Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Revisiting the lead

Now that more of the dust has settled, I've gone back in and made a few changes. I moved a few refs out of the lead into the body, as a result of being a little outdated (they still apply to statements in the body), as well as added a couple newer refs that help support the additional information I added. While it was important for us to point out that many believed it to be a box office disappointment, many of those same sources also noted that it turned a profit. Therefore, we should mention that here, as it provides a little balance and perspective. The rest of the changes are pretty much self-explanatory. I felt they helped grammatically and improved the overall flow of that last paragraph. If anyone has any issues, or would like to change something further, I'm definitely open to suggestions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Bignole, it appears that in addition to media analysts, we have journalists and film executives sharing the same sentiments in the sources. I've left "media analysts" in there for now, but it seems like we need a term that is more encompassing of the industry as a whole. I realize "many in the industry" may not be a good fit. What are your thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I initially was just going to remove 'many' as an immeasurable number, but then I realized that "industry" seems more colloquial and probably not the best way to describe it. She would just get rid of it altogether?? Say "....it was deemed a box office disappointment..."? Obviously it begs the question of "who" but the reality is that the lead is a summary and the original reason we had the "who" note in there was because the information wasn't covered in the body of the article. It is now, and thus the general term may just be fine.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your reasoning. Dropping the who from the lead should be fine at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion with a sock puppet

It doesn't seem necessary to mention "despite turning a profit" if the film "is considered a box office disappointment." Doesn't accurately represent sourced that were cited. Feels like effort to balance or neutralize content with personal interpretation. A disappointment is a disappointment. Reads much better without the self-conscious lead in. So I changed it for now.Games Junn (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC) Sure it does. Several sources cited in the article, such as this one and this one, both illustrate that the film needed to top $800 million to turn a profit. Another source goes as far as saying that it will make at least $200 million after all revenue streams are accounted for, as long as it reaches $800 million at the box office (which it did). Saying "despite turning a profit" is important, because it clarifies to readers that although it didn't lose money, it was still considered a disappointment. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC) I don't see anywhere where it says "despite turning a profit." What seems significant here is that it didn't make enough of a profit. You don't own this page.Games Junn (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC) You don't own the page either. We're acknowledging that the film made a profit, AND that it was not significant enough for analysts to view it as anything more than a financial disappointment. It really seems more like you're set on on making it appear as though the film did horribly at the box office and removing that statement makes readers assume that it didn't even manage to make a profit.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC) I am not against its inclusion. I do not like the phrasing. Can we try something else? I see your point, BigNole. However, the problem are the words "profit" and "deemed." I agree that we do not want the reader to think this movie "did horribly at the box office." On the other hand, using those words from the original edit make it appear that the film is being "deemed" a disappointment when it might not be. The same problem is created in reverse. It is considered "a disappointment" for not making a 'significant profit. My change reflects the consensus here while using the actual phrasing by the citations. There shouldn't be an objection to this.Games Junn (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC) You are treading along the same path taken by Ghriscore above, which is not helpful and can be considered disruptive. Wait for consensus here, as that is a common courtesy. Refusing to do so will lead to administrative intervention. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC) My 'cosmetic' change is well within the spirits of your pseudo-"consensus." There is nothing disruptive about it. My phrasing is actually closer (directly) to what the sources say. It's an act of cleaning up, more than anything else. It is also common courtesy to have good faith and respect the contributions of others. The sources don't say "despite making a profit" they say "recouping its investment". On that or when it comes to "edit-warring" you may want to take your own advice.Games Junn (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC) This sounds like a case of WP:IDHT. You don't have consensus for the changes you are trying to make, cosmetic or not. I strongly suggest you work with others here at this point, instead of ramming your changes into the article. It would be just as easy if you propose them here and leave the status quo in place for now while we sort it out. As for your concern about what the sources are saying, we don't have to use exact phrasing. It is perfectly fine to summarize. If you check the sources being referenced in the article (I've included them above for your convenience), they clearly support that the film has made a profit. The phrase "turning a profit" shouldn't be in dispute. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC) I concur that the phrase "recouping its investment" makes it sound as if the movie just broke even rather than turned a profit, as is the consensus. It seems specifically chosen to undersell the film's relative "success".GSwarthout (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC) I only saw 2 editors. I did not know the consensus is larger than that including GW. So I am less invested. Still, the wording could be better and reflect the sources more accurately. It is still misleading in any case. I would change the word "deemed" to "considered." I will rv my edit.Games Junn (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Duly noted that you still somewhat disagree with the wording. I am open to changing it further if others agree with your latest proposal, but I don't see an issue with the word "deemed". The intent here is provide some variety in the words and phrases chosen in an effort to make it a more interesting read. The article's body already uses "considered", as an FYI in case you weren't aware. The lead summary doesn't have to use the exact same phrasing. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Then use "regarded" in place of "deemed." I already made this change. The conflict was over the profit part, not this. You are splitting hairs, albeit pathologically.Games Junn (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC) The conflict consists of the constant reversion on your part to support your preferred version, even when you know the conflict involves more than two editors. Had you approached the situation differently, we wouldn't have likely minded minor changes such as the change from "deemed" to "regarded", and it would have probably gone unnoticed. At this stage, it's a disruptive edit over a personal preference that isn't worth the hassle you've put forth, and ultimately, it lacks justification. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC) You are rationalizing, and projecting. It was more of a misunderstanding, one of which I backed down on once I was made aware of all povs. You are an edit war of one, my friend. The edit war is in your head. Take it easy.Games Junn (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2016

Update box office gross. Greglarocca095 (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2016 (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. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

requested 2 talk here

A blanket warning left on my IP. I was making trims to verbose article. Told2 respond here. Don't see consensus against my trims. I Do note debates about box office and critics. I am not making those changes. Someone keeps adding phrases like mixed or excessively worded praise for film. That not me. Do not lump me in with those changes. Article is old enough it could benefit from trim. Paraphrasing is subjective and depends on editor's point of view. I took care not 2 change meaning. My goals limited 2 efficient word economy and length.71.170.231.217 (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, you attempted on two occasions to make these changes: diff1. Then you attempted a third time to make this change: diff2. The removal of "deemed" goes against recent consensus (scroll up to see what I'm referring to). The other changes are simply unnecessary. For example, changing "It's screenplay" to "The film" is redundant to the phrasing used in the previous sentence. These changes are simply not helpful. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

How WP:IDHT of you. There is no formal consensus 2 justify your disruptive reverts in the mess of bickering you are referring. Take a formal vote 4 the changes we're forbidden 2 make or properly template or protect the page. Your rude kneejerk warnings on random IPs violates good faith. The page is verbose and should be allowed 2 evolve. Your opinion of what sounds better is subjective when we get in2 the nuts and bolts of how 2 refine a page. Your abuse of process is duly noted and reported.Moving 2 dispute resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.231.217 (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

How can anyone possibly deny Batman was planning to literally kill Superman?

Why else would Batman make a SPEAR with Kryptonite in it? What do you think people do to each other with SPEARS, other than kill?

--Ben Culture (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ben Culture: I don't necessarily disagree with you, but that's still original research and not acceptable per Wikipedia's policies. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: That is not a valid argument for such a petty edit reversal. The entire Plot section is original research in itself and an interpretation of the movie. Batman breaks into LexCorp and steals the kryptonite, planning to use it to battle Superman. From your argument, how do we know that Batman broke into LexCorp and wasn't let in by someone else or the security guard? You don't. It's implied and assumed by the audience, as is him building a Kryptonite spear with intent to kill Superman. The WP:OR policy you stated says that analysis of published material needs to cite sources. Where's the source for the Plot Analysis? Just sayin... DrkBlueXG (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@DrkBlueXG: I didn't bother reading the entire plot section. If it includes original research, that should be fixed, not an excuse for introducing more (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). nyuszika7h (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Considering that people attack him when he breaks in....yeah, I'd say that's pretty straight forward. The plot does not contain original research. You can try and offer a strawman argument on how it does, but it doesn't. It's very straight forward and just reports what happens in the film. There is a difference between reporting events from a film and reporting your interpretation of a character's motivation. The latter would be OR, unless the character flat out said what they wanted. In this particular case, I don't think it's OR to say that Batman was going to kill Superman, because he did state so much in the film when talking to Alfred.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit request on June 28, 2016

Within the "Box office"-section of the "Reception"-section, the same source (www.slashfilm.com/batman-v-superman-box-office-drops-a-record-81-in-second-weekend-but-what-does-that-mean/) is cited twice for the same claim (The "with a 81.2% decline on Friday that was "one of the biggest Friday-to-Friday drops any blockbuster has ever seen", and an overall "68.4%" drop for the weekend despite not "facing any big competition at the box office","-claim). Isn't that redundant? Shouldn't one of them be removed? Furthermore, within the "North America"-section of the "Reception"-section, the same source (www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2016/03/28/batman-v-superman-sets-record-with-worst-friday-sunday-drop-for-superhero-pics/#1bb7084f6d72) is cited twice for the same claim (The "It fell 37.8% on Saturday, which is the second worst superhero opening Friday-to-Saturday drop, only behind the 40% drop of The Dark Knight Rises."-claim). Isn't that redundant? Shouldn't one of them be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.115.81.90 (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Plot summary edit request

In my back-and-forth with Bignole, I believe the last paragraph of the plot summary should clearly specify that Superman receives a state funeral from Uncle Sam at Arlington National Cemetery, despite his coffin is empty. This scene is in both the theatrical cut and the ultimate extended cut. And it is our responsibility to pay tribute to another planet's immigrant who sacrifices his life for us. With terrorist attacks from ISIS most recently in Istanbul, Turkey, people need to learn that freedom is not free. We need a strong military to defend us while engaging in diplomacy first and foremost. Those who agree with me should rewrite the last paragraph better. It could be done in 10 words. If space is concerned, the memorial in Metropolis could be left out, since it is held at a purely fictional place that has occurred in the plot section and doesn't add much to the understanding.Supermann (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It isn't our responsibility to do any of that. If, on the other hand, a reliable secondary source (or sources) does that, then we can include it in a Critical analysis section. DonQuixote (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Justice League

According to the article for Justice League, the movie is set after the events in Batman v Superman. Therefore that film is a sequel to this one. I wonder why some people don't think so. A sequel is a story that takes place after the events in the previous one, right? Wubzy (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Being set after the events doesn't make it a sequel to this film. It's its own film. Like The Avengers. Either way, it would be covered on the DCU page, not here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

What makes Justice League its own film exactly? If it is its own film and not a continuation, then the story shouldn't have any connection to any earlier stories. Wubzy (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't make something a sequel. Unless, again, you're arguing that The Avengers should be listed as a sequel to Thor.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

When the main characters and settings are different, the film may or may not be considered a sequel, even if it shares connected themes and plot elements. The term "series" is more commonly applied in these situations to differentiate between a direct sequel and a related film, allowing us to call Thor 2 a sequel to Thor but designate Avengers a series film. It is a valid concern and great question, and the answer isn't as clear cut as one might initially assume. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2016

The plot summary exceeds the 700-word limit. It must be condensed. It runs to 930 words. 79.68.211.226 (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

If you can provide an updated summary here, folks can sync it. As of now, this is not an actionable edit request. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Reception

Though I liked this film, there's no doubt it received overwhelmingly negative reviews. Why has the reception section been changed to say "mixed to negative reviews?" This is completely false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C40D:5E90:FC2D:3AF5:5B5C:31DD (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The film received mixed reviews according to Metacritic. I personally think we should change it back to mixed to negative or mixedJoef1234 (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest both of you read Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice/Archive 3#Constant Revision of Critics' Response section. I originally argued that because Metacritic disagrees with Rotten Tomatoes, we should leave out the summary statement, but since there were quite a few other reliable sources that agreed the reception was negative overall, we decided to allow "negative" into the article with the proper citations. Check the sources in the articles as well, and then if you have something new to add by continuing the discussion, feel free. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Please move the Home Media section into the Release section

The Home Media section should moved, verbatim, into the Release section, like it is for every other film article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.164.107.1 (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2016‎ (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. VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 13:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Done - with this edit. Thank you for the clear request. --Begoon ^talk 13:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

This has been reverted. It does not make sense to have home-media under the release section because the "Release" section is referring to theatrical release, not release of a DVD. If you place it under "Release" then you need to move Box Office and Critical Reception under as well, because it makes zero sense to have home-media information in front of box office and reviews, given that that information is far more important than information on a blu-ray release.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I had seen it done elsewhere, but what you say makes sense, and seems in line with MOS:FILM. My error. At least the requester now has a reasonable explanation for rejection, rather than just an implication that their request was unclear, which it was not. Thanks. --Begoon ^talk 14:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize for not addressing it sooner. I don't always look at the request for edits that come through and just glanced and saw that it was "answered". I didn't realize that the answer was that the request was unclear...which I would agree, it isn't unclear.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

On Doomsday:

In the "Plot" section, the creature created by Lex Luthor as a backup should the Batman/Superman fight fail is referred to as a "a genetically-engineered monster with DNA from both Zod's body and his own" and the fact that the creature is Doomsday is relegated to a footnote, even though Lex explicitly calls him Doomsday when introducing the creature to Superman. While its creation is certainly not in line with the comics, being a Zod corruption instead of a Kryptonian cryptid, in the end the character has been identified many times as Doomsday in the media. I believe it should be referred to as Doomsday in the article as well. Has this issue been addressed previously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.179.104 (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope, he doesn't explicitly call him Doomsday. Direct quote: "Born to destroy you...your doomsday." DonQuixote (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

At least in the subtitles, Doomsday is capitalized as a proper noun, for what that's worth. DBalling (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

From dictionary.com: noun 1. (sometimes capital) the day on which the Last Judgment will occur DonQuixote (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

In the Ultimate Edition special features, Doomsday is named as Doomsday. Settled now?? ZackTheCardshark (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

That's already mentioned in Cast. DonQuixote (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

He's still stated as "your doomsday", and the news says "unidentified creature". So...no. 19:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry? Are you referring to something on the page, or in the movie? ZackTheCardshark (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm referring to the movie. I've watched the ultimate edition and Lex still says "Your doomsday".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It's rather simple. The plot summary is a summary of the primary source. If it's not mentioned in the movie, then it can't be mentioned in the plot summary because that'll be a misattribution. However, if you have a secondary source that mentions it, then you can cite the secondary source...which is already being done in a footnote and the Cast section. DonQuixote (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this Blu-ray special feature released today a "secondary source"? ZackTheCardshark (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, so it can be cited and mentioned in this article...just not the plot summary because that's citing the primary source, the movie. And...we already mention it in the article, as mentioned above. DonQuixote (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It's clearly Doomsday. Shouldn't it be mentioned in some sense? He's just the interpretation, just like the emo Superman or Leto's Joker.172.56.13.142 (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Cast with references. DonQuixote (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Are "box office disappointment" and "box office bomb" the same?

I noticed BvS is considered a box office disappointment, and the word "box office disappointment" is wikilinked to box office bomb. Are the terms synonymous? 47.152.93.124 (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

No, they are not. Someone must have slid it in there unnoticed. A "bomb" would be classified as something that fails to even make a profit, can't break even, and basically loses a lot of money by comparison to how much it cost. The term "disappointment" was used by sources to reflect on the fact that the film did not earn as much money as people had hoped and expected it would, but it made a profit and is no way considered a "bomb" at the box office.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Arlington National Cemetery

The fact that Superman had a memorial/burial service at the Arlington National Cemetery should be mentioned in the Plot Section. Right now it's very misleading as if his sacrifice didn't mean anything to the country. Thanks.`Supermann (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Critical response

As it is right now, the sections in the lead and the reception stating that BvS received mostly negative reviews from critics, are in clear violation of WP:POV (including WP:WEIGHT) and WP:V, since as I've said before, the movie has received its fair share of praise, as is also evident when you read the third paragraph of the reception section.

If this was ever unclear, it should be pointed out that per WP:CCPOL, which states The principles upon which these policy statements are based are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus, WP:POV (including WP:WEIGHT) and WP:V always supersede any editor consensus.

I hope this clears up any misunderstandings.

LoMStalk 16:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@LordofMoonSpawn: First of all, "mixed to negative" is a phrase that has been discussed many times at WP:FILM and on many film article talk pages. The general consensus is that this is a grammatically poor statement. Even positive reviews typically discuss at least one aspect that the author found unfavorable. One can easily argue that "mixed to negative" is the same as "generally unfavorable" or "generally negative". We usually choose to use one of the latter phrases instead. Secondly, we have a slew of sources that confirm the low Rotten Tomatoes rating, and they are cited in the article. Here, we have numerous secondary sources that have also summarized the overall critical reception, which led us to a previous discussion: Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice/Archive 3#Constant Revision of Critics' Response section.

The consensus was that "mostly negative" was acceptable (though admittedly, I preferred "generally negative" or no summary statement at all). Yet, I was in the minority, so the summary statement remained. I'm not quite sure how a well-sourced summary statement violates WP:POV, as it's not our research that has reached this conclusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: Stating in the lead that the movie has received mostly negative reviews from critics, is 1) ignoring the fact, per WP:WEIGHT (and since that policy is a part of WP:POV, subsequently violating the latter) that there are critics who have praised one or more aspects of the movie, as is evident by the third paragraph in the reception section, 2) also in violation of WP:V since there are reliable sources (pointing again to the third paragraph) who have given it a positive review.

I can agree with the mixed to negative part, since generally negative reviews does sound better grammatically, and since consensus has been reached there, but again, per WP:CCPOL, editor consensuses do not supersede the guidelines I mentioned.

I'm not quite sure how a well-sourced summary statement violates WP:POV, as it's not our research that has reached this conclusion. The fact that the movie received mostly negative reviews from critics, is not verifiable, in the sense that there are positive reviews out there, is how this violates WP:POV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:V.

LoMStalk 22:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

PS, I should've mentioned this too, since this is actually the whole reason for this contention, the lead should conform to WP:LEAD. The reception section mentions negative, mixed plus positive evaluations, and per the aforementioned policy, this should be reflected in the lead.

LoMStalk 22:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad we've reached an agreement regarding "generally negative". As for "mostly negative" in the lead, I would be fine with changing that to "generally negative" as well, but it's important to keep in mind that neither phrase means ALL reviews. Every movie is practically going to have some positive, some mixed, and some negative. This is well-represented in the Reception section from all points of view. However, we know from the cited sources that most of the reviews skewed negative, and therefore saying mostly negative is a correct representation; most of the reviews were in fact negative or unfavorable. The Reception section does represent all points of view satisfying WP:POV, but WP:DUE allows us to skew the coverage in favor of negative per the sources. We can ping the WP:FILM project if you'd like to get additional opinions on the matter. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

As a compromise, we could mention some of the praise the film received in the lead, similar to TheJoebro64's efforts with this edit, but I think we need to be careful not to allow the amount of praise to outweigh the level of negative criticism. That edit seems to be favoring how much praise the film received, while only mentioning the screenplay and tone in the criticism. That is a very broad assessment. Some of the cited criticism in the article state the film lacked humor and heart, didn't fundamentally understand the characters, allowed the action to smother the story, and often referred to it as incoherent and mindless storytelling. If we can find a better balance, perhaps that's our compromise. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. That's been my point too actually, since right now the lead leads one to believe that there wasn't anything positive about the movie, as it places undue weight on the negative reviews.

but I think we need to be careful not to allow the amount of praise to outweigh the level of negative criticism, I don't think this will happen, especially since even among the mixed and positive reviews there were criticism aimed at a number of things. But I do get what you're saying.

How about this: Despite turning a profit, and receiving praise for its action sequences, visual style, effects, depictions of the characters, musical score and acting performances, the movie was heavily criticized for its lack of humor and heart (tone), preference for action over substance (screenplay), and incoherent and mindless storytelling (pacing). (Alternatively, everything in green can be substituted with everything that's between the brackets.)

LoMStalk 02:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking the shorter version would be preferred if possible. Here's what's currently in the lead:

Despite turning a profit, it was deemed a box office disappointment and received generally unfavorable reviews from critics, who praised the action sequences, visual style, effects, depictions of the characters, musical score and acting performances, but heavily criticized the film's screenplay and tone.

This seems less like a run-on and more accurate:

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 the film's visual style and acting performances.

Action sequences and effects can be lumped into visual style. The depictions of characters was criticized more often than it was praised, so it should not be here, and the musical score isn't even mentioned. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Jumping in here late, but I like this suggestion a lot. Definitely agree that the negative elements should be listed first, since negativity was the film's main response. Sock (tock talk) 03:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: Agreed. Glad we could work this out. :)

LoMStalk 04:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Same here, and I appreciate your patience. @Sock: it's never too late to jump in! Thanks for your comments as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, I think it's safe to say that this article can now be reassessed as B-class (or higher -- though I admit that I haven't yet checked the grammar of the whole article). Thoughts?

LoMStalk 05:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Why call everybody by their last name?

I don't know why the article calls everyone by their last names. Calling her Prince? Who knows her as Prince? Then some characters they call by the first name. It's inconsistant. They don't call Bruce Wayne's mom Wayne, they call her Martha. But there's two Marthas in the film right? and then they call her Prince still when she's dressed as Wonder Woman and they don't call batman and superman by their last names, they call them by their superhero name when they are in their superhero costumes.--MathUser2929 (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• It's standard practice to refer to people by last name when they're real, at least, though it is strange that only Clark Kent's first name is used (and Martha's, obviously). I guess it sounds weird to call Diana Prince just "Prince", but I assume that's because she's not introduced as Wonder Woman in the film. V2Blast (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

More so for real people than fictional. I'm not sure that FILM has officially taken a stand on this (that I can recall). At MOSTV as we are reviewing the MOS itself, we have addressed this and moved to WP:COMMON as the means to identify. For instance, we call "Barry Allen" either "Barry" or "Flash" depending on the need, but never "Allen".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up?

Why use "follow-up" instead of "sequel"? Shouldn't this movie and Man of Steel be considered in the same series - the DCEU Superman series, that is? This movie isn't standalone. Its plot does ultimately revolve around Superman, consists mostly of the same characters from Man of Steel and takes place in the same setting, only extended to include Gotham, Nairomi, etc. Even Zack Snyder, when asked if it is "Man of Steel 2", replied that it is so but solo Superman movies will be coming. Ash wki (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

On reception

GoneIn60, this is a fatuous conflict. It is unnecessary to quote the BBC article because the prior paragraph is devoted to the question of reception, discussing the film's scores on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic among other things. You will not see something like what you want on many other film pages here, and for good reason. You also did not explain your undoing of my grammatical edit to a later sentence. AndrewOne (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

First, let's be clear that the first volley in this dispute was a removal of content edit that lacked an edit summary. Especially in a moderate-to-high traffic article with a history of contentious editing, this is never a good idea. Second, I am not convinced it doesn't belong. It's simply good writing style to provide seamless transitions from one paragraph to another, especially when the focus shifts. Here, we have the first paragraph concentrating solely on the hard data, both audience and critics' scores. The following two paragraphs delve into actual examples of what the critics are saying. A good transitional piece is to show that despite the initial fan reaction being positive, critics had a very different take.

This statement is referenced and has been present in the article for at least 9 months, indicating a relative consensus. To call it silly and unnecessary isn't very convincing without explaining why it's silly and unnecessary. As a disclaimer, I was not the editor who originally inserted this statement. Also, I have restored the grammatical edit of yours which was accidentally caught in the crossfire. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I did explain – twice, in fact. It is repetitive. The previous paragraph makes quite clear to readers that critics were unfavorable, and that polled audiences felt differently. I do not view the sentence as a "seamless transition" but rather as a redundant restatement. Also, redundancy in writing is often worse than weak transitioning; where the latter is usually just a matter of the flow being briefly broken, the former actually tells readers that the writer doesn't know what (s)he has previously stated. AndrewOne (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It is incorrect to assume that the previous paragraph is providing the same perspective. We have a low score on RT, a mixed review on MC, and an average score on CinemaScore. These scores aren't exactly consistent with one another. The second paragraph opens with a fresh perspective from BBC News, that attempts to summarize the critical reception as unfavorable. Since we have somewhat conflicting scores from RT and MC, this opening line provides some additional insight from a reliable source. In addition to the clarification it brings to the table, it also paints it against the backdrop of initial fan reaction. We know from CinemaScore that the overall fan reaction was a B, but nothing about that score would tell us that the initial fan response was widely positive. This is an additional piece of information I'd find useful. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

If that's the case, then there's no reason for the opening sentence of the first paragraph. AndrewOne (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, that's a good point. I'll concede that perhaps a compromise would be to shorten the statement in a way that makes it less redundant and easier on the eyes. Here's a suggestion:

Despite favorable reaction from early moviegoers,^{[cite BBC News]} Lindy West in The Guardian described it as...

Removing the part about critics being less receptive should hopefully settle this. I'm open to other suggestions, but I still don't think it should be removed entirely. A concept alluded to in this article is that the film's strong box office performance in the beginning wasn't enough to overcome the wave of criticism that soon followed. This line illustrates that to some extent, showing how the initial anticipation and excitement surrounding the film could fizzle out as quickly as it did. I think it should be retained in at least some form, IMO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

AndrewOne: Well, I let this stew for a couple weeks, and it failed to generate additional comments from other editors. I assume you've disengaged at this point, but as an attempt to reach a compromise, I've made a change that should hopefully resolve some of the concerns. I shortened the quote from BBC and moved it into the 1st paragraph, which seems like a better fit. The opening of the 2nd paragraph introduces the contrast that's about to follow. While at first glance, it may still seem a bit redundant, keep in mind that the focus in the 1st paragraph shifts from critics' reaction to audience reaction. The transition back to critics seems necessary to me. The only way we could omit it, would be to move the audience reaction to the end of the section into its own paragraph, if we believe there is enough content surrounding audience reaction to warrant such a move (currently, two sentences doesn't seem like enough). Figured this is at least better than it was. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Sequel

Under the Sequel heading, it is written that the movie Justice League is a direct sequel to this movie. This cannot be right since Justice League is logically a standalone film. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice sets up the plot and continuity of the movie. While Marvel Studios' Iron Man films, Incredible Hulk, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger set up their tentpole superhero team movie The Avengers, the latter is logically a standalone film and not a sequel to those movies. - Ash wki (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ash wki, I undid your edit claiming that this film is a sequel to Man of Steel. The general consensus I've observed in editing on this page is that the term "follow-up" is preferred, meaning it shares some of the same elements and characters expanding on both, but it is not generally considered a direct sequel. At the very least, a couple solid sources calling it a sequel are needed. The one you provided uses some passing comments in an interview that state, "in a way", which is in no way a definitive statement. We would need a secondary perspective from critics/analysts that are calling it a sequel, and it should be a well-established fact that is generally accepted by most. I'm not currently seeing that in the sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• GoneIn60, the film does not only carry same elements and characters but also directly continues and builds up on the narrative of Man of Steel and the plot focuses on Superman, the main character in the previous film as well as having his enemies as the main villains (Lex Luthor and Doomsday). "Follow-up" should be preferred only if the film is not a direct sequel like in the case of 300: Rise of an Empire. The TV Tropes article of the film also calls it a sequel: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/BatmanVSupermanDawnOfJustice. What does "generally considered" mean? No sources from the cast and crew of the film or the studio has called the solo standalone Superman film being developed as Man of Steel 2 either. It is only the article authors and journalist who are calling it so. - Ash wki (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
• If Batman v Superman is not considered a sequel to Man of Steel, then why is Justice League called a direct sequel to Batman v Superman in this article? There seems to be a flaw in the integrity of the authors of this article. - Ash wki (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

First, understand that the primary reason I reverted you had to do with the source you provided. Obviously the article will have other issues that need fixing, but I'm focusing on one issue at a time. The editing history here has shown that the consensus prefers "follow-up"; that is not my preference necessarily, just an observation. If you provide a couple solid sources supporting sequel, then the requested change will have a better chance at sticking. Feel free to list them here if you'd like some additional opinions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160316132255/http://whatculture.com/comics/7-major-reveals-from-the-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-prequel-comics.php to http://whatculture.com/comics/7-major-reveals-from-the-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-prequel-comics.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://razzies.com/1/post/2017/01/37th-razzie-nominations-press-release.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eonline.com/news/767635/teen-choice-awards-2016-nominations-announced-see-the-first-wave-of-potential-winners
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Don-t-Get-Too-Excited-About-Wonder-Woman-Costume-It-Probably-Change-66461.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits to the lead

@TommyVictor:, scroll up to the Critical response section on this page to see recent comments regarding this area in the lead. You can also check comments at Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice/Archive 4 and Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice/Archive 5 for past consensus on the issue. After multiple discussions, the current phrasing in the lead has been hashed out and resembles what various editors have agreed on. If you'd like to start a new discussion, then here's the place to do it. Explain the reasoning behind your proposal. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:44, 11 May 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160315205544/https://www.doritosbatmanvssuperman.com/ to https://www.doritosbatmanvssuperman.com/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)