Talk:Doctor Strange (2016 film)

White washing and Casting Criticism section

The way the Cast section and whole article written in relation to casting is a form of Historical Negationism for the casting. Indeed, the Cast section gives one sided choices of the director, Scott Derrickerson, and his reasoning and justifications for his choices. However, beyond just his side, his casting choices was meet with outcry, especially from asian demographics. Personally, the white washing of the Ancient one is a reason why I don't like this film series. And indeed, at the historical time of release of this movie, its whitewashing and ghost in the shell (2017) whitewashing were talked about much in the media around its release, such as talk about how the oscars didn't have any non-white nominees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88th_Academy_Awards#Criticism_regarding_lack_of_diversity). Thus, this article as it is, has is a form of historical negationism for its lack of historical relevance and prominence of that issue at the time of its release and because its cast choices are one-sided as if it wasn't with criticism from the public, especially asian communities. I suggest a subsection, such as "Casting Criticism" like Ghost in the Shell (2017) has. That would remedy this issue. Such subsection would give criticism against the one sided choices and reasoning quoted of the director in the Cast subsection. Ap4lmtree2 (talk) 07:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

If you didn't watch the film, I'm not really sure how you can have an opinion on whether or not you like it. But ok.

I'm sorry you had to "search and read" to find the information you were looking for, but the information is present in the article. I'm not convinced that a full section is needed. All the sources currently used to support the whitewashing elements are either prior to or right at the film's release. Do you have reliable sources discussing this casting issue after the film was released and viewers could evaluate the decision based on the film, rather than their pre-conceived notions? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Note - my comments are based on an earlier version of this user's concern, not the revised one currently showing. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Moving it to its own section would give it WP:UNDUE weight by prominence of placement. Like Argento stated the uproar seems to have died down after release and did not lead to entire movement like OscarsSoWhite as in the OP's example.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that there should not be any more weight given to this. The current wording pretty clearly acknowledges the issues here while establishing the filmmaker's reasoning, which is also important since this article is about the film and how it was made. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

RE: @Argento Surfer. It is not the case that I didn't watch the film. Nowhere did I say I didn't watch this film. Thus, I must conclude you are not listening to begin with or you have closed ears. RE: TriiipleThreat. This is one of a few whitewashing films. I will admit that maybe I was greater disappointed in this film because I watch comic book films more than say, Aloha (2015). RE: . I said Ghost in the Shell film wikipedia doesn't practice Historical Negationism like this article does. This article gives the point of views and justification of the director and makers of this film. I ask you this, what were the director and makers of this film responding to? I see now that someone added this to the article, "Still, Swinton's casting was widely criticized as whitewashing." That mitigates this issue albeit it mitigates it to appear as if it wasn't more wide blown nor widely appalled. Rather, it says just one sentence. This article has the director talking 95+% of the time in response to people who aren't identified, not even anonymously, and thus, aren't there. He must be right and just as he is the only person in the big room left standing, but he was the only one person there to begin with in his argumentation, according to this negationism. Again, ghost in the shell film, which also whitewashed, doesn't have this historical negationism. However, like RE: TriiipleThreat if you wish to argue that all is lost in the midst of constant and lots of whitewashing, then fine, that works too. I could argue that each and every single dot in reality is not important even though I actually believe otherwise.

You said "The white washing controversy is the main reason I didn't watch nor like this film series." (emphasis mine) As I noted above, you removed that sentence before I replied. So really, I'm just listening closer than you want me to.

Also, the line you say was added to the article was actually present before you started this discussion. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I edited my post because I fast forward the Tilda Swinton parts the media player I have on my computer. It was indeed an error for me to say that. I can search for computer logs to support that I did watch this film, but skipped over those parts. However, it has been a while. It is important that I support I watch the film in order give an opinion on the film because your argument is that I have to watch and have first hand experience of the film to know or not there is whitewashing. You argument is that unless I see it with my own eyes, I cannot know there is whitewashing, and that is the most important thing when talking about whitewashing in this film. Indeed, I cannot tell there is whitewashing based on criticism of the film, I had to see it first hand experience. Let me look for logs if you want to stick to that argument, so I could counter it that I have direct firsthand experience. The second part of your argument is that being turned off by seeing trailers of casting or knowing there is whitewashing is not a valid experience unless I actually see it first hand by watching it. Even though the casting has whitewashing in the trailers, maybe the whitewashing isn't so bad if i actually see it. Maybe I will like the whitewashing or the whitewashing is something only 30 seconds, you say. Again, I can find computer logs to dispute this very important thing about me personally rather than the film. My credibility rather than what the film is is what is at stake here. To prove my credibility. I will give some things I remember. I remember some Benedict Wong being in some kind of library. I also remember some kind of round disc moving stage that the actors were on at one time. I remember things about a necklace too. I get your point that watching and paying attention to the story is important to know the film. However, my argument is it is not important to detest the film nor to criticize the film's whitewashing unless one is talking about the story itself. This is not about whether it was good whitewashing or bad whitewashing or harmless whitewashing or benign whitewashing based on how that whitewashing was done by the cast or how the story related to that casting. I detest the film because it had whitewashing period. It is very difficult for any ethnic group to see films where their ethnic group is valued less or mocked or some other negative light. It does provide that ethnic group realities and realism what facts of their own society in how that society values and see that ethnic group viewer. It is difficult for me to watch the first dark night, batman begins (2005), and I tolerate and watch sometimes ghost in the shell (2017), but I think it could have been better if it had an asian lead. I disliked Iron Fist tv series. I watched about 30 minutes of one episode. I didn't see the full series. Given, it might have a good story though. Likewise, you have a good point that this Doctor Strange movie might have a good story, especially if it were a comic book or a novel rather than visual movie. Ap4lmtree2 (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Geez that's a lot of text. Look, I don't care if you watched the film. I don't care if you only watched the portions with actors whose skin color you approve of. If you look back at my first comment, I followed my comment about you not watching the film with "but ok." Hopefully I have clarified my comment and we can move on.

The material you were asking for is in the article. It was in the article before you asked for it. I do not see any reason to address criticism of a casting choice outside of the cast section, especially since few or none of the reliable reviews carried the concerns past the film's release. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

"Untitled Doctor Strange sequel" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled Doctor Strange sequel. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 19:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

"Untitled Doctor Strange sequel" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled Doctor Strange sequel. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

"Drive responsibly" warning at end of film

Forgive me if it's already mentioned somewhere, but the "Please drive responsibly" notice at the end of the film probably ranks a mention. I think it should be covered somewhere, just unsure where (maybe "Production"?).

References as follows:

• Peters, Megan (September 6, 2017). "Doctor Strange easter egg is hidden within the credits". Comicbook.com. Archived from the original on October 10, 2021. Retrieved October 10, 2021.
• Armitage, Hugh (October 29, 2016). "11 Doctor Strange Easter eggs you might have missed". Digital Spy. Archived from the original on November 8, 2019. Retrieved October 10, 2021.

Thanks. Sean Stephens (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that is noteworthy. It seems more like insignificant trivia, which is why it has only been discussed in those types of sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)