Jump to content

Talk:Batman in film/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Booker, M. Keith (2007). "The Batman film franchise". May Contain Graphic Material: Comic Books, Graphic Novels, and Film. Praeger. ISBN 0275993868.

Harvey Bullock

I know nothing is official, but I was curious if anyone had heard anything about Harvey Bullock; given the circumstances in the second film's ending I was curious if he would feature in any prominent way in such a story. 68.72.220.116 (talk) 07:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

IMDB Chris Nolan?

On IMDB, it says Chris Nolan is attached to the Sequel to The Dark Knight. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1345836/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.214.72 (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Riddler

75.27.39.106 (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Are we just going to take IMDB's word for it? The script isn't even done yet, so I've doubt they've gone into any casting for the new characters. I think it's just a rumor.

I read somewhere that it's rumoured that Michael Emerson would play the riddler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.105.67 (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Great, but where did you read it? These things need proper confirmation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.76.73 (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The Knight's End?

Can anyone find a link confirming the third Nolan film will be titled The Knight's End or is this merely false information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.76.73 (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Batman-begins22.jpg

I can see this is a carefully looked after article, so I'm just gonna ask the regular editors to take a look at this image and decide whether it is actually needed. I've seen plenty of decent articles ruined because they let non-free image after non-free image just slip in when they aren't needed- it would be terrible if that happened to this article. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This was a sort of a recommendation of User:J Greb after he reverted it on the Batman article. You can remove it if you want. The main reason why I put a few licenses on his images is to help the one who downloaded it to figure out how it's done but I don't think he's figured it out yet. There's plenty of other images with Chrstopher Nolan in a batsuit. Jhenderson777 (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Few things...
  • While "decent" articles can be ruined with an over use of images - non-free or free - they can also be enhanced by the inclusion of appropriate images. Given this article's topic, an image oh how the Batman costume is realized for a film can be an appropriate image.
  • In that same vein, having a sole image from the 1989 film in this article does it a dis-service, at best. At worst, it skews the importance of that image. Adding an image from 2005 helps, but images from 1966 and 1943 would also be good additions.
  • Jhenderson777, you may what to be clearer in your statements in the future. Yes, I suggested the image could be used here. But I'm not the one that uploaded it, which your post implies.
- J Greb (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I see nothing implying that you downloaded it. But I am sorry if it looked that way.Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah "him" is a misquote that happened to mess up what I meant to imply. I fixed that. Happens to the best of us! Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Batman: The Movie

Why isn't this in the reception section? -- 92.10.161.95 (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's likely limited to the Batman franchise under Warner Bros. The 1966 film is more related to the TV show than any of the other feature films. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Batman 3 sandbox

I have created a userspace draft for the third batman film. Any one who wants to contribute, feel free to do so. Jhenderson 777 22:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that the article for the third Batman film is actually located in the Wikipedia incubator for the time-being. It can be found here.-5- (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
If you want my honest opinion. That's not the greatest way to start it. Jhenderson 777 16:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for informing me. I did some remodeling on it. Looking better now. Jhenderson 777 23:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep rumors and speculation OUT

Come on, guys. I'm seeing name drops of people "in talks" or with "confirmed interest". This kind of data—probably false, BTW—can't possibly be encyclopedic. As a Wikipedian, I expect better. I left the thing about the Riddler casting grid, but I'm not totally in favor of it, either. Bottomline: Keep all rumors and speculation out.

I mean, just think back. Does no one remember the casting process on TDK? How everyone BUT Heath Ledger was "about to be the Joker"? How everyone BUT Eckhart would be Two-Face? It's all BS unless Nolan gives the word himself. Seriously... Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

All of the information is referenced and presented from a neutral point-of-view. It is stated that this is the information that the websites are reporting. It doesn't say that they are correct or not.-5- (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Oh...wow. Okay. *Self-control mode* *<Respectfulness turned to 7>
Ahem. While the information is technically cited, I do not believe it fits Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Allow me to explain. Firstly, consider the burden of proof. It's on the person(s) who put the info in the article and/or restored it. By restoring that info, you're staking your reputation—in part—on these rumors. Furthermore, I feel that just having them in the article undermines Wikipedia's credibility. Ever hear someone cast aspersions on the 'pedia? ("I read it on Wikipedia." "Well, then it must be true.") It's because of stuff like this. (And, with all that in mind, I'd normally have just reverted you by now; however, I'm interested in proving my argument first.)
Secondly, remember WP:QS from Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines. I can spot at least 4 questionable sources used for citation. Heck, most of them are just glorified forums, blogs, and internet trade mags for the fanboy set. That I'm challenging them (and posting on the TP to dispute their inclusion) is a bad sign for your cause.
Third, Wikipedia does not predict the future. Someone else was kind enough to make me realize and accept this little fact a while back. And, though I still feel my position in that case was valid—more so than yours here, I must say—and righteous, I let it go nonetheless. I knew the correct information would ultimately appear in the article(s) I was arguing over. Perhaps you should look at this situation in a similar way.
Finally, I'd just like to say that there seems to be good faith on both sides. I was acting in good faith by fixing the article. You reverted me, assuming that I was just dumping content without cause. Even then, you saw fit to remove at least one thing that I removed in my original edit. So, we have something in common, no?
Anyway, in that spirit, I'm going to hold off reverting back to my last version. For now. But I really do expect you'll see thing's my way by day's end. Happy editing. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 18:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The information is presented as though this is what these websites are reporting. There's nothing written as being certain to happen. As far as the "I read it on Wikipedia" people, well I would hope as always that they would follow the references and decide for themselves. If you find some some information that comes from questionable sources I wouldn't oppose having it removed.-5- (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

2-ish¢ (maybe a bit more...)

A few things jump out here.

First is "reliably sourced information". There are some source types that are generally frowned upon Wikipedia wide. firstshowing.net doesn't look like it is within that group. I would ask though what WP:FILMS thoughts on the site are. Does it meet the cut as reliable for them? If it does, that only covers the publication. There will still be the question of how reliable a dumpster catch from an unknown person is. Again, FILMS may have a better handle on firstshowing.net's track record in this area, as well as that of the article's author.

Second is how speculative we are willing to be. CRYSTAL BALL does have some latitude, otherwise wouldn't "Untitled third installment (2012)" exist as a section in this article. But running all the casting rumors up is a bit much. Especially since there is nil about alternate cast choices in the write-ups of the produced films and the avoidance of full speculative casts of the unproduced projects. There is also an unnerving likelihood that if/when the next film starts primary filming, all alternate casting information will be removed. That brings in to question the need for the information to be tacked in at this point. Could Nolan looking at, but not choosing X, Y, or Z for the Riddler become important to the film happening or not happening? Maybe, or it could be notable in some other way, but we won't know until that notable, important thing happens.

Third, "justify the edit" is a bit of a "chicken or egg" question outside of BLP. It's used as an argument to keep and dump material. In this case, most would look at the removal of a cited tidbit that has been in place a few months as the bold edit to be justified in a talk page discussion. That being said, I’m leery of the entire 3rd paragraph of the section - almost all of it is "I want to be..." from actors or "I think X would be great as..." from those not involved with actual casting. It's great for a news article, or an article in a magazine, but it feels like the wrong take for an encyclopedia article.

Lastly, there is also WP:UNDO to tip-toe around. By nature of things a lot of the info on the produced films sits in their respective articles. This is going to skew this article slightly to the "might have been" and "coming sequel" since those items don't have their own articles. The casting spec though is adding extra weight on Batman 2.0 III.

- J Greb (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

*Regular Ace mode initiate*
Bottomline: I'm right, though, right? (More right than 5-guy, anyhow?) Based on what you said, that's my take. Oh, and the day's almost over where I am, so I'm restoring most/all of my last edit. (What? C'mon. I waited fourteen hours!) Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
"5-guy"? I don't like that. You may want to discuss what you want to remove before you do it. Please be specific.-5- (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I use nicknames. So sue me.
What to remove... Hmm... How about...all the stuff I removed before? I'm sorry (not really), but what harm did my original edit do? I waited for an explanation of why the content needs to be there. (I'm not the one insisting that we put certain stuff in the article here.) All I'm seeing is you saying, "well, it's cited, so we should keep it. Before Snyder was named as director of Superman 6, I could find citations that said certain guys were "in talks" or "frontrunners". That doesn't mean it belongs in a Wikipedia article. And if we name everyone who has supposed "expressed interest," we'll have parapgraphes full of meaningless data (most of which we'll end up deleting, anyway).
Plus, the version I changed—stratch that, FIXED—had conflicting "cited" sentences that indicated Michael Caine said either: "Johnny Depp's in it, mate. He's the Riddler!" Or, "it's all rubbish mate, don't believe it." I went with the latter, but I'd probably remove it, too, if asked.
To put it simply, I think should err on excluding—not including—data. How am I wrong, exactly? (OkAY. That was combative, sorry. But COME ON!) Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I hope the current version is a good compromise. I removed all of that stuff about Nolan's history of secrecy since it's unnecessary and changed the wording of the sentence regarding the Michael Caine article to match more closely what he said. Is it okay?-5- (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
"All part of the plan..." Just kidding. Works fine for me. I might have fudged a bit. I do think that a statement like "the speculation is BS" deserves to be underlined. The reasons why such spec. hasn't panned out, though, might not be as easily verified. Oh well.
Oh and, I'll admit that Supes 6 doesn't seem to run even have as tightly, secrecy-wise. So, that one might not be a far example, in retrospect. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Rumours and speculation? That heart and soul and motivation of the entire film industry? I might remind User:Ace Class Shadow, just as has User:-5- and User:J Greb, that per WP:POLICY, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. While something might well be speculation, it does not matter so long as policy and guideline are followed in its presentation... IE: verifiability in reliable sources, no original research, a neutral point of view, and receiving enough coverage for the topic being discussed to be worthy of note. A personal dislike for speculation is fine, but one cannot replace policy with personal viewpoint. And while quoting WP:CBALL above and saying "Wikipedia does not predict the future", it must be also understand that predictive or no, the quoted CBALL section itself states that "it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." So, challenge a source at WP:RSN it you wish, and await an answer.... and some may well prove unsuitable. But as we are dealing with speculation... one considers the source and what it offers. All that said, I do agree that this article need not contain everything already included in all the other various Batman projects. But at this time, the section "Batman in film#Untitled third installment (2012)" does well to include well-documented speculations toward casting and pre-production, as until the film actually begins production, almost anything about it is speculative... and that's not a bad thing... just needs decent sourcing per policy and guideline. If or when an article is in mainspace about the 2012 film, this section can be then be reduced to cover the major points and offer a link to the (eventual) mainspace article for readers to then find the fleshed-out details on the topic. Remember, "it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced"... and at this moment in time, the existing section is that place. That will change yes... and be the subject of editorial discussions in the future... but for now, this is the place. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
    If it's cited with verifiable sources, it stays no matter how rediculous we all know it is. Policies support this notion. But on a more realistic level, we the Wikipedians are trying to provide as much as known about the third installment to Nolan's series. Rumors or fact=irrelivant. It's all about notable and unnotable... verifiable or un-verifiable. Sadly--for example--rumors from Brad Pitts mouth are more relivant than rumor from Joe Blow Comic Con, even though both of them are equally untrue. Why? Simply because we can verify the notability from one and not the other. Geeky Randy (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
    Well... if something Pitt might say (truth or not) is reported in reliable sources, it might be worthy of contextual consideration somewhere. If a fan hears it from Pitt's own mouth but it is not reported anywhere, then as an otherwise WP:OR unverifiable factoid it is not. And no, not everything found in RS can simply and automaticaly stay no matter what... it needs to have a contextual and arguable reason for inclusion. And in determinination, we look to policy first, and then to guideline second. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
    Just a few things...
    • The inclusion tends to rest on the trifecta of "verifiable source", "reliable source", and "notability". The item that kicked this off definitely has one of those - the story used as the source can still be found. And the gist of it is what the production company is doing in moving forward with the film - something that would seem to fall under "notable". It's the third part - reliability - that may be shaky. If firstshowing.net is not the type of site that is considered unreliable, either by the general Wikipedia criteria or by the criteria of WP:FILMS, then the information is good.
    • As far as CRYSTAL BALL goes, yes, if there is material (verifiable to reliable sources) about what the production is actually looking at as far as cast, then it is good information. However, sound bites from celebs speculating on, suggesting, or asking to be in the cast has, at the least, a notability issue.
    • It also has a problem within the context of this article over all. The article covers 15 live action productions, of which only 9 (currently) have been filmed and released. Those 9 have their own articles which can give over space to casting information - who was up for the parts, who was wanted, who declined, etc - so detailed information does not have to be included here. The other 6 though are limited to this article. All of those 6 had casting rumors and speculation, but little of that is mentioned in regard to the 5 aborted films prior to Batman Begins. That brings into question the weight that is being given to the cast speculation for the next film. Are we:
      1. Putting more weight on the current material when it should be falling in line with the older unproduced projects;
      2. Shortchanging the older unproduced projects when we should be trying to find the same level of detail for them as is available for "next" film; or
      3. Is the casting info something that should be included in the incubator article that is waiting for the film to actually start filming?
    - J Greb (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Nolan says you're full of it, so...

I give you guys exhibits A ("Christopher Nolan Fed Up With Batman 3 Casting Rumours!") and B

Shi* - err Schmidt and Geekster? You can...uh...what's the word? Suck it? No, that's two words. Anyway... I'm getting pretty tired of this same nonsense. At this point, I'm done. You guys are arguing that we should be include baseless rumor...JUST BECAUSE. And you're doing it after I proved my case. Christsake! Even my man J knew when to back off. You guys? You're just agitating. Hmph. So much for being encyclopedic. Whatever... Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Critical Reception Averages

Out of curiosity, why is there no average for the letter grade ("Yahoo! Movies") column? Is the template just not set up to handle it, or... From a quick averaging, both a weighted and non weighted average would be B- (the weighted one getting closer to being a straight B than the non-weighted average). — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC) (originally version at 07:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC))

The problem is how do you figure out what represents an A, B, C, etc.?-5- (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
An easy way is to convert it to a numerical value, average it, and the result tells you what the equivalent letter grade is. In a system where there is a A+ A A- B+ B B- type spectrum, it is easiest to assign each form its own integer value (thus alleviating some rounding issues). As long as the scale is even and consistent, it works. — al-Shimoni (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
But, how do you figure what numerical value to assign it as? I don't support it, the reason there's averages for the critical numerical values and not for the letter grades is because they are actual numbers and can be averaged. There's no standard grading system that we can use for the letter grades, and Yahoo Movies does not display what their letter grades represent.-5- (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Yahoo! Movies grades are published as Outstanding, Above Average, Average, Poor, and Terrible labeled as A, B, C, D, F respectively, of equal division between each grade. When they get their scores from existing reviews, they convert the review's score to their grading system. For example, on a 1 to 10 scale, they will convert 10 to an A+ and a 5 to a C, while on a 4 star system where a no-stars rating is permitted, no stars would be converted to an F-.
When averaging the ratings, it doesn't really matter what values you assign them so long as they are equally separate from each other. Because Y!M uses grade variants such as A+ A and A-, the best thing to do is assign each variant an integer value. Where you start doesn't really matter. For example, if you start F- with 0, F with 1, F+ with 2, D- with 3, and so on and do the math (do your averaging) and convert back, you would get the same average if you had started 0 at D-, or even F+, or if you had gone in increments of 10 (for example, 10, 20, 30, 40 for the grades F-, F, F+ D-). Averaging finds the "center" and doesn't care that much what scale you apply to it so long as it is in equal divisions between each grade. — al-Shimoni (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Credits: Bill Finger

I've noticed an issue with each of the articles here... while I don't doubt Bill's part in creating Batman and related characters, Bob Kane is the only one credited in any of the Burton/Shumacher/Nolan films. Since the infobox is a reference to the credits, I think Finger's name needs to be removed from each of the articles; at least in the infoboxes. --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. If the credits said the earth was flat, would we put that in the article too? Bill Finger co-created Batman, and that's a matter of fact. Wikipedia's job is to present the facts in an unbiased manner. Official statements and credits listings don't change facts. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 00:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
But again, it's a presentation of the movies credits, not a list of everyone involved... the same way the Spider-Man info box gives credit to the one person credited with writing the movie, not James Cameron and the plethora of others that were involved in the screenplay. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree- The info about Finger - the subject of a gi-normous bitchfest back in the Batman archives - doesn't belong here. To what extent Finger was involved, doesn't matter; this is an article about the films. And lastly, Wikipedia isn't abut truth; it never was. It is about verified information. Got a cite that notes Finger's involvement in the films, present it. Until then, no mention. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and make the edits; I presume a massive debate is on the way.--Williamsburgland (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Profit?

In the box office chart there is a "profit" column. This looks like original research to me since the source doesn't provide porift margins. It takes a simplistic view too: it subtracts the negative cost from the gross, but this is not a realistic view to take of a profit margin. For a start, profit margins should factor in the marketing costs as well, as well as the distribution fee and the exhibitor's cut from the gross. This should come out, especially since this article has GA status. Betty Logan (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"Batman: DarKnight" query

throughout the paragraph/section entitled "Batman: DarKnight" it differs between "Batman: DarkKnight" and "Batman: DarKnight". Which is the correct one? Biggles1000 (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

File:GeorgeClooneyisbatman.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:GeorgeClooneyisbatman.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Images

This is concerning the images at the top of the article.

The images of the franchise's directors are unnecessary in my opinion, so I'm removing them. Please discuss here before putting them back.

Also, in regards to the Detective Comics #38 cover, I don't think an image of Batman's comic debut qualifies as the main image for his film franchise. Zuko Halliwell (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as the triple image goes... all I can say is "wow". That really ranks up there on the abuse of free-use images and bad page lay out.
The image of Ledger isn't much better. Yes, it's on Commons, but it really isn't appropriate here.
As for the comic cover...
  • A general image of "Batman in film looks like..." would be best. I doubt that exists short of a mosaic, and I don't see this as an exceptional case like Doctor (Doctor Who) which would allow for a mosaic.
  • Next would be one per set of film to provide a rough example of each interpreted the costume. That would be 4 images - serials, 1966, Burton/Schumacher, and Nolan. I can see that being problematic since the last two are inconsistent across the films. Also, each section should be a summary of the article on the film.
- J Greb (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps a mosaic of free-use images of the actors? --Boycool (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I might buy that if it were "Bruce Wayne in film". Might. But even then the argument would be for the images to be a close to "in character" as possible with out resorting to stills or promo images. - J Greb (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Renaming "Dark Knight" or "Nolan" trilogy section

Any thoughts on simply calling this "Reboot" or something to that effect? --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, since current plans call for another reboot in 2016, that could get confusing later down the road. Just calling it "Nolan trilogy", though, does seem a little weird. I'd prefer we rename it to "Christopher Nolan trilogy (2005-2012)", and then maybe add parenthetical dates to the Burton/Schumacher section heading as well. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually the reason I brought it up is I thought it could get confusing if Nolan changes his mind or if someone else picks up the mantle for him a la Burton/Shumacher. You do raise an excellent point though, and I think your suggestion is a good one. M main goal is to differentiate the three sections (Serials, Burton/Shumacher, Nolan) using the titles, if that makes any sense at all. --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I forgot the 66 film (which really should be the goal of every Batman fan) above... I think this should be renamed as well - perhaps 1966 Batman Film? --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I think we should just leave it with the directors' names, but add years to make it easier for people not familiar with the directors. --Boycool † (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
It's fine as it is - using "series" after the directors' names. There's no need for the years, as this is mentioned after the title of each film. And "Batman (1966)" is fine as a header too, as this matches the formatting of all the other individual films. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
So which is it? The section title is being changed every friggin' day and messing up links to it. Can we agree and put a notice in the source text? The Dark Knight series seems logical to me, as the term "Dark Knight" is far more synonymous with this series than "Christopher Nolan" or even "Batman". Just another guy in a suit (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The consensus above seems to be "Christopher Nolan Trilogy". It's not what I wanted, but I'll take it. --Williamsburgland (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The Man of Steel trailer says "Produced by Christopher Nolan, Director of Dark Knight trilogy". Seems semi-official. --Boycool † (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree... it's a marketing tool used to draw a connection to the current and previous entries in a popular series. Keep in mind I was against consensus before - I vote we keep it as "Christopher Nolan Trilogy". Keep in mind no matter what we choose it's going to be an uphill battle keeping it consistent for few weeks while the film is the talk of the town.--Williamsburgland (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
"Dark Knight" trilogy is unambiguous. And it tells you it's Batman rather then expecting you to already know the director. "Nolan trilogy", out of context, tells you nothing about the subject. Maybe he's done another couple of Inception films or prequels to Memento. Barsoomian (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I thought we'd opted for "Christopher Nolan series" over "trilogy", but if we must go for "trilogy" then so be it. However, "The Dark Knight trilogy" is not in wide use yet, and seems like a marketing ploy. It has never been billed as the "Dark Knight Trilogy" - i.e. "The final chapter in the Dark Knight trilogy", so we should not be using that. Maybe in the future it will become widely known as this, and then we can revisit. But, until then it should stay how it is. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The film's website says "“The Dark Knight Rises” is the epic conclusion to filmmaker Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy." I think the "The Dark Knight Trilogy" is a very suitable name. DanielDPeterson + talk 21:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that The Dark Knight Trilogy is a better title for the section, too. Plus, I also think Original Series is a better title for the Burton / Schumacher section. I tell it to you because the director is not the only laborer in the films, also exists the writers, the actors... Thanks for your attention. --Borxdeluxe (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Gary Oldman as James Gordon

I think in the Christopher Nolan Series section of this article, it is worth mentioning Gary Oldman as Commisioner James Gordon, and his reprising the role for all three films. Each film description describes who plays Batman, and each villain. The second film even mentions Rachael Dawes, and the third mentions John Blake. James Gordon is a staple character in the Batman universe, and I feel like mention of him is certainly more important than listing Dawes and Blake. On that point you could also say that Michael Caine as Alfred is more relevant to the article than Dawes or Blake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.250.130.51 (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Future

I think that the "Future" section should be inside the Christopher Nolan series section, it has been already anounced time and time again that he won't return and that this will be the ending of his series but that after that there would be a reboot. A new section for the future of a reboot should exist instead of mentions about Robin taking over the Batman legacy, things like that are just pure speculation. --Powerful Lord (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Nolan films having their own article?

Does anyone else think that the Christopher Nolan films should have their own article, something like "The Dark Knight Saga", "Nolan Batman trilogy", etc.? Given that they are three of the most critically and commercially successful Batman films ever made, it would make sense (to me, anyway) to have a page discussing those films. -- 173.79.47.172 (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I would support that. --Boycool † (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I think having an overview of all of the Nolan films here, along with detailed article for each film separately, is more than enough to cover the topic for encyclopedic purposes. Yet another page for the films would be redundant and have little informational value. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think I'd oppose that too. Coverage is sufficient here, and can be presented as a linear development of the character over a whole cinema career. It's also not a particularly large section, and as the Nolan series is most likely over, unlikely to expand an awful lot more now. Of course, something may happen. If so, we can discuss it then. Should a split happen, please consider WP:NCF before making up a name for the series. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that it is a very good idea to give the dark knight trilogy it's own article as it is it's own independent film trilogy, and warrants it's own article in the same way that the lord of the rings trilogy has it's own article and is not just part of the middle earth in film article. Frogkermit (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree, The Dark Knight Trilogy is now one of the most popular and acclaimed film trilogies of all time, just like The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit film trilogies have their own articles, these trilogies are self-contained, and are unique peices of film history, and should be treated as such. Charles Essie (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Since it's just a reboot, It's better to not have its own article and it is sufficient here as well. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Citations for use

Wildroot (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please include the article of the movie Catwoman (2004)...

For as this movie makes reference to Catwoman in Batman - The Return, it is obvious that he belongs to the same series of films of Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher, disagree?

201.79.216.181 (talk)

not likely to happen. - J Greb (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Section header

OK... the article is protected to allow the header for this section to be hashed out once and for all. For a number of months now it's been bouncing between "The Dark Knight Trilogy" and "Christopher Nolan series". Considering links point to both by name, this needs to be settled.

FWIW here are the options:

  1. The Dark Knight Trilogy - This has been used as a title for the collected films. This doesn't seem problematic in itself since statements have been made that the next Bat-film will not follow the same continuity.
  2. Christopher Nolan series - This is consistent with Batman in film#Tim Burton / Joel Schumacher series but seems unneeded. Unlike that section, this one only covers produced films and only one director was responsible for those films.
  3. Christopher Nolan trilogy - Same as #2, but with a finer point. #2 implies that there may be more than just the three films. That seems to either be weaseling or crystal balling.
  4. 2005-2012 films (or trilogy) - Either would be correct in describing this section. And it doesn't have the same problem that using "1989-1997 films" would for the Burton/Schumacher section - there is nothing to show that there was a "fourth" film planned, conceptualized, proposed, or started. Unlike the Burton/Schumacher where there are two aborted 5th films where Schumacher would have continued that continuity. And this would be the simplest titling.

Can we hash out where we want this to go?

- J Greb (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Support either #1 or #3. Oppose #2; as you stated, #3 states the same thing, but more precisely. Oppose #4 because that's probably not what a reader would be looking for; also, it seems unnecessary since the sub-headings state the years for the three films. #3 is consistent with the other films, but for someone not familiar with the name "Christopher Nolan", #1 would be the most descriptive name and most easily identifiable with the trilogy. Warner Bros. itself is even using that name in their marketing. --Boycool † (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
How about 'Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy', which includes both titles to hopefully keep all editiors happy Frogkermit (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a lot to be said for keeping section headers simple and straight forward. Remember, these are used as anchors for links in other article, so there should be a short, easily used term.
I can see where the dates are redundant, but it is consistent with the section on the serials. It may be that a change there is needed as well. "Columbia Pictures serials" maybe.
Options 1 and 3 are what this has been more or less bouncing between, and I would tend to agree with Boycool - The Dark Knight Trilogy is the more commonly used on.
- J Greb (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support "Christopher Nolan series" as previously decided. Firstly for consistency with Burton/Schumacher, and also avoids the promotional nature of The Dark Knight trilogy. In my view "trilogy" should be avoided, as this is not a bona fide trilogy, as the second and third films were only put in production after the success of the first film. WP:NCF prefers "series" over trilogy, although it does allow for "trilogy" in some cases. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, "The Dark Knight Trilogy" is overtly promotional capitalised and italicised in this way. If we must go with this wording, "The Dark Knight trilogy" would be more appropriate, as it is descriptive. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Based on the article naming guideline, "trilogy" looks appropriate if the section was a stand alone article - that is how the set is commonly refered to at this point. And "bona fide" is a bit mercurial - the films act as a trilogy regardless of the being shot, written, and/or conceptualized at the same time. - J Greb (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes "Top Critics" scores

The MOS for film articles was recently changed. You can read the whole section here: MOS:FILM#Reception, but in short the section says 'There is a consensus against using the "Top Critic" scores at Rotten Tomatoes.' Since the page is protected, I would appreciate it if another editor could remove the "Top Critics" score column from the table on the page. Thanks. 99.192.76.230 (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. - Fantr (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 February 2013

I request that the name christopher nolan's series also include the name The Dark Knight Trilogy in brackets according with the official edition used by warner brothers of all the films in one trilogy Thank you 114.45.187.49 (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Please see above discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 February 2013

In the Academy Award nomination page it claims that Danny Devito was nominated for best supporting actor, this is incorrect: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000362/awards Please remove that fact.

JuilliardHustle (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Done BryanG (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Batman 66

Where is batman1966 on box offie peppers it madev$1.7 million — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The Batman (2016)

Hi, I read Warner wants a reboot of the Batman film series for 2016. It is also likely that, unlike other franchises, would be located long after its inception and would be based on the Arkham Asylum game, because Warner wants a different movie to Batman Begins, and Batman (1989). Greetings.--TheJoker Was Here! 01:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, ComicBook News. Here is the link [1]. --TheJoker Was Here! 22:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I recommend put this cite in the article "...Actually Warner Bros. wants a reboot of Batman based on the action-adventure video game Batman: Arkham Asylum, with the return of the Joker as principal vilain, but is not a fact."

U v highest grossing movie

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films#Highest-grossing_franchises_and_film_series The cout batman the movie in the batman franchise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

TDKR

"However most fans did not enjoy the film due to plotholes and other issues." Sorry but this assertion isn't backed up by any evidence (the source given doesn't back it up, and it is inherently difficult to prove, especially in the context of the film's largely positive reviews and high box office etc). I propose deleting this sentence from the article. (Besides, fans of what? By definition they are not fans of the movie if they didn't enjoy it. Fans of Nolan? Fans of the trilogy? Fans of Batman? How are they defined and how can it be proved that most of them didn't enjoy it?) 81.155.213.32 (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Done - I took care of it before I read this. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Split into multiple articles

This simple-seeming RfC asks whether the article should be split into smaller ones. Wikipedia does have a guideline about this, at WP:Article size, which says that articles are candidates for subdivision at between 4,000 and 10,000 words. This article is just over 5,000 words, so it's approaching the size where it's not unreasonable to consider a split.

It would be easy to count the votes and go, "Oh look, there's no consensus". But I think there's a better, more policy-based way to close this RfC. The key finding I've got here is that both groups of editors make good points, and the two outcomes aren't mutually exclusive. So we'll do both.

We can organise content in several different ways, and readers can choose which level of detail they want to read. So by analogy, we have (as we ought to have) separate articles on arachnid, spider, tarantula and Mexican redknee tarantula, each at a different level of detail. There's no reason why we can't have Batman, Batman in film, Batman: Tim Burton-Joel Schumacher series, and Batman Returns, each at a different level of detail. So the RfC outcome is that we should organise the content in this way.

So as to make sure everything's clear, I'll try to anticipate some of the more obvious questions:

Q: Should the Batman in film article still exist in its current form?
A: Yes. Editors can add, for example, {{main}} as pointers to any new sub-articles they create but apart from this, the present article should remain substantially unchanged except by normal editing.

Q: Can the new sub-articles be begun by copy/pasting sections of this article?
A: Yes, if editors so wish. Please follow one of the procedures noted in WP:CWW in order to preserve attribution. The sub-articles will presumably be expanded with more detail in due course.

I hope this helps.—S Marshall T/C 23:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion 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 feel that this article page is overly long and should be split into smaller articles. My reason is that aside from the Burton/Schumacer series and the Christopher Nolan trilogy, none of the other Batman films (live action or otherwise) are getting much coverage here. I feel it should be split into Batman (1989 film series) and Batman (2005 film series). We have a precedent for this as there is a Sherlock Holmes (1939 film series) page. Lunchmeets (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Here we have an overview of the production history, with the failed projects between the series showing in a continuous timeline. We would lose this chronology if we were to split the article. Also, the section in question is quite small and unlikely to be expanded now that the series is over. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The Batman Universe in Nolan Movies is a separate entity of its own. The gadgets, characters, themes are set in its own world. It'd be something similar to giving a season of a TV show a separate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.212.137 (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, the Burton/Schumacher series and Nolan's trilogy are completely unrelated, however this page should be preserved as an umbrella. Charles Essie (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Why mess up a perfectly good article by breaking it into pieces? None of the films need much coverage here, because they all have their own individual articles for more information. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Robsinden and Fortdj33.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article provides a comprehensive overview of Batman on film, and if you break it up into chunks it defeats the purpose. The size doesn't necessitate a split so let's keep it as it is. Betty Logan (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • At the very least, The Dark Knight Trilogy should get's own page, for reasons stated above. Charles Essie (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: There is a considerable gap between the two movie series and it would be logical to give Christopher Nolan's series a separate page considering the large amount of critical acclaim and box office success it has achieved. The new article could have it's own sections which would appeal to the people interested in the new series alone. And also, this article does not extensively define the production of the Nolan trilogy which I believe is necessary. NiRinsanity 17:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose For all the reasons stated above. It is really unnecessary to split it into its own article. Furthermore, even though there are 2 (about to be 3) separate series, it is all part of the same franchise, similar to the pre-and-post-Daniel Craig James Bond series and the 2002 and 2012 Spider-Man series. They are separated into different sections within the article, and that is all that is necessary. TheLastAmigo (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Same reason as User:Charles Essie. They even have their own separate templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zinthos7 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - There should be an individual full article to be the head of the navboxes for these series. We already recognize by way of the independent navboxes that these are separate series; we don't need to change anything about this article to also have an article specific to the Christopher Nolan series. Neelix (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - A new article would help to add detail to the Nolan series. Agreeing to all the points by NiR, I personally think that it deserves a new article on it's own. Such is the impact it had on Hollywood super hero films. Josephjames.me (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The general consensus seams to be for a new article 6-5. So unless there is any more opposition, I will begin to create it. Thank You. --Warner REBORN (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, there is a lot of unpublished material that I can add if I create it, such as series info box - group Rotten Tomatoes etc. --Warner REBORN (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Created. Here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warner REBORN (talk • contribs) 15:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Really? It seems a failure to reach consensus to me. In any case, the important outcome of this discussion is that the Batman in film page should remain more-or-less as it is now. I have no opinion on "The Dark Knight (trilogy)". —WOFall (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
There clearly is no consensus to fork the article and we don't need a second article duplicating the material. Betty Logan (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
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.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2014

Add the following three films to the "Animated Films" section: Son of Batman under the "Featuring Batman" subheader, and JLA Adventures: Trapped in Time and Justice League: War under the "With other heroes" subheader. Appropriate description and formatting for each is below:

136.181.195.25 (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. GamingBuddha (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2014

Update the response in the film sections to match their Wikipedia page counterparts

72.49.95.188 (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources (not Wikipedia pages) to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Rotten tomatoes ratings

Will someone update the rotten tomatoes ratings to match Thier current ratings on the website

Requested moves

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved: no consensus Ground Zero | t 18:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


– All these articles are mostly lists and the proposed names should help searchers more than the current ones in explaining that. Unreal7 (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose as those names do not accurately represent what the pages contain. This is an unnecessary move, and your reason isn't very convincing. If you want people who search up 'List of films featuring Batman' to get to the 'Batman in film' page, then just make it a redirect. In the WP:COMMONSENSE suggests that someone is much more likely to come across 'Batman in film' than 'List of films featuring Batman' when searching for Batman-related films. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This isn't the forum to discuss a possible split of a Bond page, which should be on the relevant talk page. The only two things I would add here is that 1. it's not a franchise, it's a series; 2. I'm not sure there is enough of a difference between the two proposed pages to justify it. If you think otherwise, perhaps you could open a thread on the talk page of James Bond in film to discuss it further? – SchroCat (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Series names

I think we should change the section called "Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher" to "Original Series". We should change "Christopher Nolan" to "The Dark Knight Trilogy". And finally, we should change "Zack Snyder" to "DC Cinematic Universe". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.152.251 (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2014

Change the "Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher" section name to "Initial Film Series (1989-1997)"

Change the "Christopher Nolan" section name to "The Dark Knight Trilogy (2005-2012)"

Change the "Zach Snyder" section name to "DC Shared Film Universe (2013- )" 50.5.219.27 (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

rationale? Using the names of the directors seem like perfectly good section headers to me, lets you know from the get-go who did them. Cannolis (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Add the information "In October 2014, a Batman film was announced with an intended release between 2016 and 2020" to untitled batman film section.

Re-merge the sub-articles?

Okay, so the "sub-articles" The Dark Knight trilogy and Batman (1989 film series) were created after a discussion 9 months ago, but they have not been expanded (as predicted), add no value whatsoever, and serve no purpose. Text is merely a duplication of this article and they are a dangerous WP:CONTENTFORK of what is already included here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The previous close specifically states that this article should not be trimmed. If you rip the guts out of this (a WP:GA by the way) you'll dilute the hard work put in by the editors and lose the overview of the topic. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Dark Knight trilogy is one of the most popular film series ever and deserves an article for itself. Also, as seen here and here, the article is almost as popular as the Batman in film article itself. Rayukk (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
All that justifies is that The Dark Knight trilogy is a useful redirect. The reader sees no benefit from a content fork. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for joining in :) I appreciate that there's no rush, but as the split was made on the basis the articles could and would be improved, could the case not be made that maybe there is nothing more to add? Surely the splits should only be made if and when editors are willing to put the work in. Any argument for the split is moot if the articles are not improved after the best part of a year. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that these improvements are not going to be undertaken, at least by the editor who proposed the split. Generally we don't go around splitting articles on the off-chance somebody might want to expand it one day. That is why we have Category:Redirects with possibilities. Re-merging the articles does not revoke the outcome of the RFC: the time to undertake the split is the time somebody undertakes these substantive improvements. Betty Logan (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose In terms of the trilogy, I think the "batman in film" page would be a bit too vague. And besides, the two are very distinct series. -PotatoNinja(Talk to me!) 15:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose In avoidance of "Batman in film" getting clustered, different series having their own articles should be considered, especially if the particular series had a major impact on the franchise, which Nolan's TDK Trilogy indeed did. Geeky Randy (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

So, a few months down the line, and still no improvement. Surely it's time to re-merge this WP:CONTENTFORK now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't called Batman Triumphant

Apparently, the working title for the sequel to Batman & Robin was never "Batman Triumphant", but "Batman Unchained". The script writer has stated in an interview that the title "Batman Triumphant" is a complete fabrication, and he has no idea were this came from. So the title should be changed in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.73.235.66 (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Arrange Films by "Era"?

The box office and reception section of this page seem quite messy. Would it be possible for someone to colour code them with borders, in a similar way (or pretty much identical) to those on the Star Trek or the Planet of the Apes? Thanks - it'd make everything much clearer to distinguish between the original series and various reboots and one-offs. 86.177.102.198 (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2016


Hi, Please change the page title from 'Batman in film' to 'Batman film series' because I believe 'Batman film series' makes more sense with all the film series on the page. There are many other examples where we have film series pages and the title is displayed accordingly. E.g. : 'The Hobbit film series', 'The Lord of the Rings film series', 'Harry Potter film series' etc.. I couldn't find pages specific to Film series on Reliable sources like IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Cinemasource, though I found data about Film Series on Freebase and Rovi which also display the titles as 'Batman Film Series' and 'Superman Film Series'.

Vichoudh (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Consider WP:RM (i.e. {{subst:Requested move|Batman film series|reason=why you think the title should be different}}. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The Batman

I've noticed that, for months now, users have been trying to jump the gun on the Batman reboot and it's rumoured title "The Batman". So naturally, as soon as Affleck acknowledged the title, it made its way onto Wikipedia. Well, Affleck just clarified his statements. It turns out, not only is "The Batman" still not the official title, but the film is still in early development. I should probably remind everyone that we are not in a hurry. It's not official until it's official. I admit that, after Affleck made the initial statement, it looked like a confirmation. However, people have been trying to add this long before even that. Wikipedia will still be here when an actual announcement arises. Don't worry. DarkKnight2149 13:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Batman in film. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 December 2016

add Batman The Movie and The Killing Joke to box office there gross are $1,700,000 and $4,462,034 while budget are $1.5 million and $3.5 million Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC) )

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
batman the movie $1.7 millon [1]

The killing joke $4.4 million [2] Return of the Caped Crusaders $57,343[3][4]

References

  1. ^ "Big Rental Pictures of 1966", Variety, 4 January 1967 p 8
  2. ^ "Batman: The Killing Joke". The Numbers. Retrieved August 15, 2016.
  3. ^ "Batman: Return of the Caped Crusaders". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 15 October 2016.
  4. ^ "Batman: Return of the Caped Crusaders". The Numbers. Retrieved 15 October 2016.
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.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Bad writing: Batman v Superman

The section on Batman v Superman movie starts off discussing film production, but ends with a plot summary, all in the same paragraph. It should be made clear when this transition occurs, partly so the reader isn't duped into reading spoilers! 2001:569:7A3A:3800:48CD:F941:AD82:2615 (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Batman in film. 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: 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) 05:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2017

Change "29th-highest-grossing film" hyperlink to "30th" or something more ambiguous for the future like "top 50" please. 195.243.79.227 (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 04:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Batman_in_film/Archive_2&oldid=1136551853"