# Talk:Shazam! (film)

This page continues to be edited and reverted by users who persist in edit warring. I am requesting this so that the edits will discontinue. The film is currently filming and as such has the ability to change as it is being made. However there are editors who delete verified, and reliable information simply based on a press memo, or their differing opinions. The producers have already be confirmed and name by various sources, and yet the memo released today seems to cause confusion. In addition a confirmation from different sources states that Henry Cavill is in the film. Because of the disunity on these topics, it needs to be discussed here first before these edits continue to conflict and create a mess. Hopefully a consensus can be reached while the page is protected.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done @DisneyMetalhead: see WP:RFPP for protection requests. — xaosflux Talk 04:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, User:Xaosflux - I have now submitted the request on the link you provided.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I would like to see editors' ideas on how we should handle the film producer confusion. Peter Safran has been a producer since the beginning, but an article at some point named a David Witz as his co-producer. There seems to be confusion surrounding the word 'co'...it is simply added when there are more than one on the production sectional team. It is entirely different from an executive producer (who is under the producers). Later on, when WB announced the restructuring of the DCEU - it was stated that Johns would remain producer on all upcoming projects. It was then announced that Walter Hamada will be a co-producer with Johns as both are co-runners of the film franchise, and co-CEOs of DC Films. Together they will oversee the production of all new DC movies, and as such are also co-producers. This was further established when Johns publicly welcomed Hamada onto the production team stating that working with him on Shazam has thus far been collaborative. All of the above simply states that all four are producers - and were each announced/declared/reported by reliable sources. Despite this there is a particular editor who continually reverts edits on this page, and its related DC Extended Universe page to their personal opinion/interpretation of what a 'co-producer' is. Without coming to this talk page first, they are in violation of all Wikipedia policies. Likewise, any editor who continues to revert edits with reliable sources is also approaching deconstruction behavior. The new issue seems to be that the business memo released by New Line Cinema today excludes the co-producers in their announcement. The discussion needs to be - does a memo all of a sudden delete previously confirmed producers of the film? Or does it simply mean that the studios decided to condense information and not reveal everything about the movie (i.e.: see Superman's appearance in the film). --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I for one second this argument. Just because a business memo didn't include ALL the information, doesn't mean that all previous information is now void. Not at all the case. The page needs to reflect other previously released/confirmed credits. As for Superman - we can wait until the movie releases if the editors really wanna wait that long.--206.81.136.61 (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I start a discussion and only one person replies? Where did all my disputing editors go? Should there be no disagreements brought about, the page will resume film credits as it had before - including all creative production members up until a reliable source declares that Hamada, and Johns aren't producers.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The policy for the film infoboxes has always been to only name the persons credited as "Producer" in the infobox - not co-producers ,associate producers, executive producers, etc. This film, like a lot of the other DCEU films, has a good long list of executive and co-producers, and I think it's fine to say who they are in prose form in the "Production section." --FuriousFreddy (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Plz update the original collection of this movie  Krishna Nidhish (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

This film includes two characters with the same name (specifically, the Wizard Shazam - played by Ron Cephas Jones - who will pass his powers down to Billy Batson to become Shazam -played by Zachary Levi).  The director has made it clear that the Wizard's name is "Shazam," while the official press release refers to the character as "The Wizard" (for clarity). For the sake of clarity here as well, would it be ideal to refer to Cephas' character as "The Wizard Shazam" (the honorific he's sometimes been addressed by in the comics) so that someone scanning the article and unfamiliar with these characters (which will be most people) isn't confused? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

We should refer to Djimon Hounsou's character as the Wizard and Cephas' as "Not in this movie"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bofum (talk • contribs) 00:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I made this suggestion before the casting switch was announced. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
No, we aren't going to create a name for the character that may or may not be used in the movie. A journalist's naming calling him 'the Wizard' doesn't make it the official name. Anyone interested enough in the characters can read the description regarding Billy's name being an alias. The director has stated the character is named Shazam in the film; with Billy taking the name as an alias - just like the comics.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Journalists don't write press releases; they come directly from the studio. Hounsou is credited as playing "Wizard" (no "the") as per the end credits, and he gives his name as "Shazam" in the film itself. It honestly wasn't an attempt to make up a name - it was a suggestion for clarity in reading for people coming to this article (and there will be many) who have never read a comic book before, let alone a Shazam! comic book. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I have uploaded several times an official promotional poster, that is on one of the production studios' webpages for the film. It more effectively portrays the film, instead of just having the title poster - and yet a persistent editor keeps on reverting the image. I am bringing this here, as I want to avoid an edit war. SpecialContributions_User:186.167.249.42 , you can voice your opinion here. It certainly isn't fan art like you stated in your revert summary.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It appears you are both wrong. The image is not fan art. It's promotional artwork created for the 2018 Licensing Expo in Las Vegas ([1][2][3]) but was never released as an actual poster as part of any wider marketing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
User:TriiipleThreat, no you're wrong in assuming that I didn't know that a similar image was used at an expo. The same image was used for the expo, however it was never released in a promotional poster format. This has now changed, per the source provided - being one of the film studios that is involved in the co-production of the movie. It can/should be added here as it is a better representation of the film than just a film logo teaser poster. The promotional image could just be the indentifying file, up until a theatrical poster is released.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
It still has never been made available for wider release, whereas the current poster can be found in theaters around the country. So this is the poster, the filmmaker have chosen to represent the film, until they release another one to replace it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
An official poster made by the studio and produced for promotional purposes is valid regardless of where it is released. It more accurately represents the film, as compared to a teaser poster with just the title included. This should be adjusted on the page, but given editors' apprehension - it is what it is. I'm sure an official theatrical poster will be released before much longer.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

There were Sneak Peek screenings at 4:00 PM and 7:00 PM on Saturday, 2019-03-23.  People have already seen the movie and read the End Credits with their own eyes.  The grown-up actors have been verified by millions of people.70.112.229.80 (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

We are well aware (I have also seen the movie). However, we do not yet have verifiable third-party sources to uses as references yet. When those are printed/posted, which will probably be sometime in April, they can be added. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I hope you realize that "verifiable third party sources" will be using the official film credits as their source.70.112.229.80 (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Fully aware, but this is an encyclopedia. ---FuriousFreddy (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
So why cite a source that cites another source?  What a joke.70.112.229.80 (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Btw, FuriousFreddy, primary sources aren't actually prohibited:
"...primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."70.112.229.80 (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." --FuriousFreddy (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Stuff like this makes me 🤦. Seems ridiculous that objective reality/truth isn't sufficient. 🖖 ChristTrekker 🗣 19:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

In singapore, the film will be released tmr on 29th fri (despite the poster still stating april 4). Does any other countries also releasing the film early? should it be noted in the article? -155.69.160.76 (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

This has been reverted several times now on the basis/'front' that it is "fan-art". This is an official poster, released by WB after the pre-screenings of Shazam!. It is a more accurate representation of the movie, and the most recent film poster to be released. Bringing this here, as it is an ongoing revert now.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I did not revert the poster a second time and I don't wish to get involved further - But the poster in question was first published a week ago (before the pre-screenings) by a fan on twitter who claims to have created it. Link: https://twitter.com/unclefinn33/status/1109076016389980161 DantesWeb (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Sourced here as official poster. Consensus from other editors...Is it not official promotional artwork? I'm questioning it now in light of @DantesWeb:'s remarks. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
That poster is definitely fan-made from elements used for the Chinese poster. IMP Awards is a better source for official poster artwork than Heroic Hollywood. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I've just reverted this for a second time. To reiterate, the official US theatrical one-sheet (traditional sized) posters have Zachary Levi chewing bubblegum against the side. One has a black background, the other a grey background. There's also the IMAX and Dolby Cinema posters. Anything else presented in English is either fan-made or done for a trade show (as with Ivan Reis' illustrated poster for Brazil's comic convention) --FuriousFreddy (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The film’s plot is clunky and needs fixing. Also, remove the synopsis. 86.8.202.152 (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Þjarkur (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to have to be a grammar Nazi, but, in the "Plot" section, the family name should read "the Vasquezes" -- not "the Vazquez's".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.101.16.250 (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC) 

There is a banner that the article should be written in American-style English ("color", "favorite", etc) and I don't think it is necessary to keep(?) This is an American-produced film about an American-created character made by American filmmakers. Something like Harry Potter should have the UK clarification because it's a co-production set in the UK, but I feel here it's pointless. Thoughts on removing and/or explaining to me the purpose? Cheers! TropicAces (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

The actors who play them are indeed credited. Jaybling (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

There is an edit on 19:46, 27 November 2019‎ that gave superhero names for the adult characters: Shazam Strong, Shazam Thunder, Shazam Lightning, and Lady Shazam.  As fun as these names are, is there a source for these, or just fan speculation?  (not a user anymore, glg 08:22, 18 December 2019 (EST))
"Lady Shazam" (Mary) and "Shazam Jr." (Freddy) are the only two DC uses, as marketing replacements when necessary for "Mary Marvel" and "Captain Marvel Jr." The rest are fan speculation. For consistency, it's probably best to do as the film credits do are refer to the characters' superhero alter-egos as just that. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

i'm working as journalist in the most biggest companys in my country  think i have the right to edit this page as a dc and marvel fan there is a lot of wrong staff in this article so this is it 
thanks fr making this awsome site YaasinX (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

i was watching this the other day on tbs and noticed the 2 scenes mentioned as mid and post credits actually happened right before the credits began to roll. idk if this is due to it being an edit for a cable network or not. or if it is really worth mentioning at all. i figured id mention it on the off chance it is worthy. Snarevox (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Cable channels always place mid- and post-credits scenes before the credits for airing purposes. The second post-credit scene is actually irrelevant to the plot, so per WP:FILMPLOT I have removed it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
It is debatable if any of the mid or post credits scenes should be included at all, per WP:FILMPLOT. They are not essential plot points. Editors should establish local consensus first if they really believe it is necessary to ignore the film plot guidelines (even if some editors have decided it is fine for Marvel films to ignore the guidelines).
The second stinger about Mister Mind is especially not important, so I have removed it again.[4]. In any case Sandberg's cameo appearance providing the voice of Mister Mind is already noted in Cast section. -- 109.79.66.165 (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Reverted. The mid-credits scene with Mister Mind can and should be kept per WP:FILMPLOT: ... if the film is part of a franchise and the scene helps establish details for a known future film in production (such as many Marvel Cinematic Universe films). This is the same reasoning used on MCU films (we don't include joke scenes irrelevant to the plot or overarching storyline), we are not "ignoring" any guidelines. Please assume good faith, thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
It is still irrelevant and redundant to the Cast section. Good faith would be following the guidelines unless and until it was shown to be relevant first, not trying to find exceptions to the rule. Good faith was trying to restore the article to the state that this older Talk page discussion seemed to indicate was the WP:STATUSQUO. (I was going to check the GA reviewed version for comparison, but the Talk page header doesn't include a specific version to diff against, but older versions of the page didn't seem to include the second mid credits scene either.) WP:FILMPLOT: helps establish details for a known future film in production it does not meet the requirements InfiniteNexus has quoted, emphasis added. The second stinger seems to be exactly the sort of irrelevant joke scene that should not be included, Infinite Nexus was right to remove it the first time. The scene where Shazam brings a friend for lunch is arguably an important part of the conclusion of this film, which is why I didn't remove it without further discussion. Good faith would also update the hidden comment in the wiki source enumerating the current word count. -- 109.79.172.164 (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
You appear to be somewhat confused with which is which, so allow me to clear things up for you. The Mister Mind scene is the first post-credits scene (also called a mid-credits scene), and clearly sets up a future property, so it can be retained per WP:FILMPLOT. The second post-credits scene which I removed back in February is the scene with the fish bowl and Aquaman reference, which is a joke scene and therefore should not be included. The Superman headless cameo is the final scene of the film right before the end credits, so that isn't a post-credits scene whatsoever. Here is the GA-reviewed version of the article, and as you can see it includes the (first) Mister Mind mid-credits scene but not the (second) fish bowl post-credits scene. WP:STATUSQUO refers to the longstanding version of an article before a dispute arises, which in this case would be the version of the article right before you removed the Mister Mind scene. And finally, my WP:AGF comment was in reference to your comment that some editors have decided it is fine for Marvel films to ignore the guidelines, which suggests that you believe those who edit MCU articles are violating guidelines in bad faith. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
You make some fair points, but again WP:FILMPLOT: helps establish details for a known future film in production you cannot know yet if the Mister Mind scene is actually of any importance at all. -- 109.79.172.164 (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Hmm ... I still think there's reader value in keeping the scene, but I confess that is a good point. I'll wait and see if someone else chimes in; if not, we can take it to WT:MOSFILM for a broader discussion, because several MCU articles are in trouble if we're following this guideline to the T. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Relevance is important to any good encyclopedia article. There is often more that could be included but is left out. If we knew Mister Mind was to be included in the next film then there would be some excuse. I would still be skeptical, because for example the Sonic 2 article is diminished by the Sonic 1 article not mentioning that Tails appeared in end credits of the first film. (A group of MCU editors used WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to carve out a (not so local) exception for post credits scenes in Marvel films. They did it again recently for short descriptions too. They are going to keep doing what they're doing irregardless. MCU articles tend to be more consistent with each other and that should be a good thing, but editors will frequently see the exceptions in Marvel articles as examples and in good faith copy it other places like DC film articles and other film articles in general.) -- 109.76.193.18 (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
A group of MCU editors used WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to carve out a (not so local) exception for post credits scenes in Marvel films. They did it again recently for short descriptions too. They are going to keep doing what they're doing irregardless. – I disagree. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can never override community-wide consensus, and we have never done that for MCU articles. The recently-established consensus regarding short descriptions is completely compliant with guidelines, specifically the character limit. I am not aware of any discussion regarding post-credits scenes. You are once again not assuming good faith when describing editors' actions. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
That's all tangential at best. What further discussion do you still feel is necessary before removing the mid-credits sequence about Mister Mind from the this plot summary as the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines recommend? (Again it is already mentioned elsewhere that Sandberg voiced Mister Mind, the info doesn't need to be in the plot section.) -- 109.79.175.195 (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I was hoping someone else would add their input to this discussion, but since that has not happened I will escalate the matter to WT:MOSFILM. In the meantime, I'll remove the scene (hopefully temporarily) to comply with the current guidelines. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 IP user, editors have agreed to reword the guideline at WP:FILMPLOT, removing mention of helps establish details for a known future film in production. The MoS now states: The inclusion of mid- and post-credit scenes should be based on the same criteria used to evaluate other scenes. Please see the discussion here. If the Mister Mind scene happened before the credits, we would have likely included it, as it introduces a new character to the series/franchise in an obvious cliffhanger/sequel set-up. I'll restore the info accordingly, please let me know if you have any other concerns. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)