Talk:Jessica Jones (season 2)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Moss back?

Based on her answering the first question (much like Taylor which we used to confirm her) here, it seems like she may be back. Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "I can't wait to see" should be fine to add her as returning, like you said it seems similar to our Taylor confirmation. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is this source better? At the very least, it implies that she will be back. - DinoSlider (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Thanks Dino! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Taylor interview

Here is some potential info. - DinoSlider (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Directors

@Favre1fan93: The information we have from Variety seems to detail a pre-production process, about the decision to book only female directors. That is why I put it in the development section. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was torn on where it should go, but ultimately felt it should be in filming, since it directly relates to that, even though it was announced now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filming

According to On Location Vactions, filming for season 2 is supposed to begin today. Just a heads up. - Richiekim (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have since been updated to state it will be starting next Monday, April 10. Still good to know and be on the look out for. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On Location Vactions has since updated themselves and created a new article (linked) stating that filming has indeed started today with studio work. We have, sparingly, used OLV in the past, and this could be a situation we could consider again. Would anyone oppose moving the draft into the mainspace with this source in light of this? @Richiekim, Adamstom.97, TriiipleThreat, AlexTheWhovian, and DinoSlider: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OLV does not seem to be a reliable source, and I would remove any previous references to them.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is on Defenders Facebook page Mike210381 (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC) I just saw that is fanpage. Mike210381 (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If filming has started, and is verifiable with a reliable source, I've no opposition to moving it to the mainspace. -- AlexTW 00:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A quick Google search shows a handful of references on Wikipedia. - DinoSlider (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to use OLV as an indicator, but we should get a better source for the actual article. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that confirming filming starting today at the studio would be a bit tricky to fully confirm. But it will 100% be starting on April 10 per the image in the most recent article I linked showing the notice of filming for no parking (living in NYC, though it doesn't mean much, I can personally confirm these type of notices so there should be no issue on that front). We can wait until then if desired to move it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW filming is definitely happening, so we can move the draft out, if we choose. I think we should, but don't know how we should go about sourcing that filming has started, because all our indications from reliable sources are WP:FRUIT sources. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TriiipleThreat, Adamstom.97, AlexTheWhovian, DinoSlider, and Mike210381: Thoughts on moving the draft out (which I think we should) and handling start of filming info (which I'm not sure about)? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To recap, what sources do we have for filming starting? - adamstom97 (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This OLV source saying filming starting with studio work. The source also embeds and image of NYC's parking ban signs for production film. Additionally, this image for filming today, which was taken from Reddit. Most RSs are WP:FRUIT as they all cite the OLV article, or the OLV article through MCUExchange. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or, do we go with a source like this, that just says filming started this week, no link back to anything. Will that help us, even though us as editors can put 2 and 2 together that that statement is because of the OLV source. Would that still make it a FRUIT source? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If no one has any objections, I'm going to start the process of moving this draft to the mainspace within the next 24-36 hours, and using this source for filming, given it does not link back to anything, so I don't believe that is a FRUIT issue. Please voice any opposition, to either or both of these task. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that, and just waiting to see if we can get a better source for start date. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Moved and source added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janet McTeer

I added Janet McTeer to the page as I didn't see anything at the time though since then I see in the history that she was added in a hidden section which I did not see. The article describes her as having a "major" role and an "enormous" impact on Jessica's life. On Facebook Marvel used the phrasing "key role". To me that sounds like Main Cast level, but I see in the other edit note a suggestion about waiting to hear more. Thoughts? -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the wording they use sounds to me like she will be at least recurring (a major role) and likely in the main cast. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like it could be main casting, but it could only be recurring (heck maybe even just guest, though unlikely). And since we don't know at this time (and I don't think any of the trades clarified, yeah?) we should just wait until we have a bit more info. The info's there when we need it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the hesitation to add her to the Cast section because her level of involvement is unknown. However, the Casting sub-section of the Production section has never been limited to the main stars. The reliably sourced casting of an Oscar nominated actress certainly seems notable enough to mention, especially since Marvel gave her a press release all to herself and referred to her character as an "enormous impact". - DinoSlider (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to just the casting section would be okay with me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wil Traval returning?

Something to look out for... --Kailash29792 (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filming notice image

I was around an area where the season is filming, and snapped a couple pics of the telephone pole notices (filming is occurring where I was on July 18, so no actual set images). Would that be anything worthwhile to include in the article? Leaning slightly towards no, but just wanted to let everyone know I had them if we wanted to used them; I can put them up on Commons. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, it is a notice like the image seen here, but for "Violet S2".) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps down the track if we really wanted an image from filming and didn't have anything better, but at the moment I would say no. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Production wrapped?

According to instagram photos, filming is complete. Not sure if this is enough to add. - DinoSlider (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is, and I've added it in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shoutouts

The brief appearance by Maynard Tiboldt is nice, by the way... (I'm still only up to episode 8-beginning so maybe "brief appearance" is only accurate up to episode 8, of course.) Schissel | Sound the Note!

Name discrepancies in episode summaries

I noticed that episode summaries mix first and last names when referring to characters. Are there conventions here? The history seems to suggest that users have switched between first and last names for secondary characters, but maintain first names for the primary characters ("Jessica" and "Trish"). The TV show primarily uses first names to refer to characters except in specific cases. The discrepancy makes it difficult to follow the summaries when coming to them from the show. Just checking. - Maikegotchi (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The characters are all introduced with their full names, and then surnames are used from there unless there is a confusion issue between multiple characters with the same surname. In this case, we start using first names for characters like Jessica and Trish around episode 7 where we start dealing with multiple members of their families. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the cast list is for actors and character names only"

@Adamstom.97: Regarding this edit, would you mind linking me to the relevant policy or guideline? You have taken the exact opposite position on, for example, the GOTG2 article (where completely unsourced character bios are included along with the names, and misattributed to sources that just list the names[1]) to the one you are taking here.

I mean, I guess the fact that your version of this article includes the unsourced claim that the character Tennant plays is Kilgrave (who doesn't actually appear either in flashback or having been resurrected) when the source actually says it is not sure of the nature of Tennant's role makes this not unlike the film articles. For all the source you cite knew, Tennant was playing Kilgrave's not-evil twin, Milgrave; he might have even been playing a completely unrelated character like Woodard apparently played in Civil War and Luke Cage, as a joke.

But still, I really doubt your intention was that we should consistently include information that is unsourced.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know you like bagging on me for no good reason and bringing up irrelevant issues at different talk pages, but can we just stick to the issue at hand please? The cast list, as I'm sure you can clearly see, is just listing names of actors and characters, with further details given in prose in the casting section. That's just how the article is set up at the moment. There is no need to get silly about policy or guidelines. It's just how the article is set up. You are free to disagree with that and propose it be changed, and this talk page is the perfect place to do that if you so choose. As for Tennant returning as a hallucination of Kilgrave vs. the actual Kilgrave, we need to be careful not to get caught up in the in-universe minutiae. It is fine to explain his return in the prose, which I have done, but saying in a cast list that he portrays Kilgrave, from a real-world perspective, just is not incorrect. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know you like bagging on me for no good reason and bringing up irrelevant issues at different talk pages, but can we just stick to the issue at hand please? Your off-topic personal comments aside, I don't see how it's "irrelevant" -- on the film pages you actively campaign for the inclusion of questionable character bios in the cast sections, but here you are doing the opposite. The cast list, as I'm sure you can clearly see, is just listing names of actors and characters, with further details given in prose in the casting section. Again, this is not how it is done in our articles on other properties within this same franchise. That's just how the article is set up at the moment. ... It's just how the article is set up. If it is broke, don't not fix it. There is no need to get silly about policy or guidelines. Sorry -- I was assuming you had some sort of consistent, PAG-based reasoning for adding unsourced character bios to the film articles but removing necessary factual clarification from the TV ones. You are free to disagree with that and propose it be changed, and this talk page is the perfect place to do that if you so choose. I don't see anywhere on this talk page where consensus was established for your version, so you can't call "status quo -- please discuss on the talk page" when I provide a reasoned argument for the change. As for Tennant returning as a hallucination of Kilgrave vs. the actual Kilgrave, we need to be careful not to get caught up in the in-universe minutiae. Our article on season one clearly establishes that Kilgrave is dead; saying anywhere in this article that Kilgrave is in this season implies that either (a) he has been resurrected or (b) he appears in a flashback. This reeks of fan speculation and rumour (which is actually what the Entertainment Weekly source your version cites is) even after that speculation is outdated. The simple fact is that Kilgrave isn't in this season; Tennant plays the imaginary devil on the protagonist's shoulder, who looks like Kilgrave, which (in real-world terms) is no different from him playing a different character who happens to look like him. saying in a cast list that he portrays Kilgrave, from a real-world perspective, just is not incorrect Umm ... yeah, I guess not: he portrays Kilgrave in season one of Jessica Jones, which was in 2015; in this season he plays hallucination of the dead Kilgrave. Maybe if this weren't a fantasy show set in a world where resurrection has been repeatedly portrayed as possible, it wouldn't be misleading (not saying anything about correctness) to state that he portrays Kilgrave, but it is, it has, and it is. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the source your version cites is technically invalid for the claim that he plays Kilgrave; it is only good for the claim that he appears in the season. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to have a serious discussion about this or are you going to continue with these nonsense personal comments? It honestly isn't that difficult just to state the change you want to make and why you want to make it, and then let other editors respond. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... did you read any of my serious discussion about the content? I directly changed the article and you reverted me, so it should be obvious what change I want, and your above non-response indicates that even though I painstakingly explained why I wanted to make it you didn't even read it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]