please be a bit more civil in your edit summaries and stop making assumptions about editors' motivations. I did not say I know what they are doing: I said you don't know what they are doing, since you are the one arguing for the page to continue saying they are still using Gunn's script as of right now (not as of immediately after the initial incident). And if you are referring to this source (I would appreciate your being more specific, as the article includes 51 citations), it predates the formal announcement that the film was on-hold, and so does not address my explicit concern that They aren't using ANY script, as development of the film has stalled (whether it is "from after Gunn's firing" is completely irrelevant). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't make any assumptions. You said that they are not using any script, a statement that can only be based on a reliable source or your personal opinion. Since you have not provided a source, then you must have made it up. Since I personally do not know anything about what is happening and am only going off what the sources are telling us, I am sticking with the information that is already in the article—refs 37 and 42 (as of this version of the article, to be specific) both clearly state that the plan is to use Gunn's script, and we have not heard otherwise in the time since. If you want to decide that they cannot be using his script anymore now that the film has been placed on hold then that is fine, but we cannot say as much in the actual article as it would be WP:OR. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You said that they are not using any script Yeah, because In October 2018, [...] Feige [...] confirmed [that] development of the film had been put on hold. If the film is not in development, they aren't using a script. My understanding (based from a bunch of different sources I'm guessing you've also seen, and apparently absorbed differently) was that one of the reasons development of the film was halted was concerns over whether or not Gunn's script could be used. "the information that is already in the article—refs 37 and 42" is outdated, as it predates Feige's announcement that the film was on hold (read: suspended indefinitely). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

"on hold" means something is waiting, postponed, or paused. Once it is no longer on hold they will just pick up from where they left off. That is, unless we hear otherwise. But we have not. Again, you are making stuff up—we have stopped work on this film at the moment =/= we have scrapped everything and will start again later, necessarily. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Avengers: Endgame

Spoilers for Endgame in case you haven't seen it.

So after the past version of Gamora came back and Thor joined the Guardians shouldn't we add info about that somewhere here? ARZ100 (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

We'll add that eventually. But for now, we don't have any official sources confirming, "yes, these actors will be returning for Guardians 3." Hope that helps. --Bold Clone 18:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I think something about this should be said somewhere in the article, perhaps in a "Related Info" section. ARZ100 (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Hm. We might be able to add the material, but then hide the info for now since we haven't gotten any official confirmation, I suppose. --Bold Clone 16:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds good. I don't know how to hide info though. ARZ100 (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Mmm...just use this sort of formating: <!-- Zoe Saldana and Chris Hemsworth are expected to return for Guardians 3. --> If you really want to add the info, you can use that. --Bold Clone 18:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Director of Photography

I’m seeing on this Production Weekly production note that Tico Poulakakis is serving as “DP” for the film, as opposed to Braham. Rusted AutoParts 15:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Gunn himself mentioned about Braham returning, so I'd wait about changing anything. It's possible schedules didn't work out so they had to part and bring in Poulakakis, and if so, this could be a ref to use. It does say November 18 as a start date so that's good to keep in our back pocket too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Filming has begun according to Pratt?

Here is the tweet from Team Coco - https://twitter.com/TeamCoco/status/1450502704904560640 - Richiekim (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Filming has not begun per Gunn, Pratt was showing off a screen test. The article should be moved back to draftspace. - https://twitter.com/JamesGunn/status/1450601337536884746?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet Vader13289 (talk) 03:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The article still more than meets notability guidelines despite this, so it doesn't need to move back. Just adjusted for the next few weeks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I have done a c/e of the article based on Gunn's comments. I agree with Favre that it can stay in mainspace via notability guidelines. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

About StageCraft

James Gunn just said that technology won't be used in Vol3 [12]. Mike210381 (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done —El Millo (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Move back to draft

I am considering moving this page back to Draft:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 because filming has not started yet. 216.154.21.179 (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Please see the above dicussion at #Filming has begun according to Pratt?. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Navboxes

@Randy Kryn and Gonnym: Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but collapsed navboxes is the convention on literally all MCU film and TV series articles. Many of them also have 4 or 5 navboxes in total, so if we're removing them here we should consider removing them on other articles as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

That's pretty much a WP:OSE argument. Not everything needs to happen at the same time. Gonnym (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

If {{Navboxes}} exists to group together multiple navboxes, why can't it be used? Documentation just says it can be used for several, and within the MCU articles, for consistency, that has related to four or five navboxes on an article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

No one says it can't be used. I personally said it shouldn't be used because you are making actually using them more annoying. I need to uncollapse the top layer, then uncollapse a navigation template. In the case of the MCU one (which is probably the most relevant to readers of MCU articles) you then need to uncollapse additional sections. Navigation templates are there for ease of navigation between related articles, but hiding content in hidden content inside hidden content makes it annoying to access. Gonnym (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

To me then, it just sounds like you would want all the navboxes expanded, which the vast majority are coded to autocollapse with more than one on the page. The navboxes already don't serve mobile readers, so if we're catering to desktop readers, and given the number navboxes already in play, I don't see the problem using {{Navboxes}} as it was designed to do. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I say keep it consistent among the articles. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't really apply to here as that's related to deletion discussions. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I agree. Lets be consistent then. Consistent with the entire film project. Gonnym (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The film project doesn't have any solid consistency on the use or nonuse as far as I'm aware of. The MCU task force and its articles does. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

This isn't really an MCU thing, I have seen it on many articles. Often there is a discussion about whether there is enough navboxes to need to hide them, which I don't think there is on this article. Hiding them is only really necessary once there is a whole bunch of the navboxes. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned above, we should be consistent across MCU articles. If we decide that the 4 navboxes here aren't enough to be collapsed, then let's do the same at Thor: Love and Thunder, Ant-Man and the Wasp, Moon Knight (TV series), Thor: Ragnarok, etc. But I still think we should keep it simple and use {{Navboxes}} on all MCU film/series articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

A group of three, four, five, even six well-designed collapsed navboxes take up very little vertical space and should be seen in visible space. I've seen navbox cages contain as little as two templates, so obviously some editors are caging them for as a personal preference. I usually remove them with the comment 'template respect', which is self-explanatory. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Two I agree shouldn't be using such template. What is template respect? Is there documentation, guideline, or policy you can link regarding that? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Additional cast

I don't think we should be adding additional cast members based on Marvel.com, is there any reason not to follow the billing block in the trailer? InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It felt odd that Sean Gunn and Iwuji were excluded. Bakalova's 50/50 on billing given she wasn't in the Holiday Special. I'd be ok appending Gunn and Iwuji if we were going to do that until our next updated billing, and putting Bakalova in prose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Sean Gunn did receive main billing for Vol. 2 and the Holiday Special, and I concur with Favre that it is odd he and Iwuji were not present. The current order still follows the trailer's, just with Gunn, Iwuji, and Bakalova added on. We can move Bakalova to prose to remain consistency with the Holiday Special. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 3's 24-hour trailer debut statistics revealed

According to The Wrap, Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 3's teaser trailer hit 182 million views globally in its first 24 hours, more than half of Spider-Man: No Way Home's teaser trailer 24-hour debut and the 10th biggest trailer debut of all time: https://www.thewrap.com/transformers-beast-wars-paramount-trailer-record-views/.

I hope we can add this into the film's Wiki page and the Wiki page of the most-viewed trailers of all-time. MarvelDisney20 (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Per this discussion at the most-views online videos article, it is discussing Vol. 3's 182 million in the context of the first week during which Rise of the Beasts garnered 494 million. It's easy to miss the distinction, as the source then gave the 24-hour RotB views of 238 million in the following paragraph. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Move page

The new official logo for the film shows that the title now says "Volume 3" instead of simply "Vol. 3". Should we change the name of the article to reflect that? Red4Smash (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The logo shows that, but Marvel.com titles it "Vol. 3" here and here, so that is what we should go by. Depending on if this logo sticks or not for the final poster, then we can see if a stylized note is of order, but this article should not be renamed, especially since the spelled out "Volume" is commonly written to refer to these films, but is not what is always officially used. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

We'll have to see how the film's billing block/classification sites list it to consider a move, because it's still called Vol. 3 everywhere. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the different spelling in the logo doesn't mean the actual title has changed. Marvel Studios' announcement tweet from the weekend has the new logo and also still calls it Vol. 3. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

We could add a note a the header of the article, similar to how Iron Man 3 was stylized as Iron Man Three in the end credits. - Richiekim (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I think a note will only be relevant once the film is released and any graphic or text during the credits uses "Volume 3". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The new trailer and poster have "Volume 3" in the title instead of "Vol. 3". I think we can move/rename the page now. --Babar Suhail (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This is still nothing final. The Marvel.com page still says "Vol. 3", and at this timestamp near the end of the trailer, it titles it "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3". We should still wait until a final poster/trailer,, though even then, what it is titled in the film itself is traditionally correct (which is usually the same as at the end of trailers). Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The trailer billing block is a clear indicator that Volume 3 is a stylization, not the actual title. (Think Fant4stic.) In addition to the Marvel.com article, the press release that was sent out today also uses Vol. 3. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

As expected, the new poster uses Vol. 3 in the billing block. Case closed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Post-world premiere reactions

So a lot of reactions after GOTG3's premiere on the 22nd have landed on the internet. I know we don't usually put out reactions to a movie until at least 3 days before the film's release, but maybe we should consider making a "Post-World Premiere Reception" section where all of the reactions after the premiere should be added? I think that'd be kinda cool, but before I add it or someone else potentially does, I gotta make sure that it's something we're able to add. :) 72.213.40.101 (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

First MCU film with F bomb uncensored

See what you can add from here: https://screenrant.com/guardians-galaxy-mcu-movie-trend-cursing-james-gunn/ Kailash29792 (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kailash29792 I do not think this is notable. Let us see what others say about this before adding it for consensus. Centcom08 (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Nonetheless I have added it with a different source as the word is not censored there. This is notable as Gunn talks about it here. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Plot

A number of people have started giving the plot. This is clearly against the rule that plot should be shown once the movie releases in the home country. Someone please take action and also increase protections and edit allowance only for long time editors. JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, regarding above comments. There were world priemeres for other movies but the plot was not revealed until the official realese in the home country JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I have not seen or been aware of any guideline that restricts a film's plot from being included before its production country release. The US typically gets films released a couple days after international regions do. Some from the US, like myself, are in unique situations (through my movie theater employment) of being able to see some films a couple days before the US release (which for this begins Thursdays in the afternoon, as with almost any major blockbuster). I, myself, will be seeing it very late tonight. Since the film has started releasing in theaters across the world, I see no reason why the plot can't be included now. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED for WP:SPOILERS. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no rule that plot should be shown once the movie releases in the home country. In accordance with WP:SPOILER, the plot section can be added at any time once a film has been released. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Budget

Is https://www.cbr.com/guardians-of-the-galaxy-3-box-office-tracking/ a good source for the $250 million budget? 87.9.130.196 (talk) 10:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Also https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/james-gunn-created-600-versions-213624614.html and https://screenrant.com/how-much-guardians-of-the-galaxy-3-cost-to-make/ are they reliable? --87.9.130.196 (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why Yahoo wouldn't be a reliable source.Wikieditor9117 (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Yahoo aggregates both its own content and third-party sources. This article in particular is from Hypebeast, not Yahoo. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The Numbers has the budget at $250M. https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Guardians-of-the-Galaxy-Vol-3-(2023)#tab=summaryWikieditor9117 (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Include The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special in the lead paragraph?

GOTG V3 is set some time after The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special. Should it be included in the opening paragraph or not? Edwordo13 (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair question. But then you should also mention Avengers : Endgame somewhere in the lead section, I think. The current version that has them both mentioned in notes a and b in the Plot section seems OK but adding them there may not be a bad idea. — MY, OH, MY! 14:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm probably gonna wait for more feedback to see what everyone else thinks. Edwordo13 (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Per Variety, the budget for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 is $200 million, not $250 million as The Numbers reports

Per Variety, the budget for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 is $200 million, not $250 million as The Numbers reports: https://variety.com/2023/film/news/box-office-guardians-of-the-galaxy-3-opening-weekend-projection-1235600984/.

Can we add this into the film's wiki page? Please? 2603:301B:1B01:8140:68A5:9921:A44A:549C (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The article says $200 million-plus, not 200--87.9.130.196 (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Reviews in the LS

Also in the Lead, if reviews are mentioned at all, you cannot say they are generally positive. That would not be a fair picture.— MY, OH, MY! 14:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@LancedSoul: I see you reverted the rather good version by @Kenam William:. See the Critical Response section: it's not just "generally positive"" ... we are supposed to reflect that in the intro, if mentioning the reviews at all. The version before your revert seemed quite balanced and it did not need a source there; sources are in the article below. I won"t delete nor revert nor add anything, but I think your version, although meant in absolute good faith, is less accurate. I am not directing you to guidelines etc. either, as you certainly don"t need me to do so, but please consider improving the current general assessment of critical response by a more nuanced phrasing that will prove less deceiving in the end. Best, — MY, OH, MY! 21:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:FILMRELEASE

Starting this discussion to avoid an edit war. An editor misunderstood WP:FILMRELEASE, stating that the film's earliest release in the hyperlink are the countries that would have an early public release ahead of May 5 release in the United States. The editor missed the statement whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release, which the article has (April 22, 2023, at Disneyland Paris). So, the May 3 should not be in the article anymore because the next release date in the article is the one from the country that produced the film (May 5, 2023, in the United States). Centcom08 (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Centcom08: Today was released in the UK. So you wrong. Mike210381 (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mike210381 May 3 is not the earliest release date of the film, as per the guideline. But since it was released in an English-speaking country then we can add the United Kingdom info in the main body, not in the template. Centcom08 (talk) 10:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_film#Release_dates says, "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film". Does this mean that when the "public release" date and "the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film" are different, the earliest "public release" date should not be added to the infobox? The "public release" date of the film is 3 May, because it is on 3 May that it is released in many countries including the UK, South Korea, and Japan (I added the information with footnotes, but it was removed by this edit).

Furthermore, I am not sure why the explanation in Template:Infobox_film#Release_dates should be applied to the "Release" section. Indeed the infobox is too small and we should avoid making a long list. However, is the fact that a big budget film receive a public release in many areas earlier than "the country or countries that produced the film" notable and worth mentioning in the "Release" section? --saebou (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@さえぼー The guideline clearly says film's earliest release date whether that earliest release date happened at a world premiere, at a film festival, or just a public release date. When is the earliest release date of the film? It's April 22, 2023. Is that date the public release date of the film? No, it is the world premiere, which took place at Disneyland Paris. That is what the statement Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release means.

This is my final reply for the concern about the film's release date in the infobox because I feel that there is a language barrier happening. I am not confident in explaining the statement's sentence structure and/or the conjunction or. I hope members of WP:MCU will take a look on this to either help with explaining the guideline or correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you. Centcom08 (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The infobox and lede should only include the film's earliest release (such as premiere) and the release in the country in which it was produced. Other releases for festivals, additional premieres, and international releases can be noted in the Release section, per Black Widow (2021 film) and Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, which include other notable premieres and/or UK international date. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

So, it means that the public release date cannot be added to the infobox in this case, but can be added to the "Release section". I will restore the information about the release dates, which was removed, to the section. --saebou (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@さえぼー: But may I ask what's the rationale of determining which Asian countries are to be included? Because Taiwan and Hong Kong had also released the film on May 3, is it noteworthy to include these places too?-Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 03:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think these regions should be mentioned in the "Release" section, but I could not find proper references other than IMDb (I only added the areas about which the recent media coverage of the release dates are available online). If you find good references, please add the information. --saebou (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:FILMRELEASE states the release info should be reserved for the earliest release in the home country and the premiere, and that the exhaustive IMDb-esque listing of multiple release dates in countries is not necessary, let alone not notable as it is not a film made in those international countries. From what I have seen for those articles, a typical UK date before the US one is included, whereas the others are not unless they are notably not released, see Multiverse of Madness, Shang-Chi, Eternals, etc. Every major region it is released in will be covered in Box office once those figures are available. This is how film articles are handled, and we're not going to try and change precedent without any basis or rationale for including these other countries' release. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

If an article about an American film can include "a typical UK date before the US" but cannot include release dates in non-English speaking regions although it receives the earlist public release in these regions, I would say that it is contrary to NPOV, as discussed in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus.

So, aside from teh NPOV issue, do you think it is fine to write "It was released in some countries including the UK on May 3, 2023, two days before the official release in North America." with references in the "Release" section? --saebou (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I never said it "cannot include release dates in non-English speaking regions", I merely said what has been common across other MCU film articles. With all due respect to NPOV, not every international release is necessary to convey the release information of this American film, as again, listing multiple regions with the same release date is not the goal here, it's to convey what is the earliest release. If one can provide a reliable third-party source detailing the film released in several international regions on May 3, then something along those lines can be introduced in the article, such as The film was released in several countries including the United Kingdom on May 3, 2023, and in the United States on May 5, or we just do without noting any specific regional location for the May 3rd date. I would not use the "official release" wording as all release dates here are official. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, so if we can agree on this point, I will add "The film was released in several countries including the United Kingdom on May 3, 2023, and in the United States on May 5". --saebou (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I added the abovementioned sentence. --saebou (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

"Emotional weight"

Please link to sources that praise the film's "emotional weight", in those terms.

Better yet, define "emotional weight". This nonsensical term has spread all over the encyclopedia for no reason. Toa Nidhiki05 00:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Music

Considering that all the other Guardians of the Galaxy movies have a dedicated page for their soundtracks and scores, I feel like this could be done to avoid clutter on the main movie page, as it takes up some a noticeable amount of the page. Just having the text prior to the tracklists is enough, I'd say. So yeah. Maybe make another page and move that there. Sky.chicken05 (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

PETA and Guardians 3 dipiction of animal cruelty

https://www.peta.org/blog/guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3/ Titled "‘Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3’ Has a Powerful Message About Animal Testing"

This article acknowledges the subject of animal cruelty, testing and experimentation in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.3 and I thought it's notable to include that PETA has has put out a piece. I note the praise given to the movie for its "compassionate" showcasing of animal cruelty and the apparent accuracy of its depiction of animal experimentation in comparison to how real animals are treated. FLStyle (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)