Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Plot Summary

Currently, it's written that, "A memorial is held for Superman in Metropolis. Clark is also declared dead, with various friends and family members including Bruce Wayne and Diana Prince attending for him in Smallville." Is it possible to insert "and Arlington National Cemetery" after Metropolis? Bignole and I had a previous discussion on this and suggested I should put it on the talk page. Lo and behold. After some painful lesson, I finally learned how to do it. I just want global readers understand the significance of Superman to the United States.Supermann (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that the significance will be conveyed to global readers. Even if they read about the cemetery, the fact remains that it's fictional. He isn't a real person buried there, so the "real" significance is non-existence to the fact that the writers chose to do that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Looks like you are the only one disagreeing. I have added the cemetery info to the soundtrack page at Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (soundtrack)#Music not included in the soundtrack. I think it is at least more relevant there.Supermann (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
@Bignole: Your argument doesn't hold water at all. The whole movie is a fiction! Stop engaging edit war! Use WP:DRN! Supermann (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Where does it say, in the movie, that it's Arlington National Cemetery? A direct quote would be helpful. DonQuixote (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@DonQuixote: Not only do I recognize it because I have served, but here: http://screenrant.com/batman-v-superman-ending-explained-darkseid/. You tell @Bignole: to stop bossing around! Many thanks! Supermann (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
First, you recognizing it is original research and can't be accepted. Secondly, the plot summary is only citing the film itself, so you can't cite a secondary source in the cite summary. You can, however, cite it in a footnote or in a more appropriate section, such as Filming. DonQuixote (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The film never identifies the cemetery. The fact that they use that cemetery for filming is irrelevant to the PLOT, not to the filming section though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
This is not about original research anymore once it has a good citation. I said that only to tell you I am interested to add it in. What's wrong to have interest in the first place? In plot summary, it shouldn't need to be cited at all in the first place. I can't find further citation regarding it's physically filmed at Arlington. What if they used green/blue screen? IMDb does say it was filmed in DC, but IMDb is not reliable source per policy. But as the citation explains, it's Arlington. You tell me how this is an irrelevant detail as @Bignole: had put it?! Supermann (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok! Seems like I am allowed to mention it in Filming section. I'll put it there. Thanks! Supermann (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Except, I don't recall the film actually showing that it was "Arlington Cememtary". The fact that you know it is, or that a source names it that doesn't meant that the film did. We went through this with Doomsday. Lex says "he's your doomsday", he doesn't say "His name is Doomsday" or refer to him with "Doomsday" being a pronoun. Thus, we don't actually refer to the creature as Doomsday. The same is true for the cemetery. It's irrelevant at the end, because it DOES NOT enhance the readers' understanding of the fact that he died and was buried by two sets of people.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
You can mention it there if you have a source that says it was filmed there. I checked your source, and it doesn't talk about filming, just mentions that he is buried there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Seriously, you need to start with a direct quote like "filmed at Arlington Cemetery" before you can cite it for claiming that it was "filmed at Arlington Cemetery". DonQuixote (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
You guys just can't compromise, huh? You are downgrading the country's treatment to Superman! The naturalized immigrant died for the country and you wouldn't even acknowledge it? US Army uniformed soldiers joined the funeral. The tributes were paid by three sets of people, not two sets. 21 guns were performed. General Swanwick and Major Carrie Ferris were there. They were not at the memorial at Smallville or Metropolis. It's our job to help summarize it to educate the readers. Supermann (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Dude, Superman is a fictional character. He's not real. This movie is a work of fiction.
Also, this article is part of an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedias have rules such as citing reliable secondary sources and properly summarizing primary sources. Encyclopaedias treat movies as works of fiction. DonQuixote (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
So @DonQuixote:, are you agreeing with Bignole in saying that the Arlington funeral in the plot summary is irrelevant or it has no reliable source? I am confused!!!! I totally don't get it. You guys are shifting your arguments around! Supermann (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Arlington Cemetery isn't mentioned in the movie, so you can't mention it in the plot summary. As for reliable sources, the source you provided doesn't mention that it was "filmed at Arlington cemetery" so you can't use it to claim that it was "filmed at Arlington cemetery". It's that simple. DonQuixote (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I have taken you two to WP:DRN. Arlington is shown in the movie. No one should deny it. You two are not even real Americans. Supermann (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Where else could this funeral be held if it ain't Arlington? I am sure it was just an oversight by Zack Snyder. http://imgur.com/nCvStKo Supermann (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Hate to break it to you, but Superman isn't a real American either--he's a fictional character. Also, drawing any conclusion from that image is original research. It falls under specialist knowledge. DonQuixote (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Superman represents the best American one could be! Apparently Zack Snyder thought you guys would be smart and patriotic enough to recognize the place. He is dead wrong! Supermann (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I honestly cannot tell if you're trolling or if you actually believe what you're saying. It makes it difficult to have an adult, rational conversation about why things can be placed in certain locations and what restrictions we have. Especially when you fall back on personal attacks and just odd statements.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I am appealing to your patriotism, not trolling. Why don't you cite me a WP policy in which it says plot summary cannot include summarization, backed by secondary sources, if the film did not identify it easily enough for you? thanks. Supermann (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. (emphasis mine}} DonQuixote (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
That policy did not dictate how plot summary for a film must be written. It did not say one could only use primary source and not a single shred of secondary source. You are misusing the policy and I have problems with that. You tell me how including this Arlington detail in plot summary would actually hurt readers globally? Not "irrelevant" again. Supermann (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
First, appealing to our patriotism? It isn't unpatriotic to state that because a film does not explicitly identify a location that is military in nature should not be included in the plot. As for the details, see WP:FILMPLOT, which says that we should avoid technical details and minutia, such as the specific name of a cemetery (which the film itself didn't even bother to identify).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
MOS:PLOT: Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work...Even small details that might be clear on a word-by-word or frame-by-frame analysis – steps well beyond the normal act of reading or watching a work – should be considered original research and excluded from such articles. DonQuixote (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
WP:FILMPLOT did not specifically say the name of a cemetery is minutia. For it to be minutia, it has to be often of negligible importance. How is Arlington of a negligible importance? The sequence totals more than 1 minute of the whole film. This is not to mention that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film, itself not being a policy, allows occasional exception known as Wikipedia:Ignore all rules at the top. As for MOS:PLOT, again, Arlington now has a reliable secondary source from Ben Kendrick, managing editor of Screenrant.com, who commits his real identity. None of your arguments holds water. Supermann (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
You are misdirecting real life significance to fictional significance, not to mention the most important fact: THE FILM DOES NOT SAY WHERE HE IS BURIED. :) A film reviewer identifying a location does not negate what the film does or does not do. It's a very simple fact of business.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Seriously, what part of Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work do you not understand? The key phrase being "obvious recap". DonQuixote (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
This is NOT ABOUT WHERE HE IS BURIED. This is about whether a funeral was held at Arlington. By significance, the memorial at Metropolis is only 45 seconds, shorter than the one in Arlington. Again, the style manual did not prohibit using secondary sources to describe the plot. This is not about me not understanding "obvious recap". This is about you two not allowing IAR for just four little words! For "obvious recap", the sentence says "should" and "secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research." What part of IAR did you two not understand? Supermann (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Clearly IAR is the rule to be ignored here as the only person waving it around has a clear unencyclopaedic bias (e.g. "patriotism"). Other than that, following every other rule involving primary sources is acceptable. DonQuixote (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Then ignoring IAR will clearly be a violation of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film. Let's see what DRN says.Supermann (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Guidelines and policies exist for a reason. They represent norms and practices that have been formed through consensus, usually over the course of many years. While WP:IAR encourages common-sense editing without fear of violating a specific rule, you are still expected to adequately explain your position and gain consensus for your proposed change when challenged. A strong argument and a willingness to work with others is usually all you need. Here, I'm not sure if an exception should or shouldn't be made based on what's been stated so far, but let's not forget to consider alternative solutions. Does the location really need to be stated, including Metropolis? What about just stating:

"A memorial is held for Superman, while Clark is also declared dead. Various friends and family members, including Bruce Wayne and Diana Prince, attended his funeral in Smallville.

If the only solution you'll accept is to insert Arlington National Cemetery, then perhaps improving the article isn't your primary goal. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: If it were up to me, in order not to exceed preferred word limit of 700, I would remove some other minutia in the paragraphs above, such as powered exoskeleton, a kryptonite grenade launcher, the spear, engagement ring, etc, so that some imagination was left for the readers. In the meantime, "A memorial is held for Superman in Metropolis. Clark is also declared dead, with various friends and family members including Bruce Wayne and Diana Prince attending for him in Smallville" could simply be modified into "Funerals/Memorials were held for Superman at Smallville, Arlington National Cemetery and Metropolis" (in that cinematic order). Again, the seconds of scenes in Metropolis memorial is about 20 fewer than Arlington's. The importance of mentioning Arlington is that Uncle Sam has made it into a state funeral, elevating Superman's stature as the country's soldier. This is like MAVNI. In today's complicated world, Superman should be the figure that unites all of us. The job ain't Jesus, Mohammad, or Buddha's. Supermann (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but that last bit is original research. You would need to cite a reliable secondary source that says anything like that. DonQuixote (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Other areas of improvement should certainly be considered, but here, we are focusing on the details surrounding the funeral processions. The Smallville location deals with Clark Kent, not Superman, so that part should likely remain untouched. For the other locations, one option is to include Metropolis and ANC, while another is to avoid mentioning either. Does the plot suffer without mentioning them? Maybe, maybe not. I understand your point about how the presence at ANC elevates his stature, and it's a reasonable point to consider. However, we should only be including details that are plainly interpreted by anyone watching the film, including those who may not know what ANC is or may not recognize the place when shown an image of it. Though many in the U.S. would, many from other countries may not. As described at WP:WORLDVIEW, articles should avoid cultural bias or the assumption that common knowledge in one country is more important than common knowledge in another. That's another point to consider here. Would the average person, regardless of background, understand that this is a depiction of Arlington National Cemetery?
The plot summary may not be the best location to include interpretations that are cited by secondary sources. A better place might be in the critical response section, should it be deemed necessary. That section is better suited to accommodate analysis from varying points of view. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
No legit media is analyzing the MAVNI angle. They lack the manpower and budget to do so. Journalists are being laid off. Wikipedia should be the last sanctuary from this tough economic environment. I am only a naturalized Asian American. Even I think it's important to mention ANC. WP:WORLDVIEW is just an essay, not even policy. Even if there is policy, we should consider IAR. If readers don't understand, we need to educate them, as simple as that. Personally, my bias is I hate wars. I am not militaristic. I practice what Desmond Doss preach in Hacksaw Ridge. Supermann (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep in mind that many essays explain policies and guidelines in more detail, and some are widely accepted and cited. The policy the essay refers to is WP:NPOV, which opposes bias in many forms. The essay lists one such form that is often considered in discussions within the film WikiProject. There's nothing wrong with citing an essay that represents your viewpoint. As for IAR, it can be considered at any time, but you still need consensus to uphold a change you've made by invoking IAR. Your main interest here should be to focus on why the content should be included, and spend less time analyzing what is and what isn't a rule. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Looking back, how did we derive "18 months" in "Eighteen months after the battle between Superman and General Zod in Metropolis, Superman has become a controversial figure"? I was perusing the subtitles and I could see Bruce Wayne said, "That son of a bitch brought the war to us two years ago" and I could also hear a female news anchor say Wallace Keefe "lost both his legs in those horrific events in Metropolis that happened two years ago." In another scene, "a mineral capable of weakening Kryptonian cells, the first sample big enough to mean something, turned up in the Indian Ocean three months ago." But how did our primary source directly or indirectly even state 18 months? That's a lot of math for me to jump through. Somebody please explain. Also, how is writing "Despite turning a profit, it was deemed a box office disappointment and received generally unfavorable reviews from critics for its tone, screenplay and pacing, though some praised its visual style and acting performances" WP:NPOV? I feel it's more negative than positive. Supermann (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
This discussion is going to get derailed if you keep changing the focus. The recent dispute is about including ANC, so let's try to resolve that one before creating another. If you'd like to start a new thread about the other issues, please do in a separate section or be bold and try a fix. For the "Despite turning a profit.." statement, I suggest you search the talk page archives here for past discussions. There have been quite a few surrounding that one. I wouldn't recommend changing it without discussing first. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
If you read WP:NPOV, it's about editors being neutral in the face of what reliable sources are saying. Reliable sources don't have to be neutral and editors should accurately reflect the proportionality and prominence of the views of reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@GoneIn60: The reason I brought up "18 months" is that @Bignole: and @DonQuixote: prefer primary source - the movie itself - for plot summary, but I double-checked and just can't get the math. As for the "box office disappointment", I did see the archived discussion and thought Bignole shares my dislike for the word "disappointment" there. I was trying to seek some common ground with him so that maybe he could change his mind for ANC. :p Supermann (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
"Eighteen months later" should probably be removed. Things like that sneak in sometimes from editors who don't bother to discuss it on the talk page. DonQuixote (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Just checked the theatrical cut and ultimate edition. There's a title card that literally says "18 Months later". DonQuixote (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Just checked too. The 18 months is indeed embarrassing for me. :p Let's focus back on ANC then. Another idea just popped into my mind. If none of you is willing to include ANC in plot summary even after DRN, what if the Blu-ray bonus materials indicate it is ANC and/or physically filmed in ANC. Can we use it as primary source for inclusion? Many thanks. Supermann (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The DRN is saying that you should follow policy. Which means that if the Blu-ray bonus material mentions it, then it can be included as a footnote or in a more appropriate place, like Production...which have already been suggested above. DonQuixote (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Didn't mean to be argumentative, but I have contested the DRN result, since it does not allow IAR to be used at all. I still think the plot summary needs to be re-written to inlude Arlington, not elsewhere. And I didn't suggest it there because you people think I am biased as a militaristic person. I am a 7th-day adventist. Supermann (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
IAR shouldn't be used because you're the only person waving it around. And your bias shows whenever you accuse others of not being a "real American". DonQuixote (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
That's not my bias. That's my pride. American by choice! Like Superman did. Ignore me all you want, but he is worthy of IAR. And you're denying him. Supermann (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I have a new source saying the scene of Arlington is filmed in Michigan now! Hope you guys approve! Supermann (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Plot Summary II

I just watched this awful movie. Criticism aside, the actual movie and this plot summary have only a faint resemblance. It would have been a much better movie if it was the one described in this summary, but it was not made that way. It was practically incoherent. Please note that Lex Luthor has a LOT of screen time which this supposed plot summary neglects. Batman (I'd have to check; was he being called that in the movie?) developed what amounted to an insane and juvenile hatred of Superman - supposedly because Superman was involved in fights with large innocent civilian "collateral damage". In the penultimate scene with Batman standing over Superman ready to finish him off, Lois didn't "reason with him". Watch it again, he just didn't have the guts or perhaps the insanity to follow through (inexplicably, imho), especially with her as a witness. I'll also question whether the appearance of the Flash, Cyborg or Aquaman is notable, but I'll leave that for another day.174.130.48.221 (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The plot is not supposed to re-create the experience of watching the movie (I've seen it before too; the plot is pretty accurate from what I can remember). ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Screen time does not dictate how much time they get in a plot summary. He may appear a lot, but that doesn't mean he can't be summarized very quickly. He is referred as a "The Bat", credited as "Batman", and Alfred says "You got more as Bruce Wayne than as Batman". As for Lois, it shouldn't say "reason with him" so much as (it used to) say "explain what Superman meant" (fixed). You're right, she didn't reason with him, but you're wrong in that he didn't kill Superman because he didn't have the guts. He's clearly confused in the scene as to what happens. I can have an entire discussion with you about trauma and trauma triggers, and what actually happened with Batman (which Affleck accurately conveyed) but this isn't the place for that. There isn't any mention of Flash, Cyborg, and Aquaman from a detailed perspective. The Flash's moment is only mentioned as an unidentified person, and the others are lumped into a "Lex is investigating other metahumans" sentence. Pretty much takes 5 minutes worth of material and summarizes in 5 words. Seems sufficient to me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Creator Credits

Despite a warning against this in the infobox it should absolutely include each of at least the title characters creators as it is not only a requirement in the credits of the film itself but also an important piece of information about the work itself and its writing. It is in no way different than including Bram Stoker's credit in an adaption of Dracula or Arthur Conan Doyle in a derivative work of Sherlock Holmes, these characters and their stories were created by these people and as such any work that is based on their efforts should be credited to them. Shallowgravy (talk)

Technically, the film says "Based on characters in DC Comics", because there were too many characters to put their creators in the opening titles. They are not required by anything to put creators in the opening credits when there are that many characters (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Flash, Mercy Graves, Doomsday, KG Beast, Parademons all have different creators). They are required to acknowledge that these characters are based on another work, and in legal contract as well as in the end credits they are required to detail all the credits. That's why the credits actually list each of the creators. So, no we shouldn't be putting it in the infobox because we cannot simply cherry pick because WE think it should be. We follow the film credits. That's why we also don't put certain actors in the infobox that don't actually get a starring credit, regardless of screen time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

How is this article this long, and how is there FIVE archived discussions?

Sorry but you fanboys/girls really need to get a life. This movie is simply not historically or culturally significant enough (or at all) to have an article this ridiculously long. I'm recommending that this article be pared down and tidied up substantially. Start with the introduction -- way too long, and it gets worse from there. Alialiac (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring your uncivil comment for a moment, what is it about the length that's upsetting you? If it really is just about length, then you might not want to look at Iron Man, Captain America: The First Avenger, Spider-Man: Homecoming, or any of the other films in the MCU. You might just have a meltdown! Come to think of it, you should probably steer clear of any blockbuster film article. Of course, you could always be WP:BOLD and fix whatever you see wrong yourself. Good luck! --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Wonderful that fan's of these series go to such trouble to make the Wiki entries as accurate as possible. Love being able to ask Google a question about a particular moment in a movie and having the top links take me to places like this where people have taken from their personal time, freely, to explain everything from the obvious to, often enough, the most obscure facts and bits of opinion. Don't listen to the haters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruneauinfo (talk • contribs) 18:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Zack Snyder's Vision on Batman v Superman

The neutral standpoint is being battled by fans and critics. Statistics do show what the general public think about the movie in general however, is this what the movie should be rated on? We know fans loved the movie and others deem it to fall within the lines of what Rotten Tomatoes think. Though what I fail to see is that its not mentioned much on what Snyder's vision even was. Snyder himself has said, “I love the characters, and maybe to a fault sometimes, I dork out on the hardcore aspects of the comic books.” [1] This comes to reflect as to why his vision is so dark. Is this page to criticize his work based on having no knowledge of the comics or is it on having an honest opinion with knowledge on knowing how dark DC comics are? The general public does not get this nor will it ever without completely understanding where Snyder's vision truly comes from. I see this information to be extremely significant when it comes to referencing Batman v Superman as just a failure and flop from the general public. Especially when the film is being praised by those who understand where Snyder is coming from. Sanchez.Rigoberto (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Self-published blogs are not considered reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Pierznik, Christopher (11 May 2018). "The Brilliance of Zack Snyder's DC Universe". The Passion of Christopher Pierznik. Retrieved 8 September 2018.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2018

I think it would be great if there could be a scholarly analysis section (or a comparable section from other Wikipedia pages about movies), discussing how film studies scholars have analyzed the film since its release. Perhaps for now, rather than creating a new section, it would be best to include scholarly responses under the Critical Response section. Here is one example:

In 2018, the journal Mise-en-scène published "Applying Suspense to Archetypal Superheroes: Hitchcockian Ambiguity in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice," which argued that the film "applies a remarkable amount of Hitchcockian thrills to a story pitting two protagonists against one another within a villain’s conspiracy to cre-ate the first live-action Hitchcockian superhero thriller featuring branded, culturally established characters. By displacing its protagonists from their inherently justified positions, it creates a critical moral ambiguity that directly deconstructs the assumptions at the heart of Western society’s two most archetypal superheroes.": https://journals.sfu.ca/msq/index.php/msq/article/view/86/pdf Usagienthusiast (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2018 (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. Jack Frost (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Change: Eisenberg responded to the critiques by saying he attempted to "make these people real and relatable and interesting and engaging, not just, you know, a surface bad person."[319]

To: Eisenberg responded to the critiques by saying he attempted to "make these people real and relatable and interesting and engaging, not just, you know, a surface bad person."[319]

(new paragraph below)

In June 2018, Mise-en-scène: The Journal of Film & Visual Narration published the article "Applying Suspense to Archetypal Superheroes: Hitchcockian Ambiguity in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice," which argued that the film "applies a remarkable amount of Hitchcockian thrills to a story pitting two protagonists against one another within a villain’s conspiracy to create the first live-action Hitchcockian superhero thriller featuring branded, culturally established characters. By displacing its protagonists from their inherently justified positions, it creates a critical moral ambiguity that directly deconstructs the assumptions at the heart of Western society’s two most archetypal superheroes." Source: [1] Usagienthusiast (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://journals.sfu.ca/msq/index.php/msq/article/view/86/pdf
 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. DannyS712 (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Edits needed for plot summary

I am not a wikipedia editor, so I am flagging this for someone to do. But the plot summary calls Superman a "retard" and lists the date of the previous movie as 1888. 2601:182:4201:83F0:E9BE:62B3:E0EA:1447 (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit

Remove the quotation marks from "deterrent" in the plot summary.

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Remove the statement "however, Michael Shannon did not film any scenes for the film and the corpse was created using the physique of fitness model Greg Plitt and a head-shot of Shannon.", because it's only sourced to to a youtube video. DCBVS (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. NiciVampireHeart 14:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Themes and Analysis

I am new to wikipedia. I have suggestions for additions to the themes and analysis section.

Several critics have noted the similarities between the destruction of Metropolis and 9/11.

John Beifuss wrote "The idea is that just as 9/11 had a transformative existential impact on the psyche of America (hello, President Donald Trump), the battle of Metropolis -- and the subsequent realization that an all-powerful alien could destroy his adopted planet with ease -- has altered human consciousness, creating new standards of morality and levels of fear -- "the feeling of powerlessness that turns good men cruel," in the words of Wayne's butler, Alfred (Jeremy Irons)."[2] He says that Batman comes out of the Metropolis battle scene as "a changed -- and even more deranged -- man."[2]

Kaleem Aftab wrote the film "is about the confusion that America has been in since 9/11", and "was intended as an unpleasant lambast of the government and the popular reaction to 9/11."[3] In addition, he wrote "As a writer who is Muslim, I find it rare to see a protagonist that represents me in American film, but Batman v Superman positions Kal-El as an unfortunate victim, tarnished because of the actions of others deemed to be his contemporaries." [3] He also wrote the film "is a condemnation of what America is becoming, a place where immigrants, especially those unfairly tainted because of the mass destruction caused by a few, are no longer part of a viable American dream."[3] 

Beifuss, John (March 25, 2016). "'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' - A Review". The Commercial Appeal. Archived from the original on |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help). Retrieved May 25, 2020.
Aftab, Kaleem (March 28, 2016). "'Batman v Superman' Is Actually a Good Depiction of the American Muslim Experience". Vice.

I think I could have worded the transitions better, and I need help with finding the archive date for The Commercial Appeal review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pineapple4321 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

The first line says "featuring the DC Comics characters Batman and Superman. ", normally movies are described as "based on the DC characters", cause the actual DC character is a separate entity. The actual character isn't featured in the movie, but rather, their own take, based on the character. Rtc7788 (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

i want to edit Kadkemeh (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. DonQuixote (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Improving Themes Section

In the themes section, the first source from Richard Brody takes the most space out of any of the sources on the themes section. His view is also not shared by anyone else I can find. I assume the editor put his analysis first because it is from the New Yorker. I think his quote and analysis should be reduced and moved to later in the section, because I can't find another source that agrees with it, and there are several more sources that have the opposite view of the political themes. If you have any recommendations on how to solve this issue, feel free to give them. I also think the themes section could be expanded much more. Pineapple4321 (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I’d like to add a HUGE +1 to this. I glared at my phone when I opened the themes section only to be greeted by this bizarre lede to a section. Just because someone writes for the New Yorker does not mean that their weird, over-simplified analysis deserves to open the section and have three entire paragraphs dedicated to it. Especially when the analysis equates to, “colors mean republicans and democrats and if he’s saying democrats are bad then I think that is wrong and also bad”. I’ve never seen the film, but it’s really really off-putting to open the Themes section of a film and see this. Length doesn’t equate to notability or weight-of-importance in an article, but there’s three entire paragraphs dedicated to this one guy’s opinion, with everything from one source. It’s not NEARLY notable enough an opinion to warrant that much real estate in the section, and considering that it’s far from a popular theory, it needs to be moved.

As an aside, the formatting is a mess too. The writer’s analysis should NOT be mixed in with the lede to the section as, again, it implies that the opinion has significant weight to the rest of the section. Regardless of what happens here, that needs to be moved to its own individual paragraph. Thatdave (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Plot summary

The first line of the plot summary isn't good. First off, the scene isn't really a flashback as it is the first scene of the film. Maybe you could argue since it has adult Bruce's narration, it is a flashback, but it is disputable. Also "memorable encounter with bats" isn't a good way of summarizing the scene. Plus, the fact that he sees his parents murdered in front of him, while it may be well known to a general audience, is still important information to include. Pineapple4321 (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Be bold and make the changes you think would improve it. If it's controversial, then it'll get reverted and then we can discuss it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
First, I'm not sure I understand your reasoning that it's not "really a flashback" since it occurs at the beginning of the film. The LA Times review clearly refers to both this scene and the Superman-Zod battle as flashbacks. Second, the way you phrased the bat encounter, "where he is risen alongside bats", just sounds awkward. I did retain the part about seeing his parents getting murdered, as that can arguably be an important distinction to make. Open to suggestions if you think this needs further tweaking, but challenging the use of "flashback" seems unnecessary. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say "In a dream, Bruce recalls..." - as the dialogue from him just as he flies up with the bats and the Superman/Zod fight takes over indicates that the child Bruce stuff is a dream. Hence why we get an actual "The day the world was introduced to the Superman" tag afterward.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, after watching the sequence back, even the current phrasing seems off: "In a flashback after witnessing his parents' murder, Bruce Wayne falls into a cave while running from the funeral, where he has a memorable encounter with a legion of bats." The problem is that the flashback is both remembering the night of his parents' murder while running from the funeral. In fact, that sequence switches constantly back and forth between the two events. I'm sure that can be phrased better. Maybe something like:
In a flashback to his childhood, Bruce Wayne runs from his parents' funeral while remembering the night they were murdered. He falls into a cave, where he has a memorable encounter with a legion of bats.
Additional thoughts? I think that fixes the opening part, but do we need to revisit "a memorable encounter with a legion of bats". I think this was trimmed down before to save space, and we've already added space by mentioning the "parents' murder". --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I would say the scene isn't a flashback as the a flashback is described on wikipedia as "is an interjected scene that takes the narrative back in time from the current point in the story." As the scene is the opening scene of the film there is no prior established current point in the story, meaning the scene isn't taking the narrative back in time. If the scene happened in the middle of the film, I would consider it a flashback. On the Vertigo page, it does not call the opening scene a flashback. On the A Serious Man page, it calls the opening scene "a prologue". Both films then jump forward in time after their opening scenes. It could be argued the metropolis battle and indian ocean scenes are flash forwards to when the main story takes place.
As for the "memorable encounter with a legion of bats", we could just remove that part. Or we could try "rises alongside bats" or something else somebody else suggests. How does "He falls into a cave, where he rises alongside a legion of bats." sound? Pineapple4321 (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
"...there is no prior established current point in the story..."
"If the scene happened in the middle of the film, I would consider it a flashback."
Not sure why you are continuing this line of reasoning. It's not really about what you and I think, since reliable sources describing the film say otherwise, but let's step through this little exercise. Per Dictionary.com, a flashback is defined as:
A device in the narrative of a motion picture, novel, etc., by which an event or scene taking place before the present time in the narrative is inserted into the chronological structure of the work.
The "chronological structure" includes the very beginning. If we look at Wikipedia's definition (which is not a reliable source, by the way), there's nothing here that says the "current point of the story" has to come before the flashback. That's simply just your interpretation. Even if that doesn't sway you, it doesn't have to. Quite a few reliable sources have described it as a flashback. Here's a small sample:
We really need to move past this. The flashback is a non-issue.
As for the second sentence, maybe something like, "He falls into a cave, and a circling vortex of bats elevates him back to the surface." --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok. Nobody else is agreeing with me about removing "in a flashback" so we will move on from that issue for now. I think it could become an issue if we were to nominate the page for good article status. As for the second sentence, it could be changed to "He falls in a cave, where he rises alongside a legion of bats" or "he falls in a cave, and a circling vortex of bats elevates him back to the surface." Does anybody else have any opinions on this? Pineapple4321 (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
No one else has commented since I suggested it, and since you seem to be fine with it, I went ahead and implemented "a circling vortex of bats elevates him back to the surface". As for being an issue during a GA review, no one is going to even pause and think there's a problem with the term flashback. The fact that you are doing so is odd to me. In case it does come up during the review, I provided 6 sources that call it a flashback. No reason that shouldn't be enough to quell the concern. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

I want to change "though some praised its visuals and acting performances" to "though some praised the visuals and Affleck's performance " 70.29.44.224 (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide sources where Affleck's performance is singled out and praised where the other actors were not. In order for this change to be made. Terasail[✉] 21:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2021

Typo in the following text:

“criminal mastermind Lex Luthor manipulates Batman into a preemptive battle with Superman, whom whom Luthor is obsessed”

“whom whom” should actually be “with whom” 165.120.207.68 (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done - thanks! DanCherek (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Reception of Ultimate Edition

The reception of the ultimate edition should be discussed in the opening and reception section. All sources I could find say the reception is improved. https://www.slashfilm.com/batman-v-superman-ultimate-edition-reviews/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transfo47 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

We would need a proper survey of critics after the release, accompanied by analysis of that survey. Do you have a source that has gauged overall consensus. If so, please provide the source. The one you linked to above does not assess overall consensus. It simply provides a few critics' opinions, none of which are even considered top critics on Rotten Tomatoes. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Batman_v_Superman:_Dawn_of_Justice/Archive_6&oldid=1165733030"