Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Addition of Snyder's JL cut to the article/lead

Starting this discussion for the other editor involved. Fn45-2 (talk · contribs) has been wanting to add this information regarding the Snyder Cut of Justice League see here.

There are a few problems with this. The first is that the controversy around Justice League is not relevant to this page. Second, Snyder's Cut isn't considered the actual follow up to this film. The base (Whedon) cut is considered the follow up to this film. The only source that includes Snyder's Cut of JL is Warner Bros trying to market the Snyder films into a single package. Either way, that's irrelevant because it's a revisionist history. As of right now, the Whedon cut is the only official cut for WB.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

First, there are several sources and official statements (including from director Zack Snyder) reiterating the continuity relationship between MoS, BvS and Justice League (regardless of the cut). Therefore, any statement questioning such a line of continuations does not square with reality, which would allow the express addition of Justice league as a sequel to BvS on the present page.

Regarding the correct cut to be considered canonical, there are different time frames involving different managements of Warner Bros. Before the Warner Discovery joint venture took effect, both director Zack Snyder's statements and the studio's positions indicated that the "Whedon Cut" was canonical. However, both the aforementioned trilogy box set and the use of scenes from the Snyder Cut (rather than the Whedon Cut) in the Shazam 2 trailer indicate, temporally, that this is the version most in line with the present structure of the DCEU, as well as the definitive version of the trilogy. It is worth pointing out that this is an act done within the new management, demonstrating a break with the studio's previous positioning, which has not shown to follow this line at any point in the present management, pointing that it is impossible to say, in a peremptory way, that the Whedon Cut is the official cut.

Furthermore, director Patty Jenkins, in one of her statements, pointed out that the version that the directors of the DCEU films used as the basis for their solo films was precisely "Snyder's version". Not to mention being this version much more connected to MoS and BvS than the Whedon Cut.

Besides all the above, being Zack Snyder the creator of the DCEU's origins and the original creative authority of Justice League, by the principle in bonam partem (borrowed from the law), I understand that it is fairer to take it as the official version of the trilogy, not to mention the history of discrimination that permeated the production after Snyder's departure (this is only a brief justification to the technical arguments initially exposed, and does not constitute a revisionist dispute within the page). Fn45-2 (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Justice League does follow this film story wise. Specifically picking Snyder's cut over Whedon's cut is the problem. What you are doing is using original research to try to show a stronger connection with the Snyder cut. Look, it's the better film by far, but the reality is the Whedon cut is the one that officially follows this movie. You're using a revisionist history to justify only mentioning the Snyder Cut. The fact that Patty based Wonder Woman off BvS and that they used some scenes from that cut in Shazam 2 trailer (we don't actually know that they are in the film, nor would it matter) doesn't change the fact that the only page that should be linked is Justice League (film). WB has not negated this film from existence. It's the same thing that Superman (1978 film) is followed by Superman II and not Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut, even though that is considered the "true" sequel to the first film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Superman (1978 film) is followed by Superman II and not Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut, even though that is considered the "true" sequel to the first film

Excellent analogy! Completely agree that we should not be picking a winner here. However, it is worth mentioning that neither Justice League film is currently mentioned in the lead (Whedon's cut used to be), and there isn't even a "Follow-up" or "Sequel" section in this article. We could probably add one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I also understand that there should be a "sequel" section. However, ZSJL should be cited along with the theatrical version, albeit the one described as an alternate version (pending consolidation as to which version is definitive to the DCEU by the new Warner Discovery management) Fn45-2 (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Please indent your responses so that we can keep better track of where the replies are. As for a sequel "section". I don't think there needs to be a section for a sequel. The reality is that Justice League is a follow up to BvS in the same vein that Infinity War is a follow up to Capt. America Civil War. I think a basic mention at the top that it was followed by the Justice League film is sufficient. Again, the Snyder Cut stuff isn't relevant to THIS page. So, mentioning an alternate version doesn't make sense. The reason being is that the changes between Whedon and Snyder's films have no bear on this film. Superman is dead at the start of both of those films. He is brought back via the same means. The only thing different (for him) was the motivation of the team behind the resurrection, which has no bearing on this film (or its page).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Another actress was also considered for Catwoman

Eliza Dushku was also considered for Catwoman in the film. Sources: 201.188.144.240 (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2023

I would like to add on this page how the director's cut was far more acclaimed than the original theatrical cut of the film, which is true, since there are a lot of people who say that the film is a masterpiece in the director's cut rather than the theatrical. JonSnow05 (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ULPS (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

That terrible lead

@GoneIn60 Thank you (at least in this instance.lol) for AGF.

tbh, there is SO much inactivity here, that I really don't think it's the big deal you are making it out to be. Maybe there was a big brouhaha many eons ago, but that's not relevant now.

That said, I tried to really give the benefit of the doubt here.lol Especially after the dust-up and fuss you put up over at the Indy5 page for "redundant" language, and for being so particular with a lead per the etiquette of WP:LEAD. However, after bending over backwards and even allowing myself to strain credulity here, by looking at those archived dust ups over this article, I have some serious concerns and deal-breakers here if we are to be fully-objective and apply your logic from elsewhere to this page:

For starters, while you're certainly correct that it would appear that "language has been thoroughly discussed and refined over the years" (to death, I may add, it would seem) you are implying some binding consensus among editors in the past that simply doesn't exist her. You would need a proper vote in the form of an RFC that an admin would later need to come in just to make sure that there wasn't any abuse of process. For instance, imagine if the Trump-election deniers argued that election misinformation (i.e.that Biden lost!derp) or that the Earth was flat, then an admin would likely overrule any improper consensus that gave WP:UNDUE weight to a minority position or any form of WP:OR. So if I missing something here, and there was something in the way of a former RFC then maybe share me a link to that so I can feel better about this absurd bloated-lead that smacks of spin in the form of WP:WEASEL words and a WP:FALSEBALANCE? Again, there is no formal binding consensus here. So its fair game to the rest of us.

Then there are the sources themselves. The movie has a low 29% on RT, and in hindsight with the death of the Snyderverse due to recent box office bombs and the new James Gunn era of DC, it's clear that this movie has been appraised at as "generally negative" film. With a critical consensus that low it's more than "unfavorable" and the sources really use the word "negative" the most. But, the sources in their own voices aren't really concluding this sorta mixed reception and legacy implied by the lead. It would be one thing if this movie has been re-appraised over the years like John Carpenter's "The Thing" which now enjoys a cult status. But, if anything, this movie is disliked just as much now as it was then. Also, most important of all, it's not like I'm advocating the removal of this content entirely. I want to be clear about that, and heard. I'm just saying it's not appropriate in the lead. I carefully read the article here and the same content appears in the body and reads just fine. WP:LEAD requires us to be as concise and cogent as possible, to only list what is WP:NOTABLE. That redundant, odd, bloated, watered-down brief history is simply not necessary, then, in the lead as it appears, again, in the body where it is appropriately formatted and presented.

I will also AGF here and assume you are not acting as a gatekeeper for the page, with my reasonable edits, since neither of us WP:OWN the page. Even if there was a strong feeling from editors back in the day on how this should look, MOS:FILMLEAD has evolved A LOT since those wild west days. And more importantly, there is a lot of inactivity on the page over this article (especially the lead) and enough years have passed that it is clear this film hasn't received some reappraisal by the press. However, I'm aware this is this weird Snyderverse-following that goes to war regularly with the equally zealous Marvel-following. So my hope is that such a dynamic isn't spilling into pages like this.

So what I propose given all that: I'd like to restore the reasonable revision I made earlier, and see how the community reacts. Since you are so invested in this, given your past participation, let's see if others feel the same way. Of course, neither of us should WP:CANVASS support for either position. And should a lot of editors object to the changes I made, then I will likely leave it alone... or least escalate it then to the film administration arbitration boards here, and maybe push for a proper RFC to make it official? But I really don't see that happening here. This should ended with either one of us acting as a gatekeeper here, whether it is you making a point to revert me NOR me being stubborn and reverting everyone else should I be wrong. Thanks again for being WP:CIVIL and inviting me to open this discussion (as you mentioned in your comments) I invite you to maintain that spirit with me, and let's see how the rest of the community responds to that change (which I have faith in non-controversial to say the least). Have a good one brother. CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the current wording, to be honest. It's accurate to what's written in the article, pretty clear in its meaning, not overly detailed, and "unfavorable" is a fine descriptor of the reception as currently written. No reason to change it in my opinion. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 00:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64 That’s the problem. It’s already in the body of article. So it’s redundant in the lead, which needs to be as concise and efficient as possibly per WP:Lead. Plus updated sources as recent as 2023 have spelled this out. We can’t disregard them with a WP:Synthesis of outdated info as far back as 2016, especially when even though older sources and critics were part of clear plurality being harsh on the film.

Again, I’m fine with it as it appears in the body. But in the lead it’s a form of WP:Puffery relying on WP:weasel words to suggest a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Familiarize yourself with MOS:FILMLEAD and this article https://thedirect.com/article/zack-snyder-batman-v-superman-negative-reception which is one of many recent ones reflecting a press consensus about where this film stands.

MOS:FILMLEAD says when in doubt we summarize the press consensus with one or two of the most reliable sources.

Thanx for the feedback! CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Repeating important elements from the body of the article is an essential part of WP:LEAD, so calling it redundant isn't a sufficient criticism. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@GoneIn60 Absurd. The wordy play-by-play material removed was not WP:NOTABLE enough that it needs to be mentioned again in the lead paragraph, and you know it.lol Like any other film page, we summarize as best as possible. Distilled to its basics, according to the consensus in the press, the film received generally negative reviews and performed under expectations, and that’s neutral, and enough, for the lead per WP:LEAD. The body goes into the necessary detail with ‘the hows’ and ‘the whys.’ Stop WP:EDITORIALIZING. CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

CoffeeMeAlready,

Did you read any of the past discussions here or here? One of the biggest hurdles to calling the overall reception "negative" is the fact that Metacritic calls it "mixed or average". When RT and MC disagree, we can't really choose one over the other. An earlier compromise was reached to call it "unfavorable", which includes both mixed and negative (an alternative was to use "not well received").

I see you are attempting to tie the proposed change to this source, but there are issues. That source is discussing Snyder's recent comments about being at peace with negative reviews. It goes on to say the film "suffered from poor reviews", which is true: some of the reviews were in fact poor. The analysis here isn't saying that overall reception is negative, in my opinion. Later in the article, it even states: "Similar to Batman v Superman, Man of Steel and his version of Justice League received mixed reviews from fans and critics." So as an overall reception, that source actually seems to be supporting "mixed".

Pinging editors involved in previous discussions and/or are significant contributors to this article: Erik, Betty Logan, Bignole, TropicAces, TriiipleThreat, LordofMoonSpawn. Hoping for some feedback on the proposed changes and cited source. I don't think these are improvements but willing to accept any new consensus. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@GoneIn60 You shouldn’t engage in WP:canvass to push your POV. That source I listed was one of many recent ones. Should I include them all?

MOS:FILMLEAD says clearly not to put too much weight on aggregators (like RT or especially Metacritic which is a bit like a bot-like algorithm based web app) and advises us to go with the consensus as reflected by the sources to avoid WP:undue.

Trying to go for some form of silly mob rule here with that pinging stunt you pulled, should my position be unpopular here (given how zealous movie fans often act about these things) smacks of WP:gaming the process.

If you are going to play games here then we should move immediately to the film arbitration boards where this debate is more appropriate Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Nice try, but WP:CANVASS actually states you can ping "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article" or "have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. That's exactly who I pinged. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@GoneIn60 Their contributions were from years ago, and not part of a proper consensus in the first place-- one that needs to be founded on a proper documented vote with an admin monitoring and closing it (i.e.to vet it against abuse and gaming). But Im safely betting you already know all this. So, yeah, “nice try” indeed. No one (honest) here is buying it, the least of all, you.

Again, this ‘debate’ will also be had over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, and maybe even over at the noticeboard, to monitor the outcome here for, amongst other things, your WP:Canvassing and any other further efforts at WP:GAMING. It looks like this poor article has suffered for too long over this silliness. CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@GoneIn60 P.S. Since the aggregator “Metacritic” is being disingenuously name-dropped here as some sorta ‘Holy Grail-ace-in-the-hole’, here’s WHY that won’t work: per MOS:FILMLEAD

"Review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for data pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews. (When referencing Rotten Tomatoes, reference the score from All Critics, not Top Critics.) There is no community consensus about how to summarize Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores in writing; prevalent styles of summarizing or use of templates are not required to be followed. Caution should be exercised when using aggregator scores that combine original reviews with reviews from later dates. Also, the data from these websites is potentially less accurate for films released before the websites existed; therefore, care should be exercised in determining whether to refer to them. To avoid giving these sites undue weight in such circumstances, consider whether it is best to place the data lower in the section. To maintain a neutral point of view, it is recommended to sample a reasonable balance of these reviews. This may not always be possible or desirable (e.g. films that have been almost universally acclaimed or panned), and best judgment should again be used. CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe it is accurate to describe the reviews as negative. For example, The Hollywood Reporter described the reviews as "mixed". The BBC also described them as "mixed". It's fairly easy to dig up sources that invariably describe the reception as "mixed" or "negative" depending on your slant. On Metacritic 60% of the reviews are graded "average" or "mixed". This does not translate to being "generally negative". Indeed, only 1-in-5 reviews are graded negatively on Metacritic. It's true that that the film has a low score on Rotten Tomatoes, but the problem there is that it doesn't have a "mixed" category, so a film with a predominantly mixed reception must be graded positive or negative. I do note that the film is graded 5/10 on Rotten Tomatoes though, compared to 44/100 on Metacritic. That suggests very middling reviews, rather than terrible reviews, which is borne out by the number of reviews graded as "mixed" by Metacritic. There is a slight problem here in that describing the reviews as "unfavorable" is unsourced; even though I find this description more accurate than the proposed alternative it needs to be sourced if this characterization is being challenged. Betty Logan (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Betty Logan I can list several reliable sources that directly use the word “negative” if you want. They’ve already been included in the last hour on the article itself.

It doesn’t matter what we believe, as that is our personal analysis per WP:OR. What DOES matter though is what the consensus is as reflected by the citations. Familiarize yourself again with MOS:FILMLEAD that clearly advises us that, when in doubt or dispute, we go with direct quotes from the one or two sources summarizing the prevailing press consensus. If you look at the page now, a direct quote is now used. To use other lingo or WP:weasel words like “unfavorable” only gives WP:undue weight to personal preferences not reflected by the sources themselves. On this movie this really is nobrainer by the way. It was a badly received movie that hasn’t been reappraised over time. The much better-received sequel “Justice League”, both versions, was the one that divided everyone.

Thank you for your feedback and for being WP:civil. Appreciated. This will likely have to be fairly resolved on the wiki film project page, or even the noticeboards, given the LTA this page has endured. CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Betty. Are you fine with "unfavorable" for now, since that term seems to represent both mixed and negative (the results at RT and MC), and has been used in other articles in similar situations? Or should we rethink that approach and describe it differently? We could simply remove the statement altogether, or as an alternative, we could say, "...received generally mixed and unfavorable reviews" citing both RT and MC inline? I'm open to any approach. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be returned to the WP:STATUSQUO for now, because it is not neutral to describe the reception as "generall negative". That is not borne out by the aggregator scores and statistics, and it is easy enough to locate sources that describe the reception as "mixed". It is fairly evident that the reception was mixed but skewing negative, and terms such as "unfavorable" describe that more accurately. Another alternative would be to just describe the reception as "mixed" because that can be directly sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The article has already been restored to the last revision by TheJoebro64. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Reviews of Ultimate Edition

JonSnow05, as indicated on your talk page, the recent change you made to the article is unsourced. Critics were not polled again on the Ultimate Edition, and while some found it to be a significant improvement, others still suggest the improvements may not have changed its overall reception. The Home media section describes this in more detail. Unless you can bring valid sources to the table, this claim should be removed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Grammar Q

Should the ‘who’ at the end of the introduction be ‘whom’? 173.73.140.206 (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Technically yes, but it's acceptable either way. DonQuixote (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

IMDB External link

An IMDB link for the director's cut, named Ultimate Edition, was added in early 2022. That IMDB entry was recently merged with the film´s regular page and both links now lead to the same (theatrical release) page. The separate link is now dead weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.64.147.133 (talk) 12:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)