# Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film)

The image of Karen Gillan at the London premiere looks terrible. The original does not have the weird pixelation. If there is some copyright restriction on showing the film logo then it would be better not to include the image at all than to include it such a lower resolution and then deliberately badly pixelated image. If no one has an explanation or objection I'll come back and remove it at some stage. -- 109.79.160.161 (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there are copyright restrictions and image still gives the sense of the atmosphere around the event even with the pixelation.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
It looks terrible, and I'm using polite words. Even the original unretouched image only looks okay, and offers a very limited "sense of atmosphere". Why are the supposed restrictions not explained clearly on the image page? The image page mentions the image is retouched but it doesn't explain the reasons why. I guess maybe the logo might need to be blurred out but not any of the other elements. This was an image taken in a public square (Leicester Square I'd bet [Edit: it's definitely Leicester Square), again not listed on image page) but why does the already low resolution Video screen need to pixelated too? -- 109.79.160.161 (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
The screen is too large to qualify for de minimis.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
It seems strange anyone would think it necessary to pixel out any part of a photo taken by a member of the public at that publicity event. At that point the screen is showing live footage of him interviewing her, not any part of the film. The screen may be big but the resolution and level of details is already poor even in the original. It also seems strange to interpret de minimis so literally in terms of size, rather than in terms of it being trivial and the content being advertising.
The logo is visible on the screen.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
But I return to my primary point, the image doesn't look all that good at any resolution, and pixelated it looks so terrible that it is not worth including at all. -- 109.79.190.97 (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree to disagree. The fandom, lights, cameras, media attention, etc., are all still very much present in the image.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
A distant not very good resolution picture of the back of the head of a co-starring actor? Really? The event in question, the London premiere is apparently not notable enough to get a mention in the article text either.
Who asserted that image needed to be pixelated out? Can we get an opinion from an administrator to say if it is actually necessary?
If the original image was used I would still have reservations but I would remove my objection and withdraw my call for it to removed. -- 109.79.190.97 (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
The Guardians of the Galaxy logo on the screen is partially obscured by her face, and based on the examples listed at Commons that would make it acceptable like the Budweiser logo behind the hockey players example. If you wanted to be cautious you could still blur out the Sky and Marvel logos in the corner of the screen without ruining it. If her face is removed from the picture it is pointless. -- 109.79.190.97 (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
To show good faith here's a less severely edited version of Karen Gillian at the premiere. I've cropped the image slightly to remove some logos, and blurred the background differently to remove the other logo, but I have not distorted any of the faces. -- 109.79.190.97 (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 You can upload it yourself in the commons (at a different namespace) and see if the remaining copyrighted portions (the guardians themselves) qualify as de minimis.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
What's your opinion? This would be easier if you don't disagree. I still think it is a bad idea to to include the image at all if any changes beyond cropping are required. -- 109.79.190.97 (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
It’s really hard to say, I’ve seen things go either way. I’ve seen images that have been around for years in commons be deleted for copyright violations.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I was making an extra effort to show good faith and I gave it some thought but diving into the byzantine and arbitrary copyright quagmire of Wikipedia Commons is asking too much, and I'm not going to go there. Maybe the image shouldn't be trying to claim the free use Commons requires at all and it could be uploaded to Wikipedia but acknowledging it as a promotional/advertising image restricted by copyright ... but I want to avoid going down the rabbit-hole of Wikipedia image policy.
I keep coming back to first reaction, it is counter-productive to have an image where her face is pixellated out. The image as it is now should be removed. If it can be replaced with a better quality image that is a separate matter. -- 109.78.193.37 (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
The image is not about Gillan. We have plenty of images of her. This is about the premiere.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
The image is absolute trash from every angle. It is obviously bad for purposes of illustrating the premiere, for instance. It has no place on the page of any article, let alone one of Good Article status. Having no picture is much better than this picture. (Having an actually good picture would be even better of course). CapnZapp (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

If this picture is reinstated, I move for a delisting of the article from the Good Article status. CapnZapp (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I recommend that a new image, more properly depicting the premiere itself rather than people and copyrighted material (though an image of one of the stars attending would be more preferable if it is easily visible that it is at the premiere), is the best course here. Having something similar to the premiere of Spider-Man: Homecoming or Thor: Ragnarok would better suit the article, rather than trying to make this one work or leave it as is and have some want an extreme delisting when a compromise can easily be reached. That's my two cents. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I have nothing against the notion of "let's show this movie premiering". However, there can be no compromise with people determined to keep this particular picture. If there were a speedily deletion criteria for lack of quality this would instantly qualify. CapnZapp (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Also calling it "a shit image" is your opinion CapnZapp. Do I think it's the best image ever? No, and I'm not saying it is. But it is one showing the premiere, with measures taken to remove the copyrighted material from it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
It needs to be removed for being bad and useless, plain and simple. It does not helpfully "show the premiere". It is actively distracting and confusing. A different picture of this premiere is better than this picture. A picture of some other premiere is better than this picture. No picture is better than this picture. CapnZapp (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps this image of Chris Pratt at the premiere? Or maybe the cropped version. El Millo (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
We already have an image of Pratt, the point of this image is to show the hoopla around the premiere; i.e. crowds, cameras, lights, etc. File:Chris Pratt - Guardians of the Galaxy premiere - July 2014.jpg depicts none of that.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
How about either of these three: [1], [2], [3]. El Millo (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Those are of the GotG Vol. 2 premiere.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh... My bad. El Millo (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The picture under discussion, File:Karen_Gillan_-_Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_London_premiere.jpg, has been reinserted by its original includer* several times over the years. Last time was just now, with only The page has been stable for years until your edit. Besides in case of no consensus, WP:STATUSQUO remains as the reason. I am not the first editor to question its quality. And effectively arguing "you can't make me take it down" makes us have to consider an editor with WP:OWNERSHIP issues.
*) As far as I can see, it was added to the article back in July 2014 by TriiipleThreat: [4].   
His persistence in retaining his own picture and resisting any and all work-arounds or compromises for six years will not stand. If other editors - you reading this - can't persuade him to stand down, we will have to explore available avenues of wp:dispute resolution, and the Good Article assessment will have to be questioned. Hopefully the community can arrive at a consensus making those steps superfluous. CapnZapp (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: Please beware of WP:BOOMERANG before you go pointing fingers. I have made a total of one revert regarding this matter, while you have been reverted by multiple editors. The fact is you need consensus to remove the image and you have acted unilaterally three times now. Also, I never said that I am not open to compromise or change. If you can find better free image that captures the atmosphere of the premiere, then please do so. BTW, this image was apart of the good article review. Happy editing.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
How certain is it that the image needs to be censored, or censored to this degree? The AFC logo hasn't been blurred our, for instance, and that's not only a copyrighted logo, it's entirely incidental to the context of the image unlike the Guardians and Marvel logos. Nor does there seems to be good reason to have blurred out much of the screen. Could this perhaps be raised at WP:FFD? If the original image - or at least a much much much less censored version - could be used, that would be clearly better. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
@Hydronium Hydroxide: Honestly, I don't know. Copyright issues and what is considered to be de minimis is pretty subjective. I'd be all for a less censored version. The thought behind the screen is that the closed circuit feed maybe copyprotected. Also I am not even sure about the logo since the tag on File:Guardians of the Galaxy Logo Black.svg states "This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 That image still looks terrible. It remains an eyesore. It isn't even the world premiere (the real premiere, you know, the first one). It still baffles me that someone pre-emptively ruined the image to protect against a de-minimis claim that apparently no one ever made. -- 109.79.81.4 (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

There's been a lot of public debate on both social media and the press about credit re: the screenplay. Gunn has claimed full credit for filmed screenplay, but the WGA arbitration board analyzed the submitted work and disagreed, awarding credit to Perlman as well as Gunn. In the cited source, the WGA Credit Committee co-chair, Craig Mazin, took the unusual step of making that clear in public and specifically refuting Gunn's claims re: the arbitration. The article repeats Gunn's claims without any mention of their being found incorrect in arbitration. Gunn's claims re: having introduced the Thanos character to the project are also contradicted by the primary sources cited.
Attempts to include the additional context re: Perlman, with primary sources to validate the information have been reverted. What are the best options for including a description of this issue that is fair to both parties, without censoring accurate, well-cited information re: how the project was developed?
These are the citations that were reverted.
https://www.ibtimes.com/welcome-gunn-show-how-nicole-perlman-being-written-out-guardians-galaxy-1659036
https://scriptmag.com/columns/nicole-perlman-guardians-of-the-galaxy
The dispute re: credit is a noteworthy event, warranted multiple published news articles about the topic and deserves discussion within the article itself. But more broadly, when there's a public dispute re: script credit, the default position should be determination of the WGA arbitration committee, which decides the credits that will appear on the film and ultimately in the Wikipedia entry. Only that committee has access to the original work with which to determine who deserves credit. Disagreements with that determination should be clearly labeled as such. Allowing them to stand as statements of fact seems to violate NPOV.
More about how this process works here. WGA_screenwriting_credit_system#Arbitration
See here for a examples of how film articles discuss a noteworthy credit dispute and gives appropriate weight to the ultimate finding of the arbitration.
Wag_the_Dog#Writing_credits
Leatherheads#Writing_credits 23.118.110.111 (talk) 06:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a bit unclear what exactly you are requesting comments about. To explain why your changes were reverted, they were quite clearly (imo) biased additions that violated WP:NPOV. I'm not against extra details being added from these sources in a more appropriate way, but we do already have all the basic, objective facts about the issue in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
23.118.110.111, what is your brief and neutral statement? At almost 2,300 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I am reminded of how Judd Apatow fought for credit on The Cable Guy but as a producer the bar was set higher and ultimately he did not get any credit.[5] In the article WGA_screenwriting_credit_system#Arbitration Terry Gilliam explains "As a director, I was automatically deemed a 'production executive' by the Guild and, by definition, discriminated against" so it seems writers are given similar protections from directors or producers trying to usurp credit. If it was possible to include an {{Explanatory footnote}} after the text "that's how the WGA works" to explain a bit more about how the WGA works, specifically how directors are held to a higher standard if they want to also get the writing credit, I think that might help readers to better understand the process. 
BTW I enjoyed the Scriptmag.com article and it might be worth including some more information from that source. Saying Gunn "entirely" rewrote the script may be factually correct but it is a little misleading, when Perlman says "He added a couple characters and just really brought his particular stamp to it" so he may well have entirely reskinned it but she still wrote the bones of the story. It looks like there are opportunities to improve the article and the intent seems great but the aggrieved tone not so much. If you can focus on the bits that are not disputed and avoid getting stuck into the the tarpit of WGA arbitration and who deserves credit most, readers would certainly benefit from getting a bit more of Perlman's perspective and notes about her story contributions. I hope you can hash something out somehow and improve the article. -- 109.79.81.4 (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind my older examples, the rules WGA changed, as I see was explained in IBTimes shit-stirring article the rules were updated "There is no difference anymore. Writer-directors and regular writers both require 33%." so that might make a good footnote. It also quantifies that the WGA thinks at least 33% of the final script was Perlman's. -- 109.79.81.4 (talk) 04:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Perlman's recent interview with inverse provides some new detail on this issue, which has been added.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.52.57.180 (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC) 

Comment. I removed the {{RFC}} since this doesn't appear to be a formal RFC by any means. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't like the Vol. 1 title. It's not an official title. Marvel Studios has never officially referred to the film as Vol. 1. I suggest that Wikipedia remove that alias from this article. 2603:8000:7007:AA00:D5F9:4B5F:6C33:A1B6 (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Seeing as Gunn himself has referred to the film as such, we use sources such as those to include material in the articles, not editor's personal feelings. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Why are you still removing it without explanation? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Considering how Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 and Thor: Ragnarok both are categorized as comedy films on Wikipedia, would it not make sense for this film to similarly be marked as such? It should not be added to the title, but I think the categories that Vol. 2 has (e.g. American science fiction comedy films and 2010s superhero comedy films) should also contain this film as well, considering this is often considered a comedy as well. Wasabi OS (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The lead for this article doesn't call it a comedy film. Have sources referred to it as such? A superhero film with comedic elements != a comedy film. Also, if you search the archives, the use of comedy to describe this film has been discussed previously. DonIago (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment: The lede doesn't say it's a comedy because WP:FILMGENRE states only the primary genre should be mentioned. But that only applies to the lede, not the infobox. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)