This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide tocomics on Wikipedia.Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with thecurrent tasks, visit thenotice board,edit the attached article or discuss it at theproject's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics
The following is the critique and comments on this template (and another for indie comic films i'm still working on), to demonstrate that this is not just one person's efforts, and to show why certain choices were made. Please do NOT edit this section, but create new ones for new comments, thank you.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The templates look good, but can I suggest using something thicker than the bullets used between titles? Instead of ·, use •. —Erik (talk •contrib) -15:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of other items: There should be spacing between "Batman (year)" in the first template. Also, Batman got split, while Superman didn't (and I realize the latter has an odd continuity issue). Is there a way to address this? —Erik (talk •contrib) -15:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah-hah! the reason I didn't is they were DTV. The promotional release didn't really count as I see it. Both are discussed in the Crow franchise article, which my heading links to. That's why. But thanks for making me defend it, good to have a rationale. I hope to cut n paste this entire review, as an archived section, to the talk pages for these two once they're ready to go, so new editors will have some ideas about my thinking.ThuranX16:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent initiative!! And thank you for asking.
The only thing I'd advise against is the "TBA" and "forthcoming" items. They're not really in keeping withWP:DATED or, in some instances, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". Things in the movie business especially change so much, and people float rumors about projects so often, that it'd be more encyclopedic, I think, to stick with confirmed, existing product. In an any event, they'd need citations. (Along these lines, The "in development" itemsList of Marvel Comics films is problematic to me, even with the copious footnotes, since "in development" can mean "we're thinking about it and maybe someday we'll have a meeting to find a writer". But that's a whole big other thing I don't have the energy for...!)
I might use the header "Independent-comics films", to match that article titledIndependent film. (Also, the compound modifier takes a hyphen, perAP Stylebook and other standard punctuation/grammar sources Wikipedia recognizes.) Also, "comics" in this case wouldn't be capitalized since it's not part of a proper-noun phrase, as "DC Comics" is.
I can think of at least oneArchie Comics film (a TV-movie), and there was aFawcett Comics Captain Marvel serial in the 1940s, so maybe "Independent-comics films and misc."
I"m not particularly interested in the Made-for-TV stuff, nor the Older DC works. I figure that the 'list of' pages can be holistic, but that most readers will want to find out about the more recent works. Further, the Batman and Superman templates have far more about all appearances of those characters.— Precedingunsigned comment added byThuranX (talk •contribs)
Not sure what the reasoning is that "most readers will want to find out about the more recent works". That's more in keeping with a magazine than an encyclopedia, which needs to be, well, encyclopedic. --Tenebrae21:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is, most casual readers who are on a DC film page are likely to be more interested in the recent franchises and such than in an obscure serial from the 40's, like hop harrigan. I suppose a link to the serials listing on the comics list might be efffective, but to add all the serials would be to make the template huge and clunky, which I long ago learned was a bad thing. Thoughts on the added 'serials' listing?ThuranX22:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that didn't work so well, so I jsut refined the original list, removing tons of stuff that had nothign to do with DC based films, and added the serials. WHoever had compiled the list felt anyt character now owned by DC qualified, I removed any that weren't actually DC at all, like Doc Savage, or who were acquired after production, like the Fawcett characters. The rest are now in the template.ThuranX22:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good job on it so far, bro. Just a few random questions and stuff though. With the DC template; what about adding the (dreadful, in my opinion) 1997Justice League of America film *shudders*...? Also, have you considered adding in an animated films section, as there are two new ones in the pipeline (Justice League: The New Frontier andSuperman: Doomsday)? There are many older ones from the 90's or more recently (i.e.The Batman Superman Movie, inspired by the animated TV shows) but I couldn't find the right links. About the superheroe and non-superhero DC films - is it worth splitting the likes ofCatwoman fromRoad To Perdition, for example? Another thing is that I noticed you've got theBatman film in the 'single films' section highlighted along with the year which will need editing. Lastly, I just wanted to add that as you've mentioned, I agree that the serials are of no real interest. Just throwing that in. With the indie comics template; I noticed thatThe Mask is down twice (the franchise, which is understandable, AND with the single films). Also,The Crow unfortunately had a third film,The Crow: Stairway to Heaven. You may want to add it to the franchise. That's about all for now. Didn't mean to nit pick or anything, just thought I'd throw in my two cents. I'm glad someone's done this DC one though, been thinking who's gonna get it done. Thanks for the template so far. Keep it up. =>Harish10118:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Batman 1966 film is in the single film listing because it did not have a sequel, but rather was a single theatrical release adam west film. It's not part of either franchise. Justice league was made for tv, not theattrical. the Animated series have their own templates, and would be too huge. This is for live action theatrical releases of properties owned/managed/produced by DC at time of release/Licensing, not those acquired later. As was noted above, the Crow franchise shifted to DTV, which I've decided not to cover, it's already in the articles for the two listed here. thank yo ufor the critique, not sure how you found the page though.ThuranX05:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blame mindless wiki-browsing for finding this ;) ...With the 1966 Batman movie, I meant that the actual year was highlighted as part of the link, didn't know if that was meant to be so. Ahh, I understand about the rest now. Fair play. I looked into the Animated DC films, and noticed thatJustice League: The New Frontier is not based on/part of the Bruce Timm Animated Universe, which the template only allows for (this film is based on a graphic novel). I dunno if it will still be a part of it though, as he's apparently still producing. Just letting ya know. Curious to know - how do you start on something like this?Harish10115:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah. I see that, and it's fixed. Interesting regarding the Timm situation, might be time to bring that up as a change over there, I dunno. Anyways, I'm sure other editors will have thoughtsonce this goes live, which I think will be this weekend. finally, thanks for the comments. I do appreciate them.ThuranX03:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man, just curious to know when this will actually get put to use? One more thought, since I'm back here - where the franchises section is, as this is more about the films I was wondering if it's necessary to link the parts that say "Batman(1989-97)" and "Batman(2005 - )" twice to the same Batman page, along with linking Swamp Thing? Just wondered. Didn't seem entirely necessary, from a user's point of view (mainly Batman, unless you can link it to the film series pages, or even considering having two pages, one of which for the reboot franchise). Just putting in ideas as I assume you can do something about that. =>Harish10113:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've reverted the change, because I'd like to see those two articles fully overhauled and divided appropriately, and I'd like to make that an impending task. As such, steering new editors to both would hopefully result in better cooperation and attention to the mess that is there now.ThuranX16:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, there is no need to seperate the articles, and secondly there will be potential reboots in future Batman films, so the title of the second article is wrong.Alientraveller16:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the title is wrong, I'd like to do a move to something like Batman Film Series(Nolan), and Batman Film Series(Burton/Schumacher), with a disambig article at the current page. I agree more can come, but look at the current page, which currently purports that all six are in one franchise and continuity, though we know that to be untrue.ThuranX16:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, it's one series built around one character. And the article can just note "Batman Begins rebooted the franchise". I meanCasino Royale is also a reboot, but it's still a Bond movie.Alientraveller16:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it may be based around one character, isn't it worth considering that the story lines are of a different continuity?... which is really not an issue with James Bond films. Just a thought. Though to distinguish the two may reqiure a fair bit of research. I like how the two franchises have been distinguished in the one article though, but feel that there should be a removal of the 1966 Batman film added to article as it's not of a movie franchise, thus not having a film series. Just my opinion. =>Harish10122:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the only reason they're in the same group is that they're based around the same character, then there is no reason not to include the 1960s film as well. --138.130.113.12 (talk)07:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nolan's Batman is about as related to Burton/Schumacher's Batman as Raimi's Spider-Man is to Webb's Spider-Man and the same applies to Snyder's Superman. There needs to be some consistancy here. Either seperate Batman into two series or add Webb's Spider-Man to the Spider-Man group of the Marvel films template.--124.183.155.100 (talk)05:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should thefilm be added next to Superman II on the template? I figure it should be on there at least, but another thing - to save taking too much space how about just typing in 'The Richard Donner Cut (2006)' next to it? Just some thoughts... =>Harish10122:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks really good! I might remove "The" from "The Serials" since neither of the other two categories use that definite article. Great effort! --Tenebrae06:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I considered that, but since there are a number of them, and they constitute a very different feel, as opposed to big budget blockbusters, I left it. It's sa stylistic thing, pure and simple; to me, it's good, to other's, maybe not so much. If you think it really ought to go, you can take it out, but I personally like it. I intend to use the same phrase on my Indie comics film template, so it will match the pending other template, but it doesn't right now. your call, and thanks for the review.ThuranX06:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really think eliminating the Captain Marvel and Blackhawk serials is a bad idea- they may not originally have been DC properties, but they are considered "DC" now, and should be recognized as such. If they're not added, then entries likeV For Vendetta andRoad to Perdition should certainly be removed, as the source material on which these films were based were never owned by DC in the first place- they're creator-owned works that were distributed by DC Comics.ChrisStansfieldContribs09:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When CM and BH were produced, they were owned by other companies. Their articles make this clear, and report on the serials. However, since they weren't DC produced, they aren't listed. As to the others, DC Comics, in various imprints, published those works, and the movies were based in those DC-published works. When I created this, I worked deliberately from 'Publication' as rationale for inclusion, not 'ownership', because of the very issues you recognize. It's actually quite consistent. IF DC published the source material for the moving picture work, then it's here, if not, then it's not. Otherwise, a Sandman film, Y:The Last Man, transmetropolitan, and numerous other titles churning int development hell and rumor mills would be unlistable here, which I found to be an unacceptable direction to send the template in.ThuranX (talk)14:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to get into another discussion with ThuranX because he won't admit he is wrong, and won't drop an issue until you rub his nose in conclusive evidence (Note to administrators: I won't deal with being criticized for saying that because it is true—just check his own talk page—and you should fault him for being like that, not me for pointing out thefact), but maybe enough of us can get a consensus against his position. As DC does not in any way shape or form ownV for Vendetta, and I don't know ifany of what they published was anything but a reprint from a British company—this is definitely true of more than half of it—it is not a DC-based film. As DC are and for decades have been perceived asthe owners of Captain Marvel, Blackhawk and others, I can't see anything but an arbitrary and unfair line for not listing their serials and others. You yourself have disallowed some films because DC did not own the comic properties being adapted at the time they were filmed; therefore, stuff they havenever owned and were not even the original publisher of definitely shouldn't be here. Your "Otherwise...development hell...." statement seems absolutely irrelevant—and not entirely comprehensible—to me. Of course such projects are "unlistable here"; this is limited to things that have been completed and released! --Ted Watson (talk)00:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You decided to open up a year old dead thread which the questioner seemed happy with, since he didn't reply, by personally attacking me? What the fuck? And again, Publication, not 'Ownership'. As for the last line about the development hell titles, those are all creator-owned/controlled titles published by DC. Certainly they'd be in this template if made into films, because they were published by DC. You are the only person who find it impossible to understand this, and I guess it's because you are too busy attacking me, but that's your cross to bear.
For the record, it was through DC that the ending was published, Quality dropped it midway through, and released/sold the rights. That makes it DC's publication.ThuranX (talk)01:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How many times have I assumed that a lack of further response meant that the other party agreed with me but did not want to come out and say so, did the edits, and got reverted, with them making the claim that they "were tired of talking to a brick wall" (when the reality was they never dealt with anything I posted in the talk page discussion)? Quite a few. I don't care how long its been, I completely disagree for good reason, and reserve the right to reopen the discussion. I came to this page because my gut reaction upon seeing the template was to post a disagreement with some things present and some absent, and found this thread. There was nothing personal about the attack, but it was strictly encyclopediabusiness: the behavior described has occurred and is problematical to resolving a content dispute on its own merits. Your angry, venomous and profane reply here is more of what I was talking about.
I knew thatVendetta was unfinished the first time around, in the UK. I still submit that, since the name of the template is "DC Comics films," adaptations of things that they published only by license, especially something that began somewhere else, is not relevant, but films of properties that they now and for sometime have owned outright, and the original owners no longer exist as such (Fawcett does exist, but that's the parent company who've been out of the comic book business for 55 years, and Quality ceased to exist at the time DC bought the properties), are. As for the "development hell" statement, I defy you to go back, read what you actually posted there, and tell me it does not suggest that thingscurrently in development hell should be in the template but would be "unlistable" by Chris Stansfield's terms. --Ted Watson (talk)22:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is things that weren't created by DC, but later got acquired SHOULD be included, except for things that weren't created by DC, but later got acquired. Got it. Published is a better barometer for inclusion. Ownership, as more of the industry goes to a creator-control/owned model, means that films based on comics produced by DC Comics but featuring characters to which they do not own all rights would never be on the list, but that films based on comics not produced by DC Comics, but which DC much later acquired the rights to, after the decisions to produce and release a film, after film was long gone, would be included. I'm sorry, but it's thoroughly illogical.ThuranX (talk)06:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is things that weren't created by DC, but later got acquired SHOULD be included, except for things that weren't created by DC, but later got acquired. No, it isn't. I think you are getting the latter fromV for Vendetta, which I say should be disallowed because DC was nothing more than one distributor for it, albeit the first distributor of the latter part of it, but not so of most of it. It was never a DC property, never publicly perceived as one and will almost certainly never be one nor so perceived. As for the others, Wiki is never going to have a "Fawcett Comics films" list, or a "Quality Comics films" list, and those properties are, and for a long time have been, owned by DC, as well as publicly perceived as DC properties for quite a while as well. Their films/serialsdo belong on this list. With some acknowledgement of onlysubsequent purchase by DC, certainly, but here nevertheless. If a newBlackhawk film were to come out (faithful to the old comics, not to theHoward Chaykin,Mike Grell,etc., retcon), would you deny it placement here? If not, how would you justify keeping the old serial version off? I would see nothing there but a very thin technicality. And try ths oneHop Harrigan was anAll-American Publications creation later acquired (along with virtually everything else AAP produced) by DC predecessor National Periodical Publications, and according to his Wiki-article, this happenedafter his serial came out. By your definition,he should not be here! --Ted Watson (talk)22:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per your comments, Hop Harrigan has been removed. As for all such films, they are all still included in categories about comics based films. Not everything needs a company based list, either. You're still basing your entire argument on your opinions. Perhaps you're British, which might affect your perception of the associations about V for Vendetta? No one I've ever spoken to in this country thinks of it as a property of the company which let it go, but of the company which supported the project and backed it, DC Comics. This has all been covered before. I've corrected Hop Harrigan to restore consistency. The template is consistent, as requested,and no longer includes properties NOT published by 'DC Comics/NPP'. This is not so complicated as you keep trying to make it. The only questionable entry may be the The Spirit, which has been published by DC for the last few years, but for decades before was not. It's not in there yet, so there's time to figure it out, but I'm inclined to say no.ThuranX (talk)03:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. A quick check shows no WB/DC involvement in the film, and it looks like the rights might've been sold pre-DC, so I don't think it needs to go in.ThuranX (talk)03:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the Marvel Comics template, Daredevil is listed as a franchise, with the film Daredevil and the "spin-off" film Elektra. Using that logic, should not the "spin-off" film Supergirl be removed from the single films section and placed amongst the Superman franchise films?
From what I understand, it was created with the purpose of expanding the Superman franchise of movies, and I think belongs in that section.--Tim Thomason23:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was at one time, but was later moved to the single film section. I think that the reasoning was that it was sort of like Steel. Although both have ties to Superman, the ties weren't emphasized in the movies, and not in any press I could find either. If you can find WP:RS showing the intent at the time to see Supergirl as a part of the Superman franchise, then we could relocate it. Elektra was deliberately and publicly spoken of as a direct offshoot of the Daredevil movie, so we can point to sources for that.ThuranX (talk)00:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we can ignore the fight that is brewing... Agoogle search shows that the bookSuperman on Film, Television, Radio, and Broadway - Page 101 by Bruce Scivally cites Supergirl as "in continuity" with the Superman films (based on Olsen's appearance). This site ( graphicnovelscomics.suite101.com/article.cfm/supergirl_on_film_and_television ) seems legit to me (is it citable?) and states that the McClure Olsen ties Supergirl into "the Superman franchise." I think we should once again change the template to reflect this info, given that the Supergirl/Superman movies (with the possible exception of Superman Returns) all share actors and producers, whereas Steel does not.--Tim Thomason01:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ThuranX, you are the last person to begiving formal civility warnings (see your posting of 8 December 2008, targetingme, in the above thread "Some consistency" for one example). At least I censored myself, which makes your "redact" order senseless. --Ted Watson (talk)19:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prompted by the newHuman Target TV series, I checked the listings of DC Comics templates, and there isn't one for live action TV productions. There are certainly enough of them:Adventures of Superman, the unsoldSuperboy pilot, the camp 1960sBatman series, Saturday morning'sShazam! (DC hadn't bought the property yet, but they were already publishing it), theunsold Wonder Woman TV movie/pilot and subsequent movie/pilot & series, the syndicatedSuperboy series,Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, the firstHuman Target series, theFlash show,Birds of Prey andSmallville I can think of off the top of my head, and I'd bevery surprised if I haven't missed something. As indicated in the archive-boxed thread above, the title of this template as it still stands is ambiguous toward both TV and animation, which in any event needs to be corrected. I feel the primary point here is live action adaptations, and the distinction between big and small screens is not that important; after all, the serials are short subjects! Two additional sections, "TV series" and "TV movies" ("TV movies & specials"?) would cover that. Anyone else want to comment? --Tbrittreid (talk)23:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Animated films is the same topic of this one but in this case since there are so many animated films it needed to have an split navbox. So this time there needs to be a main navbox link sort of like a main article hatnote and also similiar toTemplate:Pokémon andTemplate:Pokémon spin-offs and there has been no official guideline on this one. (If you are lucky there is a essay on it and I would recommend a change on it if so) I also don't feel like it's not necessary. Now there can be other alternatives to fix the problem but I recommend discussing it over edit war. So no reverting until we have this settled here and I hear a few opinions from other editors who are familiar with this. I have my resources to find out since I have been around with working with many navboxes for and noticed many different styles.Jhenderson77717:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And also...I wouldn't have done it if the navbox had the same main article. If the article had a different main article I would have used the particular main article as the link instead but in this case you can't do that.Jhenderson77717:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although...I do know of another optional win-win choice that you could maybe prefer better. Either way would work for me. Here it is:
IIUC a "series" in film is defined as a group of films that roughly link together in one continuity. And a "franchise" is a property that is used across numerous films regardless of continuity. Right now we're stretching "series" to encompass two separate continuities under "Batman" and include a potential stand alone film under "Superman". The theatrically release, television derived films don't fit under the term "series" even as stretched as we're using it.
The stretch is enough to argue that the group should be retitled "Film franchises". But in doing that the serials should be incorporated and the the sub-group headers should reflect more accurately what is listed. So "Batman" gets 4:
Serials (2)
Standalone (1)
1987-1997 series (4)
2005-2012 series (3)
And "Superman" gets 3:
Serials (2)
Standalone (2)
1978-2006 series (7)
The Bat-franchise standalone section might also wind up includingCatwoman, as bitter as that may be.
At this pointMan of Steel is a stand alone film with no guarantee that a additional films following its continuity will actually be produced.
As for the link to{{DC Comics animated films}}, frankly thatboth templates intersect atList of films based on DC Comics should be sufficient navigation between the two. There is no reason to dump readers out of the navbox on a template page.
On a side note, if there is a consensus to shift "series" to "franchise" there may be grounds to merge the two tempates. Thought that may cause an issue with how the animated films are grouped which is by "brand".
There wasn't anything wrong with the latest format just to change it. Catwoman is officially not part of the Batman franchise and everyone knows it. Basically you changed a lot of other editors decent edits just because you want it your way. The navbox was clear on what franchise was different than anything else.Jhenderson77718:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although you made a good point on the animated films being on the same article. Keep in mind that the reader's last place to navigate at might not be the main article and they might want to know of the animated films next that link will be useful for that.Jhenderson77718:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also I do like the format of dividing the film series with the first year to start. It is nice to explain that the series aren't the same but be in the same section of where there is a "X in film" article if that particular article covers the certain film. That was never my edit but I prefer the newer look than the older.Jhenderson77719:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better but really large as I would expect with the merge. I still prefer bracketing the Richard Donner's cut. Since watching it I notice that it's more of a reedit or a extended version of Superman 2 and we need to explain that a little.Jhenderson77719:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was, and is, within the real ofWP:BRD. And the restructuring is a bold edit.
Withany discussion it is considered polite to hold off reverting until it is done. You may wan to consider that and your current actions.
With regard to Catwoman and Steel please seeMedia franchise - they seem to fall into the Batman and Superman franchises of characters respectively even though they are not part of afilm series.
The reverting was for what I feel is for the bettering of the template. I feel we are both guilty of it and neither of us has broke any reverting rules yet. Catwoman and Steel are just quasi-spinoffs and they are no sources proving that they have anything to do with being in the same universe of the film series. There isn't much to prove that the Catwoman of the film has anything to do with the comic version even. AndSuperman in film andBatman in film articles are specific with what belongs as part of the franchise.Jhenderson77719:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re: Donner... In all honesty I don't think it should have been cleaved off of II. As you point out it's a "special directors cut" and just about theonly one to have its own article. It should have been a properly weighted section of the main article.
On the size... yeah, but it does reflect the amount of material DC has had put to film and allow a little bit easier "cross navigation".
It having it's own article is not a reason to say it's a different movie. The Donner's Cut is one of the few that has it's own article and I am not sure it has proven enough notability to be on it's own article. (just enough information forWP:Split) It's just likeSpider-Man 2.1. But since has it's own article it belongs here but it doesn't prove that it shouldn't have a bracket saying that it's affiliated with 2. I think it looks better and more specific that way.Jhenderson77719:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re: Catwoman and Steel. Fair enough, though I think a review of "Media franchise" and "Film series" may be in order. The former allows for a broad collection of characters and the latter seems to rely on placing the films in the same "loose" continuity. Since the included "... in film" articles spell out a criteria - titular character with shared continuity films - I'll flip them back in my proposal. -J Greb (talk)19:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's good that we have had time to rest this conversation but...what of the merge. Are you thinking about attempting it?Jhenderson77719:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I am fine with the template the way it is.However, with the BvS film also fitting into the Batman category, I am sure that controversy is going to arise over its position on this template. While there is no concrete evidence to support it, it should be pretty obvious to any observer of this industry that BvS is going to be followed by a Justice League film. For this reason, I propose that only when such a movie goes into production and has its own article that MoS and BvS be moved from the Superman section into a "Justice League" section and until that day comes, the status quo should be maintained. This avoids any alternate made-up names such as "DC Cinematic Universe" becoming necessary. --DilatoryRevolution (talk)16:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I say we move man of steel, batman v superman, suicide squad, Wonder Woman, justice league 1, flash, aquaman, shaman, justice league 2, cyborg, and the green lantern reboot into a new section called the dc cinematic universe seeing as they are technically part of the same franchise. By the way lets move the 1966 batman film and superman and the mole man into the signal film category as no other films were made based on the them. Let's also move the 2011 green lantern into the signal films category as well seeing as it will have no sequels. And finally, let's move all of the films that were based on dc imprints into its own category.— Precedingunsigned comment added by174.101.152.251 (talk)02:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will someone please unlock this. Any way I suggest that we branch all the films set in the Dc shared universe into a separate franchise column than superman.— Precedingunsigned comment added by50.5.219.27 (talk)22:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing how zealous some Wikipedia users are, I decided to write my justification for removingMan of Steel andBatman v Superman from the Superman franchise list andBatman v Superman from the Batman franchise list, and instead create DC Extended Universe franchise.
1) Setting up the franchises based on character is the way the Marvel movies template does, but this template does NOT have to be that. None of the Marvel franchises have been through has many iterations and versions as the Batman and Superman franchises have.
2) The respective films all relate to one another, these are not "standalones" but rather films that bleed into one another, a cinematic universe. It looks like Batman will appear inSuicide Squad, does that make it a Batman movie? Having a consistent DC Extended Universe section of this template has one unified area, not a bunch of individual characters and franchises vying for attention even they though they are all related.
3) It eliminates confusion. IsBatman v Superman a Batman movie? A Superman movie? Does it belong in one section or both? For now, I think putting it in the DC Extended Universe section prevents this type of confusion and bickering about what goes where.
1. You'd have to create a franchise for virtually every type (example Donner, Burton etc); which we don't, due to reboots, hence why the current scheme for each character is perfect.
2. Suicide Squad isn't a Batman film though, and an appearance of a character, even more so a cameo, doesn't change that.
3. A feeble argument regarding the placement of such a scheme, purely for the third point. You can easily deal with that by listing Dawn of Justice within the single film section, or bearing in mind Snyder's comments of the Man of Steel sequel; issue solves.--Bartallen2 (talk)15:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. There are subsections for the respective Donner and Burton Superman and Batman franchises...?
2. Whose to say? What are the criteria for being Batman film? Based on my experience, we'll have to reach a consensus about whether or not it does count eventually rather then laying down a ruling now that can apply for the rest of forever now. There is no avoiding that conversation, so might as well address it now with a move that avoids controversy and contention later down the line.
3.The edits, as you undid them, now meanBatman v. Superman is listed twice. So, under your model, we're going with redundancy over efficiency? Nevermind, this isn't the case anymore, but again I would argue that this solution would nip further discussion or conversation about whetherBatman v. Superman is a Batman film or a Superman film in the bud forever.
A lot of your responses to my point strike me as unnecessarily petty. It just basically boils down to you saying "no, it's not like that" in response to my questions. This is to start a discussion, not shoot down any contrarian opinion, I would prefer you stating as a whole why you are opposed to this idea rather than nit-picking arguments against individual questions I proposed.Fireflyfanboy (talk)18:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Batman v Superman should be in the Single Films category
Even though it is follows the events ofMan of Steel, both Batman and Superman are getting equal treatment in this film. In fact, Ben Affleck is getting top billing over Henry Cavill in the credits. Because of this unique circumstance, I believe that it should be in the Single Films section as it straddles both the Batman and Superman categories.Richiekim (talk)15:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only thingRichiekim was it initially was announced as the sequel toMan of Steel. Then someone said it was, that a "true" sequel would still happen. Then it may have went back to being the sequel. I really don't know where we stand at the moment. I do sort of agree with your placement, but if we know 100% that it is the sequel toMan of Steel it should move back to the Superman franchise section. -Favre1fan93 (talk)18:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggested puttingMan of Steel,Batman v. Superman,Suicide Squad andWonder Woman in a separate DC Extended Universe section to avoid this type of confusion, but that idea got shot down (as you can see above)... unless you two think it's a good idea?Fireflyfanboy (talk)19:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While Henry Cavill stated that he didn't see it as being a true sequel, Zack Snyder later revealed that it to him, Batman v Superman is in fact a true sequel to Man of Steel since it organically continues the story or something like that. Leave it where it is and if it bugs you, look for the interview. --Schmeater (talk)03:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not correct to listSuicide Squad and the upcoming DCEU films as "single films". ListingBatman v Superman as a "Superman" film is also misleading. As they are not single films, or purely Superman films, but all part of the same continuity, the only way to correctly assign these films in here is as a single franchise, starting withMan of Steel, which they are. --Rob Sinden (talk)11:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a "franchise"Suicide Squad is a single film. As forBvS underSuperman, it was originally mentioned by Snyder/Warners etc. as the sequel toMan of Steel, but I think as it evolved, that stance has changed, and it is more a single film now, given aMan of Steel sequel is being developed. -Favre1fan93 (talk)21:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the template is grouping films by character franchises, then no, nothing I have stated is made up. That is how the template is sorted by for the "Franchise" section. -Favre1fan93 (talk)22:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you suggesting that this needs to be grouped by character? The character isn't the franchise when it comes to the DCEU.Batman v Superman is not part of a single Batman or a Superman franchise, but the DCEU franchise. To suggest otherwise isWP:OR. --Rob Sinden (talk)12:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting it; I'm telling you that that is what the consensus has been established for the sorting of the navbox. If you don't like that, form a new consensus to change the sorting from franchises centered on characters, to something else. -Favre1fan93 (talk)17:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that consensus. What I see is on this talk page is a number of editors suggesting, like me, that the current format is not the correct way of presenting the information, and no real discussion since more films were released/announced. --Rob Sinden (talk)07:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are 4 movies released and 16 planned in the DCEU. 1 is listed under Superman, 1 will probably get listed under Batman. That leaves 17 movies from the same franchise listed as "single movies" when they clearly are not.Brooza (talk)16:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. We have a link in "See also" to the DCEU article, but given there are vastly more filmsnot in the DCEU, it is still a better organizing tool to sort by Franchise (characters), with single films also added. -Favre1fan93 (talk)16:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me thatFavre1fan93 unable to handle any reasonable changes to the template, It does seems to me thatRob Sinden's points are all completely valid that DCEU films make up a franchise and should not be listed as singular films as Rob said its incorrect way of presenting the information and the temple doesn't match the articles that are being presented, I have tried to insert this change to Temple with little result, because of Mr Farve. I would suggest that this being put up for vote if that the proper way to establish an consensus on the issue, if not sure mr Farve will ever see the light of his error.DoctorHver (talk)00:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I keep telling you, there isn't consensus to change as you keep doing. Yes this discussion is here, but there isn't consensus. There is nothing wrong with the format now, having the franchises by characters, and an appropriate link to the DCEU in the see also section. So yes, we can keep discussing here if you wish, but as it stands, there isn't consensus to alter the formatting. And that can change if more discussion is had. -Favre1fan93 (talk)00:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hum, maintaining a wrong presentation of content does not sound very reasonable or logical or consensus to me at allRob Sinden's, comments previously are completely reasonable as I have already said, and what has been established in 2013 is completely outdated now in 2017, with the 5th DCEU film coming out in Novemeber 2017. Now I do see several other wrongs with the current setup. Well Let me start with the name, The template is called DC Comics films, if that means films should be shorted into the franchises they belong not based on what individual characters appears in since the name of the template is not DC Comics films by Characters, in that case both 2 Batman serials, and 2 Superman serials shouldnot be included within the list temple serial f or singular serials, but within Franchies, and under Batman and then Superman, since we are including 1966 Batman film under Batman not as singular film. The same should also actually then apply to Batman vs Superman (2015) should be listed twice once with Superman and once with Batman. Then and then every single movie should get its own subsection as they are based after all on various different source materials. So the current setup actually contradicts itself in various ways. its just unfortunate that certain someone doesn't see itDoctorHver (talk)02:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already tried to make theJoker suggestion above, but it was ignored. I found out that I think a reorganisation of the navbox should be done: I think that DCEU films should be identified by a symbol (as I already tried to do, but the edit was legitimately reversed) with an explaining legend below; I think the division between serials and feature films should be removed, at least for serials that could make part of a franchise (that could also be resolved with a "serial" symbol, if really needed); I would also like to point out that a division between films based onDC Universe works and others could be done, because, for example, theThe League of Extraordinary Gentlemen film is not based on a work set in theMultiverse, but rather a distinct and non-co-existant reality. --King Remils (talk)15:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Per recent changes, it makes sense that the imprint films are not stated above franchises about DC Comics proper films. Additionally, the Suicide Squad, Swamp Thing, and Wonder Woman franchise subheadings do not need further year subheadings because there have only been one set of films for each, unlike Batman and Superman, who have had multiple and need delineations. -Favre1fan93 (talk)18:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Green Mansions is kind of the reverse in that there was a DC comic book inspired by it (Rima, the Jungle Girl, who even appeared onSuper Friends). Being that it's owned by Warner Bros., it would at least be "of interest" even though it's more of a drama than an action film (I've seen it, but my memories of it have gotten vague). I thought it would be better to mention it here rather than boldly at it to the template. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk)00:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please move Constantine out of the 'Imprints' section
Not done:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is listed under 2013 for Superman. There's been a lot of discussion about this on the talk page above and there's no consensus to add a second link to Batman's section.EvergreenFir(talk)Please {{re}}19:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
