Talk:Eternals (film)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please pardon my asking but is it "The Eternals" or "Eternals", I have seen the movie listed as one or the other on different sites - RVDDP2501 (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

"The Eternals" as officially stated and announced by Marvel. However, the film's logo (currently seen on the article), omits the "The", hence some of the confusion most likely. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Is that considered a reliable source? Saw their tweet used to confirm the cinematographer. Rusted AutoParts 22:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I've been considering it reliable, it has a large writing staff and editorial oversight, has a lot of interviews with high-profile people in the industry, and I have used scoops from them before that have all panned-out. I don't think it should have been removed. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know... We've been treating it as unreliable for a while. Their site frequently cites HN Entertainment, which we also consider unreliable. This tweet in particular, about Ben Davis being The Eternals' cinematographer, isn't even accompanied by an article on their website, given that such an article doesn't exist. El Millo (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

An article doesn't need to exist for the information to be reliable (we have used standalone tweets before), and many sources that we consider reliable have cited places like HN Entertainment or TheGWW before, that doesn't make them unreliable for their own content. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a discussion should be brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, as the reliability of this site will need to be able to be considered for all film related articles. Rusted AutoParts 04:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It is being reported that Disney officially changed the title of the film to simply "Eternals" dropping The. https://comicbook.com/movies/news/marvels-eternals-title-trailer-release-date/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingArti (talk • contribs) 16:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

As Disney and Marvel dropped "The" from the film's title today, referring to it only as "Eternals", the page should be retitled to Eternals (film) as there are no other films using that title. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I have put the target page up for speedy deletion, hoping to move up the renaming process. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Didn't know if it was notable at all to include (felt most likely not), but Variety has included his tweet on the matter in their reschedule article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't seem relevant really. El Millo (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Would it be trivial to note that Ben Davis had work on 5 MCU films now? There's a brief sentence in the Captain Marvel article about this, I feel it's worth noting. Rusted AutoParts 21:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I've decided to follow the Captain Marvel article and note Davis' past MCU works rather than just stating the number of his contributions. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Listing is better than using a number, but I still think this is a bit trivial. Perhaps here and at Captain Marvel we just use text such as "Ben Davis, a frequent collaborator on MCU films, served as director of photography." I don't like that phrase exactly, but that would be the idea. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I actually agree with Favre's approach on this. Thinking "Ben Davis served as director of photography, after doing so on previous MCU films." would suffice for both articles. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I also agree, at this point I don't think it makes sense to list all those films out when he is a frequent collaborator. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Chloe Zhao conducted an interview with someone on YouTube named Margaret Gardiner, according to page, she's voter for the Golden Globes. Here is the link. At around the 3:00 mark, Zhao says that she's a writer for Eternals, and says that the credits haven't been updated yet. Would this be a valid source to credit Zhao as one of the screenwriters? - Richiekim (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I would wait until we get an updated official credit, just because they can be tricky sometimes and don't always line up with what we are told by other sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it's best to wait and see if the credits are updated for us to change them. Trailblazer101 (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say it's okay to maybe include in the production section that she indicated as such, but I would hold off on making adjustments in the lead and infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Eternals (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the word cleverer out and put more clever instead it just makes more sense grammatically. This is in the description of sprite 2600:6C44:233F:6CD6:C533:D227:C00:697A (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Please stop changing the cast order - this is edit warring. One user is already in breach of 3RR. Poojean (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there any official rules for the order of film casts, hopefully some kind of settlement can be reached, and there is nothing dubious about the head of Marvel Studios saying that Sersi is the lead of an ensemble cast. As far as I know the new cast members added to the bottom rule only counts official for TV shows. I am happy to discuss this with more people. WeGotThatBeduguhuc (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion WeGotThatBeduguhuc. I don't think there is an official rule for the order of casts. It seems sensible to go by the order that is normally present in media articles, and possibly add additional cast members on the end. The order quoted in the media may change over time, but it is easy to change the order again in the future. Poojean (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I still believe that the revelation that Sersi is the lead is a good enough reason to list her at the top but for now I will wait until there is a consensus. WeGotThatBeduguhuc (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

For cast lists in films, we generally list them first by when they are revealed to have roles, and then order them by how official websites like Marvel.com list the billing. Chan was announced after we got the official billing, so she was placed after the rest. We don't just go ahead and reorder stuff based on personal preferences or the like. Based on Feige's comments, Chan's Sersi is the lead of the film, but listing her at the top billing is

WP:OR, as we don't know where she will be placed in the billing order. Trailblazer101 (talk

) 12:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Snippets were shown in the latest Marvel promotional trailer, but there is no official listing of the cast members besides the short paragraph on the Marvel website, I have added a notice into the cast list to remind people not to edit until official promotional material is released. It actually only makes sense that how characters are promoted in promotional material is the main deciding factor for listing the cast before the film comes out. WeGotThatBeduguhuc (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The order is currently based on the one seen here with Chan and Keoghan added to the bottom since they were announced after that list was made. We will follow any new billings released by Marvel until we see the billing block order on the poster per

MOS:FILMCAST. - Favre1fan93 (talk

) 16:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding a note dictating the status of the layout of article without making it clear that this was reached through a user based consensus, is misleading and creates a false impression of what the rules of film cast listings on Wikipedia actually are. My edit added much needed clarity to what was a note that didn't explain the situation well enough - - - - WeGotThatBeduguhuc (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@WeGotThatBeduguhuc: I would like to continue from the above discussion to better understand what concerns you may have with the current edit notice on the cast order, which @Adamstom.97: reverted before I did. Ignoring the fact you reported me after claiming "unlawful" actions and threatened me on my own talk page, myself and @Favre1fan93: previously explained to you how the cast order works, as seen in this discussion above. Adam attempted to explain to you how the cast order works for films during your initial edits with them. What is it that you view is specifically wrong or confusing with the current edit notice to justify such an expansion? Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

There are no official rules for how film cast listings work, that is the most important thing, however there does seem to be a wikipedia-wide consensus for films that have a significant amount of cast listing information concerning them due to being close to, or post release date. There MAY (not sure) be a consensus for film cast listings for films with an incomplete official cast listing, but I am still not sure about that. I can't help think (and I may be wrong) that your attempt to remove my tiny piece of information on how this is not based on official Wikipedia rules but the people on this talk page, is your way of trying to get other users who sit on my (and that other person)'s side of the consensus, to not realise the truth and not realise they have the power to shape the consensus on the talk page, if there are enough of them (which is still unlikely). It was a useful piece of information that brought more clarity.

I have nothing more to say after this, consensuses that aren't guided by Wikipedia rules, are guided by the users on the relevant talk page, whether or not there is a "way the cast order works" on most pages, that only applies to this page BECAUSE the users on this page decided on it, as (^^ refer back to first sentence of my paragraph ^^),,,, I will continue to accept the current consensus on the cast order on this article, and if the users of this talk page agree with you on my note, I will also stand down and accept the consensus on that. But the non-existence of rules concerning Film Cast Orders, in my view should still be pointed out in order to create a true level playing field for the editors of this article no matter how overwhelming the consensus is in one direction or the other. WeGotThatBeduguhuc (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:FILMCAST, point one, says a film's billing block can be used to determine a cast's order. That is how every MCU film is ordered (with very few exceptions). And the current hidden note (This order is currently based on the cast order announced at SDCC 2019 an seen here - https://www.marvel.com/movies/the-eternals - with Chan and Keoghan added to the bottom as they were revealed as starring after SDCC 2019. Once a new billing order is released from Marvel, the order will be updated at that time. See the talk page for more.) says as much. Since we have yet to see any official billing block from Marvel via a trailer or a poster, we have not block to go off of. So what we do have at this time is the order Marvel is using from their announcement at SDCC, with additional actors who we know to be starring (Chan and Keoghan) appended to the bottom. Once a new official billing is released, the order will be updated accordingly. WeGotThatBeduguhuc the notes you attempted to add were unnecessarily wordy (ie Users on the talk page decided on this consensus and also decided that it will be updated when the official billing order is released.) and incorrect (ie As there are no Wikipedia guidelines on the order of film casts). - Favre1fan93 (talk

) 19:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I completely have accepted the consensus on how this film's cast has been listed according to the users on the talk page, but the information on that page you have linked, is still very open ended with use of the word ectr and many different sources for cast listing, unless a consensus can be reached on my note, I maintain that my piece of information is useful to make it clear on what the exact situation on this page is. I do admit it wasn't the most concise, but was necessary in my view. WeGotThatBeduguhuc (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The goal of the note is to explain to editors attempting to change the current order why they shouldn't in a fairly concise way. The note as it currently stands does that, saying why the order used is that order, and stating it will change when a new billing is released. It then says to go to the talk if they want further info why, as was discussed in the discussion above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The changes to the note, and this discussion, seem to me to be unnecessary passive-aggressive actions from a disgruntled editor. We have made it very clear why the cast listing is the way it is, and the current note accurately reflects that. Nothing more should need to be said. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I thought we had agreed not to do this any more? The film isn't out yet, so most of these character bios are presumably either based on press releases or the original comics, or secondary sources talking about who the characters were in the original comics, and not the sources cited here, which seem to be used to verify that Actor A plays Character B, etc. Can we move them? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The sources you are referring to support the actors being cast, their character names, and the descriptions of the characters as depicted in the film. If you believe some of this content is not supported by the sources then be more specific. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The first one I checked. I was gonna start from the top, but the "Gemma Chan as Sersi who in spoiler-free pre-release press blurbs for the film is described as such-and-such" statement has three separate citations, and I don't see why I should scour three sources (trying to get as close as possible to proving a negative so I'm not met with a "gotcha" later) just to demonstrate a point that I was making at least as far back as 2017 and I'm sure someone noticed as early as 2013 even (I can't have been the first person to bring this up, can I?). Anyway, do you want me to check another one? The ComicBook.com source appears to be cited in 10 more of the entries, but it seems the only actors it names are Hayek, Madden, and Chan.

Additionally, what about the loosely-related "Mandarin" point that it's very likely that a lot of the information attributed to the ComicBook.com source is inaccurate to the actual film and violates

based on the film itself

) but the citations left as is.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

All of the sourcing is as current as is known at this time. Specifically for the change made to Mikkari, the "MarvelSDCC" source supports Ridloff as Mikkari and being "An Eternal", while the ComicBook.com "CharacterDescriptions" source supports the additional character description material, again as is known at this time. As marketing and press junkets ramp up to its release, there are bound to be updated info about the characters which would necessitate some of these sources being removed. But as of now, even though some actors have paragraph breaks because of the amount of material, the placement after the description period, not the colon, is correct and works just as fine there. If the "MarvelSDCC" wasn't even used, then there'd be a problem. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Someone is not allowing the Firpo brothers to be credited for their screenplay work, despite the official final WGA credits saying so. He keeps reverting back to when they weren't, under the reason that the info is in the article.

We have sources for the current credits in the article. If you want to change them then you need to provide an updated source to support the new credits. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

OK seriously guys. When I put a source (the WGA page for the film with the final credits)

talk

) 21:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why IronManCap reverted your edit, but just because they did does not mean you can add the info without a source. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I mixed up the screenplay and story credits. My bad. IronManCap (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I was curious as to when the date of the premiere of this movie is, and so upon searching that, I found a link from AverageSocialite that claimed that the date for the premiere of Eternals was on October 18, from 6:30 to 10:30 PM PT. Should I treat AverageSocialite as a reliable source? From their website, "We try to maintain accurate and up-to-date information, however[,] all events should be confirmed with its production companies and official sponsors". — Preceding unsigned comment added by EVEN-ELITE (talk • contribs) 15:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not. If that is indeed the date, Marvel will at least promote the red carpet stream to confirm ahead of time, so

WP:NORUSH. - Favre1fan93 (talk

) 02:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

A Wikipedia editor added info about the actor's cameo in the film as Eros (multiple news outlet already reported this based on a Variety writer who confirmed the cameo), but is it too early to include this in the article since it is not yet released to the public (due November 5) and it is part of a post-credits scene which we usually add in the article's plot section on the day or after the release date? Centcom08 (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Centcom08 Wikipedia doesn't have a spoiler policy so there's no problem with adding the info. Triosdeity (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Centcom08 @Samoht99 the article conforms to established policy, not what you or the other editor personally prefer. There is no issue with adding the content so it should stop being reverted. Triosdeity (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Triosdeity A fellow Wikipedia editor (@Samoht99) added a hidden comment about his irritation of including the actor's cameo. I agree with him since it is too early to include plot points in the casting section. Instead, I added the information about this news to the article's post-production section, but feel free to make changes.

@Triosdeity Uhm... you're reply is already late but I already included the actor's casting from the beginning so thank you for your response. Centcom08 (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

lmao my bad g Triosdeity (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I was at the Rome premiere of the movie. This is categorically NOT what happens during the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.89.191 (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Kindly tell us what happened? I am a member of a sub-Reddit that verifies leaks of upcoming MCU films and none of them agreed with the plot (although they said that the mid- and post-credit scenes are correct). Centcom08 (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep, this made it to the press: [1], [2]. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: I suggest setting up a rule to not post the plot of future MCU films until their premiere date. This to avoid getting attention from the press moving forward! Centcom08 (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

While this is indeed a headache (

WP:SPOILER. So unless you are among the few who have seen the film early (or have psychic abilities), there's not much we can do about it. InfiniteNexus (talk

) 03:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Is it worth noting, whether in lead or Reception, that this is the worst-reviewed MCU film? I know early on when it was flirting with 60% some people said wait because Dark World was still within reach, but now that it’s 53% and will clearly stay the lone rotten film of the franchise, is it worth noting as such? TropicAces (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Iffy about the lede for now, but definitely in the Critical response section. JOEBRO64 00:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

"Sersi, who manipulates substances, takes on the task and turns Tiamut into ice, killing it"

She turns Tiamut to marble, not ice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HypedUp80 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Editors such as Triosdeity (look above) want to add a summarization of critical consensus to the lead from the reception section without an established consensus. None of the reviews there talk about "pacing", and one critic praises "strong performances" while another cites "some half-good performances" that saved the film. There's no consensus. Since these editors don't know about

You were reverting edits without explanation along with inappropriate language. Looking at the edit history, you seem to be having issues with @Reflecktor, so do not get me involved. And read WP:CIV while you're at it. deity 11:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

About a handful of the bad reviews in the reception section talk about the length/pacing. Also, cool it with the insults and bad manners. Reflecktor (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You involved yourself. Length and pacing are not the same thing. Consensus is also required for "performances" and others, and you haven't added any new information to the page that confirms what's written in the lead section nor have you written anything about them here, just completely ignored the rest. I haven't insulted anyone, you would have noticed if you had read my writing and what was written on the page from beginning to end, and I wouldn't have had to start this section in the first place. Maybe they were a little bit harsh but if you keep reverting because you don't like it, you can't expect anyone to be cool with it. A waste of time, really. ภץאคгöร 11:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

In this case, length and pacing would be referring to the same thing, anyway it can be amended to say both length AND pacing if need be. If you look at the reviews in the reception section you'll see multiple reviewers mentioning these things. Also, you talk about "consensus" but you are the only one opposing its inclusion, as opposed to the three in favor of its inclusions. Reflecktor (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Three that contradict with the reception section itself. You need more than two reviews to be able to generalize and summarize. And there is none. Runtime/length and pacing are not the same thing. Are you gonne keep repeating? Just let the sources speak for themselves if you are gonna continue to make unconstructive changes. ภץאคгöร 13:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Please read the reception section for a selection of reviews that say such things, even if you disagree, you feeling you are right does not mean that the consensus is not towards its inclusion. Finally, I never said runtime/pacing are the same thing, I said that in this instance they refer to the same thing, which is different from saying they're the same per se. Reflecktor (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

There are more than two reviews in the reception section which is why we can summarize in the lead. And stop accusing others of making unconstructive changes WP:GOODFAITH deity 13:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

In addition to this issue, when you remove a reliable source from other pages such as Dune (novel) and then revert another editor's edit that fixes the problem with the phrasing of the sentence according to that source, you shouldn't be surprised if you're accused of making unconstructive changes/disruptive editing. ภץאคгöร 13:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

(

not here to build encyclopedia. ภץאคгöร

13:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

This was already discussed on my talk page including your insult of my english skills. Theres clearly no reason to bring this here other than a possible attempt at harrassment? deity 13:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

There’s no note of the performances being praised. While critiques have focused on the exposition and pacing, many reviewers are still praising the performances of the cast. Marvelguy23 (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Critical Reception Summary

“[Eternals] received mixed reviews from critics, with praise centering on its themes and visuals, and criticism aimed at its exposition, pacing, runtime, and lack of character development.“

After reviewing the critical reception tab, there’s little to no mention of “lack of character development”. I recommend we remove this as this is not as common as “exposition, pacing, runtime” being criticized and mentioned.

Nanjiani’s performance is highlighted as well as the diverse casting of the ensemble, should this be mentioned as praise? Marvelguy23 (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

"On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, which categorizes reviews only as positive or negative"

Why are we adding this explanatory note about how Rotten Tomatoes works? No such explanation is given in the 'Critical Response' section of entries for other films, even films with as low a (or lower) review score as this.Thecarterclan1 (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe this is because we are using the template {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}}. Since this template is not used on any other MCU articles, perhaps we should remove this? InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

That statement should be removed as to be consistent with other MCU-related articles. Centcom08 (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Critics vs Audience

Is it perhaps worth noting that on RT, while the film has a score of 47% from critics, it conversely has an 80% score from the audience? I don't believe such disperate scores are typical of MCU movies, and we know the critic's score itself is not typical. So, thoughts? -

wolf

12:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Is the topic worth WP:Notability and can be supported by other reliable source (online news, etc.) other than judging on what you see on Rotten Tomatoes website? Centcom08 (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Genre

Eternals is a film about creation of the universe. Its story expands over 7000 years. It has a huge canvas, a big set of characters, spectacular visuals and a few large action set pieces. How come it is not stated as an "epic"? Daredevilskull (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Calling it an epic would be

WP:FILMGENRE we commonly only list a film's main genre in the lead section, which in this case is just superhero film. —El Millo (talk

) 17:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources like Indiwire, latimes, digital spy, the direct, Cleveland websites called Eternals an epic. Rotten Tomatoes critics consensus also called it a superhero epic. Subject and execution of Eternals also resonates with the description of Epic films as described in epic film Wikipedia page itself Daredevilskull (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It still won't be enough. "Epic" is used to describe the Avengers films as well, many many films get called epic, but it still isn't enough to qualify for putting it in the lead section, for which it would need to be as associated with the film as the superhero film genre, which is pretty much impossible. The amount of reliable sources might be enough for it to be included in the Category:American epic films, but more input would be needed from regular MCU editors in my opinion. —El Millo (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Keeping the "superhero" as the genre for MCU films is enough because if you want to keep the "epic superhero film" in Eternals, the other MCU articles should add genres in their lead section as well, like Captain America: The Winter Soldier as a "political thriller superhero film" and Ant-Man as "heist superhero film", which can be biased. Centcom08 (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021

This edit request to Eternals (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change to post credits scene to mid credits and add that Jeffrey weight appears in a post credits scene as the watcher in a voice only cameo. Australian opening night of Eternals was last night

Additionally, Haaz Sleiman portrays an architect who is Phastos' husband,[18] and Ozer Ercan plays a smuggler.[19] David Kaye voices the Celestial Arishem the Judge.[20] Gil Birmingham,[21] Jashaun St. John,[22] and Zain Al Rafeea have been cast in undisclosed roles.[23] The Deviant leader Kro also appears in the film,[6] as will the Celestial Nezarr the Calculator.[24] Harry Styles appears as Eros / Starfox in a mid-credits scene.[25] Jeffrey Wright reprises his role as the Watcher in a post-credits scene Blob fishy17 (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Eros appears in a mid credits scene Blob fishy17 (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: That's not true. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Box office

Can someone please explain why Eternals' Int. Box office have been 90.7 Mil for the past 4 days?? Does the Int. Box office gets updated once a week? Samudragupta007 (talk) 06:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2021

This edit request to Eternals (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please state how much the film requires in order to break even. Important factor under box office. 120.21.17.179 (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2021 (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.  melecie  t - 04:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

TSG Entertainment

TSG Entertainment co-produced this, according to their page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.116.214.66 (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

It's unsourced there, and you'd need a source to support that claim (which I find suspect anyways). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended edition for home media

The BBFC just updated its listing for the film and listed the home media release with a runtime of 174 minutes. I wonder this is worthy of including in the article. - Richiekim (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant unless secondary reliable sources confirm the home media will have an extended edition. —El Millo (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, something to keep an eye on. If there is an extended edition then there should be explicit confirmation of that coming. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The BBFC can be confusing to read sometimes. Looking carefully at the BBFC page for The Eternals and expanding the various sections we can learn more. The section of the page "Cinema" says the runtime was "156m 0s". The section of the page "Home media" also says the runtime is "156m 0s". The section Bonus "Material" says "174m 0s" but that does not suggest to me that there will be an extended cut of the main feature released to Disney plus, it seems more likely that there will also be "making of" and various other featurettes with a combined total runtime of 174 minutes. We will see for sure when the Bluray is released in March. Compare and contrast to the [BBFC page for Black Widow] where it lists 34 minutes of bonus material, or look at the BBFC page for Shang Chi where it has a theatrical runtime of 132m and Bonus material runtime of 163m minutes. -- 109.76.210.115 (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)