Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Which teaser poster should we use?

There are two new official teaser posters for the film. One with the Superman logo on top of Batman, and another with the Batman logo on top of Superman. Question is of course, which one suits the article/film best? I remember there was a similar situation with the two previous teaser posters for Dumb and Dumber To, which had one poster with Lloyd's orange suit, and another with Harry's light blue suit. The poster with Lloyd's orange suit was ultimately chosen, maybe because his suit looks more funny or maybe because the actor behind Lloyd (Jim Carrey) is more famous. In the case of Batman v Superman, the choice is more tricky. I'd say that as a character, Batman is probably more popular, while the Superman logo is more recognizable. This means that we should pick the teaser poster with the Superman logo on top of Batman. What do you think? --Jonipoon (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this mainly Superman film (series)? If yes, then I would support Superman logo as the main one. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, the one with the image of Superman with the Batman logo thematically fits better with the teaser trailer as shown with the destruction of perceived iconography of Superman like the vandalized Superman statute. And it seems that Batman is the one attempting to bring down this "false god".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, that's another good reason. We will wait for a few others to agree, and then we may update the article with this poster: File:DawnofJustice teaserposter.jpg --Jonipoon (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I was actually talking about this one.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, but that doesn't make sense to me. The poster with the red Superman logo on top of Batman is more visually close to the trailer IMO. The statue is dark and the text "False God" is red, which is very similar to the poster. I also think it represents the dark style of this movie. And as I stated before, Batman as a character is more popular while the Superman logo is more recognizable. --Jonipoon (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is kind of OR. Coudn't we wait until some sources (like IMDb) puts one or other poster? And then just take it? Or IMDb don't change quite fast? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I was talking about content not the color pallet: the statue of Superman or in this case the image of superman being vandalized with graffiti or the Batman logo. But in the grand scheme of things this isn't that important and either of them would do.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think IMDb will change that fast, but who knows. The posters just arrived so let's give it a couple of days and then we'll decide or not. I also agree that it's pretty OR. --Jonipoon (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

And this is why the banner should stay. It's perfectly encapsulates the film already. There will be other posters. There's no need to constantly upload poster after poster until we're at least closer to the film's release and there are international posters (which is typically what we use, so that we're not being American-centric).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Not a sequel

The lead in to the article states "It is intended to be the sequel to 2013's Man of Steel" - this article contradicts it - http://comicbook.com/2015/04/22/henry-cavill-batman-v-superman-is-not-a-man-of-steel-sequel/

I wouldn't call this a Superman sequel. This is Batman v Superman, so it is a separate entity all together. It's introducing the Batman character and expanding upon the universe. Which was kicked off by Man of Steel [...] As it stands it is definitely an introduction of the character, and ultimately the introduction of Justice League.

— Henry Cavill, MTV

2.101.165.167 (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I think he means in the sense that Avengers is not a sequel to any of the MCU films released before it, despite sharing the same continuity. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, so the lead in shouldn't say it's intended to be a sequel to 2013's Man of Steel, when in fact it isn't meant to be be a sequel to the Man of Steel, rather a continuation of the DC Cinematic Universe 2.101.165.167 (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2015

Someone posted a vandalistic remark underneath the last Paragraph, entitled "Future," of this article. The vandalism remark reads, "*SPOILER ALERT* ALL OF THESE MOVIES WILL SUCK[70]." Reference [70] reads: "Bomb." I would like to report this an request the permission to remove this case of article vandalism. WaikikiDreamin (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Already done Altamel (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2015

Add this poster by clicking this link. http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3648779776/tt2975590?ref_=ttmi_mi_all_pos_20 81.111.9.102 (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Wait for a poster featuring both Supe and the Bat. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Batfleck

Batfleck redirect here and yet there is no mention of the word Batfleck in the article, what gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.210.110 (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Then please redirect it to somewhere noteworthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2015

I was wondering if we could use one of the IMAX trailer posters here since the same logo has been here for a year. 67.186.139.45 (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you meaning the posters which show Batman and Superman separately? Wait till we find one containing them both. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Potentially leaked plot

While spoilers are allowed on Wikipedia, some users may wish to not see the following info, regardless of its supposed validity.

Not sure if anyone has seen this, but supposedly the plot for the film has leaked. Are we allowed to post it on here? Three years after the Battle of Metropolis, Clark Kent is protecting the world as Superman and working as a reporter for the Daily Planet newspaper. Superman has become a controversial figure, with some blaming him for the destruction caused by General Zod and others believing him to be a hero. Lois Lane is covering the civil war on Khandaq in the Middle East, while Clark is forced to cover minor stories. He befriends Jim Olsen, a photographer who lost his legs in Zod's invasion, but doesn't blame Superman, and applied for the Daily Planet because they defend Superman, and they cover a football game between Metropolis and Gotham City in which Clark meets Victor Stone, a quarterback for the Metropolis team whose father, Dr. Silas Stone, is an robotic engineer at S.T.A.R. Labs who spearheaded a new high-tech prosthesis program which includes Jim's legs. Bruce Wayne was in Metropolis during Zod's invasion and believes Superman to be a threat, elaborating counter-measures to disable him if necessary. He's also funding an effort to rebuild a vacant area of Gotham with new housing projects for low-income families. As Batman, he's been active for 15 years, but remains a fugitive of justice that many believe to be an urban legend. Clark has been studying the Batman's sightings despite his editor, Perry White, not seeing any potential in that story. Lex Luthor funded Metropolis' rebuilding after Zod's invasion and has been contracted by the United States government to reverse-engineer leftover Kryptonian technology for them. Luthor believes Superman to be a threat and runs a smear campaign against him through the media vehicles he owns, and is funding the development of anti-Superman weapons, including Kryptonite, which is created through exposure to energy from the World Engine. Luthor also has collected Zod's body and harvested his DNA, using technology based on the Genesis Chamber to craft a biotechnological weapon that could fight Superman. Senator Veronica Cale is supervising Luthor's experiments, but believes the biotechnological weapon shouldn't be deployed due to potential backlash given many still regard Superman as a hero, something Luthor seeks to rectify. Luthor has also been monitoring other individuals with super-humans powers umbeknowst to the government, and has captured and experimented on several of them through Cadmus, a LexCorp subsidiary dedicated on genetic research. A paramilitary team under LexCorp's employ, led by his head of security Anatoly Kniazev ambushes Aquaman after luring him into a trap in a LexCorp oil rig and captures him, bringing him to Cadmus for experimentation. Luthor's activities have attracted the attention of Diana, princess of Themyscira, who is on Men's World masquerading as a wealthy humanitarian. She connects Luthor to the string of disappearances she's been been investigating and decides to pursue that lead to Metropolis. Clark calls Lois in Khandaq, which doesn't allow Superman in their airspace. The camp is attacked by rebels and Superman springs to action to help Lois and the soldiers, in the process causing an international incident. Lois returns to Metropolis, while Cale uses the incident to convince the American Congress that Superman represents a potential political liability if they continue to harbor him. Superman is later informed by General Swanwick, one of his fiercest supporters within the government, that the Congress has ordered him to attend a summit in Washington, D.C. to discuss his place in the world. The aftermath of Superman's actions in the Middle East are observed by Bruce, Diana and Luthor. Bruce finds out about Luthor's research on anti-Superman weapons and travels to Metropolis with Alfred Pennyworth under the pretext of meeting Luthor to discuss a partnership to rebrand Gotham's impoverished neighborhoods in order to learn more. Bruce doesn't trust Luthor with alien technology as much as he doesn't trust Superman. Luthor promotes a fundraiser for the Metropolis Museum, the building where Zod was murdered, something which he makes sure to point out. Clark, Lois and Jim are covering the event, with Bruce, Alfred, Diana, Kniazev and Luthor's private assistant Mercy Graves in attendance. Clark interviews Bruce and questions him about the Batman, Bruce dances and flirts with Diana, who also scans Kniazev. Bruce and Luthor have a brief argument in which Bruce plants a device in Luthor's phone, so he can steal the access passwords to LexCorp Tower and infiltrate it, using a signal jammer to evade security. Batman steals data about Luthor's projects, but an algorithm projected by Luthor adapts to the jammer and alerts security. Batman evades Kniazev and his men, but is then confronted by Superman, who believes him to a criminal. Batman refuses to surrender and, after a brief confrontation, escapes from Superman in the Batmobile. Batman sightings in Metropolis are enough for Lois and Clark to convince Perry to let them go to Gotham for a more extensive investigation. Luthor later reviews footage of Superman and Batman's encounter acquired by the government's satellites and retrieves the signal jammer Batman left behind, which gives Luthor an idea. Superman arrives at the summit, with the entire world watching. Senator Cale accuses him of being dangerous, and Superman defends himself and explains his ideals. The Congress pushes for Superman to swear allegiance to them, including disclosing secrets of his identity and upbringing, but Superman refuses, claiming he will not become a tool of the government. Superman hears Batman's signal jammer and feels weak. He loses control of his powers and the building is evacuated just as it explodes, injuring several people and killing General Swanwick. Senator Cale accuses Superman of being the culprint, and he is forced to escape when the military intervene. Superman is declared a public enemy, while Luthor is informed that the Kryptonite has been a success. Clark returns to the damaged building and locates Batman's signal jammer, and becomes convinced that Batman framed him and is indirectly responsible for General Swanwick's death. Superman returns to Metropolis in search of Batman, but Bruce manages to evade him. He learns about Kryptonite from Luthor's files and steals samples from it from a LexCorp outpost stationed in the Indian Ocean where the World Engine has first activated. Meanwhile, Diana lures Kniazev and his men into a trap and confronts them. Kniazev escapes, but Diana manages to interrogate one of his soldiers, using the Lasse of Truth to force him into revealing where the super-humans are being taken. Batman attracts Superman to the abandoned neighborhood being rebuilt by Wayne Enterprises and fights him with an armored suit, Kryptonite-based weapons and several buildings and vehicles that have been booby-trapped with Batman's arsenal of anti-Superman weapons. The fight is vicious and ends with Superman victorious. Batman urges Superman to kill him, but Superman refuses. Batman then reveals that the fight was designed to test Superman. When pressed for the signal jammer, Batman declares innocence, and they join forces to locate the true mastermind behind the conspiracy. Simultaneously, Diana locates the Cadmus facility in the outskirts of Metropolis and observers the experiments being conducted therein, particularly on Aquaman, and the ongoing development of the biotechnological weapon, Doomsday. Wonder Woman infiltrates the facility and rescues Aquaman, but he leaves her behind and returns to the ocean. Luthor's men, armed with advanced weaponry, spring to action, forcing Wonder Woman to flee. Luthor later informs Cale that the Cadmus facility has been compromised, and that they only have no resort to protect their careers. Batman leads Superman to the Batcave, where they deduce Luthor is behind everything. Diana arrives and reveals that she knows their secret and exposes Luthor's experiments at Cadmus. Superman is infuriated that Luthor has been weaponizing the technology stolen from Zod, as he still blames himself for all the damage it caused. Superman introduces Lois to Batman and Wonder Woman and they join forces to expose Luthor. Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman attack the Cadmus facility to rescue the remaining prisoners, but are then attacked by Doomsday, who has been deployed by Luthor and Cale. Superman fights Doomsday while Wonder Woman helps the remaining prisoners to flee and Batman retrieves data from the Cadmus' servers and fights Kniazev. Meanwhile, Lois infiltrates LexCorp Tower using the signal jammer while Jimmy creates a distraction to find a way to disable Doomsday. Doomsday marches to Metropolis, and Cale learns that Luthor has sub-programming in Doomsday to maximime collateral damage to further damage Superman's reputation. Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman battle Doomsday in Metropolis, and are joined by Aquaman, who wants to repay his debt to Wonder Woman and get revenge against Luthor. Together, the heroes manage to minimize collateral damage and avoid innocent casualties, but Doomsday is still able to adapt to their abilities and overpower them in combat. Mercy catches Lois and they have a fight, but Lois manages to locate Doomsday's systems and insert a sub-routine that allows Alfred to disable the servers. Cale attempts to terminate Doomsday, but Luthor reveals that she can't. When she attempts to expose Luthor, he kills them and makes it appear to be suicide. Without LexCorp satellites uploading battle tactics directly into his mind, Doomsday becomes more vulnerable to attacks, but continues wreaking havoc and causing wanton destruction. Victor is caught in the crossfire while helping innocents and severely injured. With Batman, Wonder Woman and Aquaman all struggling to protect the innocent, Superman realizes what he must do and soars into Space with Doomsday. He flies into the Sun, with Doomsday still trying to kill him, and they disappear in an explosion. Superman is believed to have sacrificed himself, but emerges from the Sun and returns to Earth as the planet celebrates his victory. A few days later, Superman speaks to the Congress once again and speaks in favor of his new allies, as Batman is embraced by the public as reality and the police charges against him called into question, Wonder Woman continues helping people in impoverished countries, Aquaman continues fighting for the environment, Victor is transferred to S.T.A.R. Labs' C.Y.B.O.R.G. Program, Senator Cale is framed of having authorized Doomsday's deployment, and, although Luthor covers up his involvement, his role in creating Doomsday and other Kryptonite-based weapons is exposed and his company loses its military contracts as a result. Superman concludes his statement by revealing that "a new age is dawning." Luthor is drinking in his office when Superman arrives and they discuss recent events separated by a glass window. Luthor accuses Superman of being the end of human achievements, Superman claims that Luthor takes himself as superior to other humans, and is terrified that for all its wealth and power he is still beneath all the heroes that fought in Metropolis and fight everyday for an ideal grander than themselves. The ideal of justice. Luthor vows to destroy Superman. Superman claims he'll be waiting. The script concludes with Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and Aquaman meeting at Kent Farm to discuss Luthor's actions. Superman points out Luthor won't stop, and there'll be others like him. Aquaman claims to have affairs in his "home", but is willing to assist if necessary, as the heroes have earned his respect. After he departs, Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman decide to find others like them of this new emerging race of meta-humans to form a line of defense against Earth and those who seek to bring it harm. Batman points out to reports of a red blur in Central City stopping bank robbers. Superman asks what happens next. Wonder Woman says "recruitment." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SafetyNotGranted (talk • contribs) 23:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Manuscripts are not citeable by an encyclopaedia. DonQuixote (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Harry Lennix confirms return.

Here's the source. Further confirmation is the choice of words he uses. "And I can say that I’m looking forward to working with Ben Affleck again." Npamusic (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Michael Shannon as General Zod

He has been seen in the Comic-Con trailer, can we add him to the cast? Npamusic (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Trailers cannot be used as sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

so a clear picture of actors in a trailer for a film is not reliable? Makes sense. Heres a source 1, source 2, source 3. Npamusic (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Npamusic The point isn't whether it's clear in the trailer, the reliability of the trailer itself, etc. Zod was in the trailer, agreed. However, there is nothing that confirms that the shot shown in the trailer featuring Zod will be in the movie. Example: the Harry Potter series trailers often featured small segments of footage from previous movies when relevant, and that could be the same thing that is happening here. In this case, you're hearing Lex Luthor's line about devils coming from the sky. It would make sense to show Zod at that point, because he IS a "devil from the sky." But that particular footage could have been filmed for Man of Steel, cut from that film, and reused here in this trailer only, which would mean Zod is not in BvS: DoJ. I'm not saying that that is what happened, because we don't know. But that's the point... we don't know. At this point, there is nothing that explicitly tells us that Michael Shannon will be featured in BvS as Zod, so he can't be included. And I did read your sources. They say nothing about Zod or Michael Shannon. Rmaynardjr (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

it seems like they made it a point to feature the corpse of Zod in the trailer, personally doubt its just some small easter egg. I'd like more people to weight in on it, but for now it'll stay in the article as is. We need more thoughts on this. Npamusic (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree with you... He's in the movie, like 99% sure. I'm just thinking of something like all of the Amazing Spider-Man 2 trailers, where they constantly showed a scene in every trailer where Harry tells Peter that Oscorp has him under surveillance. Never ended up in the movie. I feel as if we can't call something "confirmed" unless there are no explanations to the contrary, and I think there still are at this point — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmaynardjr (talk • contribs) 01:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Then remove Zod's inclusion as you please, but the character page will still include the info. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't stay in just because you saw it in a trailer. Actually find a source verifying he reprised his role, and not simply people identifying him from a trailer. We don't know when that was filmed, nor do we know if it will stay in the film. This is why we don't accept trailers as source material.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeffrey Dean Morgan as Thomas Wayne

Here's are sources: source 1 and source 2. Npamusic (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

and here is a third source. Npamusic (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

None of those sources confirm that is his character. Two of them are just people trying to interpret the trailer and making educated guesses. The last is from an interview awhile ago where he doesn't actually confirm he's even in the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Jeffrey Dean Morgan rumor is true. He will play Thomas Wayne in Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice

I checked Jeffrey Dean Morgan's page on Wikipedia. The rumor is true, he will play Thomas Wayne in Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice. How do I also know this. I saw the trailer and it shows Morgan with a beard and a brown jacket. Morgan worked with Zack Snyder on Watchmen and Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice will be their second collaboration. Add that to the Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice page if you will please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntManLang (talk • contribs) 01:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

 Not done We need reliable sources to add this, more than "I saw him in a trailer." Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 03:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

just because u see it on the actors filmography doesn't mean its true. Although we've seen him on set, a photo of him as thomas wayne, and seen him in the trailer still doesn't confirm his inclusion in the film unless a reliable source comes through. Npamusic (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Forbes article

Something useful. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed Mulvey Role

Is has been confirmed that Callan Mulvey will play KGBeast in this film. Sources -> [1], [2], and [3]. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

First two can't be used as they are unreliable sources, the third could be used, but in this case, we can't because it sources Heroic Hollywood as the originator of the info, which is also an unreliable source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Michael Shannon as General Zod confirmed by Shannon.

Here's the source. Npamusic (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It has been used. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

In this, he states that he only filmed for the trailer, and not the film's final cut. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Gadot casting info

Something useful about Gadot here. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Lex Luthor

The article is currently linking the character played by Jesse Eisenberg (Lex Luthor) to a character page for an alternate universe "son of Lex Luthor etc etc". This is inaccurate. While the character in the movie's backstory includes him having a father also named Lex Luthor, he is for all intents and purposes THE Lex Luthor. For one, he is named as "Lex Luthor" in official casting announcements, toys, memorabilia, etc. Two, his father (in the Fortune article) had never encountered Superman, and ran a much less significant company. Jesse Eisenberg's character is "The Lex Luthor" and the links should reflect that. I'll be changing it back, but please respond if you disagree. Drsmoo (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your edit, similar to how the Nick Fury (in all MCU Wiki articles) links to the main version of him rather than the Ultimate version, despite facial similarities. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree entirely that Eisenberg is playing the Lex Luthor that has appeared for decades. The only thing the "Alexander Luthor, Jr." name indicates is that his father is also named Alexander. And every reliable source available (including primary sources) have been indicating the same thing. Darkknight2149 (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

3D creature VFX

Something useful. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Casting info on Lois Lane

Is this: "About her role, Adams stated that "Lois is still sort of like the key to the information, she’s the girl going out and getting it and figuring it out and putting it together and all of that, so she’s very much involved." really needed in this session? None of the other names have quotes attached to them, and it seems the main purpose of that section is to provide information about casting choices, not on the actor's opinion of their own character's romantic life. BillyHalliday (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Please try to merge the two sections then. Make it like Suicide Squad which has both a "Cast" and "Casting" section. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we replace the comic con poster with one of the 3 new posters that just came out, please? - 23 December 2015

67.230.62.48 (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Not followed correctly, but either way I would say "no". Although they are newer, it's better to have a poster that features the two leads then try to decide which poster we will pick out of 3. Otherwise, edit wars will ensue.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Snyder confirms appearances from Cyborg and Flash

Here is the source. Npamusic (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyborg was already confirmed a long time ago, with Ray Fisher playing him. Wilkinson let it slip a few months before that Flash would appear. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

then please cite sources for the confirmation on the page. People keep reverting the edits. This page needs to be locked. Npamusic (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The Flash, 'Cyborg' and Martha Wayne castings.

Aren't these confirmed? The flash's role has been confirmed. As well as Martha Wayne. IMDB's official twitter confirmed her involvement and they NEVER EVER confirm casting, with Lauren Cohan referring the tweet and saying "thanku". Npamusic (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

source for the flash involvement and source for Martha Wayne. Npamusic (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

IMDB, even if it's on twitter is not reliable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 08:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2016

In section "Marketing", the final quote in the fourth paragraph is incomplete, such that it almost reverses the meaning of the original source linked to. Six words cut from the end of the quote should be added back:

"… a far cry from the somewhat cartoonish villain we’ve seen."

should be corrected to

"… a far cry from the somewhat cartoonish villain we’ve seen in the clips from the film."

204.38.187.51 (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! ZackTheCardshark (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Oversight?

Can we get some god damn oversight on this page? Jesus Christ. People keep putting in information with unverifiable sources to back their claims! They are not citing their sources properly and it's getting insane! I'm getting sick of having to come in here and remove information where it appears as though no one can do this themselves. I'm stuck here picking up the pieces. This article is all over the place, simply because there is no oversight as to what goes into the page. Get your act together. Npamusic (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Npamusic (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Care to elaborate on what you are repeatedly finding...minus the incivility?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

check the site yourself in the cast section.someone has been cast as "Jimmy Olsen" and someone claims that Carla is voicing "ShipVoice" as well as Dan A.. portraying a "Drone Pilot". Check those, they have no sources. Npamusic (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Npamusic (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The page was protected earlier. For future reference, anyone can request page protection at WP:RPP. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Formatting

Since Adam constantly disagrees with whatever I do to just about every article, let's just hash this out. Currently, we have Marketing under "Release". It's a single subsection under release. For professional writing and organization, the rule of thumb is if you have an "A" then you need at least a "B", otherwise you don't create a subheading.

Per WP:MOSFILM, Marketing CAN exist as its own section. Given that Marketing takes place before a film is released, it stands to reason that you would include that information BEFORE you have information about its actual release. Just because other articles have incorrectly done this does not make it correct.

Not to mention that Adam's blatantly blind reverting also restored my cleaning up of the recent Doritos marketing campaign. Clearly, and I'm calling you out on this Adam, you don't care for what I'm doing regardless of whether it's good for the page. Otherwise, you would have noticed that I cleaned up the sentence structure, cleaned up the titles, and merged a single sentence paragraph (again, something that we have an MOS telling us should not be done). This is exemplified further by the fact that the edit summary says "Anything contentious needs to be discussed". Please, tell me how separating a section so that it complies with basic organizational standards, merging a single sentence paragraph (and cleaning it up), and complying with the MOS is remotely contentious at all.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I reverted everything else you were doing, clearly from my edit summaries this was not my intention. And I don't disagree with everything you do nor do I not care for what you are doing regardless of whether it's good for the page. I have no agenda against you, and I would hope that I am not the only person who has ever constantly disagreed with someone. That seems like something that would just happen if everybody had their own opinions, which they do. The fact is, I have talked to you about this issue before, and given several valid reasons for why I think it is a contentious issue and think you should discuss it first, which you have clearly completely ignored.

As I have said before, this format is consistent across many Wikipedia articles. I am not saying we should keep it because of that, I do know about WP:OTHERSTUFF. What I am saying is that there are a lot of editors who would be interested in a change like this or at least would like to discuss it before the change is made as it will probably affect all of those other pages. So I am not saying that your reasoning is poor, or that you are actually wrong in any way. All I am saying is start a discussion somewhere, invite editors who may be interested, give your argument, let it be discussed and a consensus formed, and then we will know how to move forward. Because even the fact that this isn't the first film article you have tried to do this shows that this is bigger than a simple formatting issue. It may even lead to a change in the MOS. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

What changes to the MOS need to take place? The MOS already state what I have been doing. The MOS already allows for Marketing to exist by itself. As a matter of fact, it doesn't say how it needs to exist only provides options on how to include it. If it's stand alone, it should come before "Release". If it's in "Release" it should be the first thin in the section. It's a basic order of operations. As for single subsections, that's a basic page structure issue and not something MOSFILM would ever address.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not the point! Did you even read what I was trying to say, or just the last sentence? This affects more than just this page, and so it should be up to more people than you. I don't know how much more I can explain that, unless you already understand and are just picking at a little sidenote I made so you can ignore my suggestion, which, if that is the case, is astonishingly immature and clearly not done with the "good [of] the page" in mind. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't affect more than this page. Every page stands on its own. It WOULD affect more than this page if the MOS needed to change. The MOS already states this. The fact that people are ignoring it does not mean that it should be blindly ignored across all pages "because other people are doing it". Right now, your argument for undoing my changes is because my changes go against what others are doing, even though my changes are supported by the MOS. You haven't provided a single counter argument other than other pages are doing it this way, even though the MOS supports what I did. How exactly is that helping THIS article?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not arguing against your changes! I am just asking you to discuss them first! This does affect more than this page—every page stands on its own, but your reasoning applies to a whole lot of them, and if everyone agrees that your thinking is correct and it is what is best for all of these articles, then we can go around and fix all of them at once and that will be the end of the problem. That helps THIS article, and ALL OF THE OTHERS! Is that so hard to understand?! - adamstom97 (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. The MOS already supports what I did. You're stopping me from making the change to this article because other articles haven't done this? I don't actually see how that's a justifiable reason to stop changes to this article. Nothing needs to change in the MOS, it already supports what I did. You're entire argument right now rests on "other articles aren't doing it".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

No! You are missing the point! I'm not arguing anything! I'm not stopping anything! I just want you to use some manners! The fact is that a lot of articles do this, perhaps because some editors aren't aware of what the MOS says on this, or perhaps because the MOS allows more than one option, etc. If we can just clear up exactly what is going on, then we can go around all the film and television articles we want and fix them, referencing this conversation and/or the MOS. That way all the articles can be correct, all the articles can be reasonably consistent, and it will be based on community consensus rather than you. I know that you know that this is bigger than just this one article, since you have already made this change at another article, and there I told you the same thing that I am telling you here. So why are you so against discussing something that you know is more important than a single article and that you think you are completely correct on and so are likely going to end up with the outcome that you want? It seems to me that you are just fighting me because you don't like me per some sort of agenda you believe I have against you rather than thinking in terms of the good of this encyclopaedia. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that you are see what you are arguing. First, I did start the discussion so saying that I haven't is just plain wrong. Second, the MOS allows for multiple ways of doing it. I've already explained this to you and in my discussion above. The difference is that people are choosing one way of doing it without thinking about proper organization or chronological order of events. The MOS doesn't outline that because the MOS doesn't need to hold your hand through everything. It expects a basic level of common sense. We don't need to outline every minute detail of writing an article. Ironically, whenever I make these changes YOU seem to be the only one reverting them, under the guise that there is a larger community that is affected by this. I would wager that I could go through just about every page and make this change, with the explanation that I have provided for the reasoning, and no one would have issue (1. because the MOS supports the change and 2. because it actually is, in fact, not controversial at all). You seem to be the only person advocating for widespread MOS changes for something the MOS already addresses.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I give up. You clearly have no interest in working in with everyone else, so you might as well do whatever you want. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I realize the time has come and gone for this discussion, but here are my observations that will hopefully add some closure. Reverting another person's edit is typically a sign you disagree with the change, so it is confusing then to state on the article's talk page that you don't necessarily disagree. If you're only seeking clarification for the edit, then simply initiate the discussion asking the question instead of reverting and forcing the editor's hand. The act of reverting should be used lightly and conservatively, and shouldn't be a knee-jerk reaction to preserve the article, especially if the reasoning behind doing so is the concern of how it will impact other articles. This is not the venue to address that. The WikiProject or MOS is a more appropriate venue for that. Also don't assume that minor changes to an article need to be discussed first. That goes against the essence of many policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, especially WP:EP. Editors are encouraged to be bold, and we don't want to stymie progress in an article for the sake of discussing every minute change prior to its adoption. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2016

In the synopsis section there is a spelling mistake... Please correct 'attrmpting' to attempting. Abhilash H N (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Done Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 11:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Synopsis

CAJH, there are no "spoilers" in Wikipedia; there is only information. I agree, the synopsis was poorly written (not by me), but it gave a basic description of the plot of the movie. If you don't want to see "spoilers", don't look up the article until you've seen the movie. I think your unilateral near deletion of the synopsis, because of the reason you stated, (if you can't do it well, don't do it at all), was against Wikipedia policy, and certainly rude. If you are not happy with what is written, replace it with something better. If what was there was not incorrect, you have no reason to delete it. (At least I try (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2016

I saw the movie and I want give info Can I write info about it? Please tell me! Thanks you

82.208.137.137 (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:SEMI. DonQuixote (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2016

In Synopsis type check "attrmpting" to kill Doomsday. 203.19.3.201 (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Already done Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Kryptonite

In regards to this edit by Batman2297, what is the evidence that "kryptonite" is supposed to be capitalized? It's consistently lower case throughout the article (Kryptonite). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Free Knowledge Creator, I agree; as you say, it is a fictional substance. There is no situation in which generic names for substances are capitalised. This includes real world references to fictional substances (in this case, us talking about kryptonite). At least I try (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Batman2297, could you please explain why you believe "kryptonite" should be capitalized? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Cast

05:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Horot (talk)Just want to make an addition to the list of casts from the movie batman v superman. You should also include Kevin Costner reprising his role as Jonathan Kent. He is in the movie, but probably goes uncreditedHorot (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC).

The film's criticisms

You should also mentions the criticisms over Jesse Eisenberg's performance of Lex Luthor. 86.43.171.72 (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that says that so that we can cite it. DonQuixote (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath for an IP to be coming back to reply. If you can't google a source slamming his terrible performance then there's something wrong with your keyboard. :P <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 11:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

North America

Hey Wikipedia! Heads up! Mexico is in North America. Yet according to this article, Mexico belongs under the subheading "Outside North America". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.227.52.167 (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the heads up. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You didn't change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.227.89.85 (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It was changed back by someone not paying attention. I've restored it. DonQuixote (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I just changed it (I'll change it back to North America) but I think Mexico should be in the "outside North America" tab. When it comes to box office, "North America" implies domestic, and Mexico is not counted in domestic amounts. TropicAces (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

We can always change the subheadings to Domestic and International. DonQuixote (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that's best. Like I said in my edit, it's awkward having an entire section about America and then "oh btw here's one sentence about Mexico!" Haha TropicAces (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Debbie Stabenow

Senator Debbie Stabenow makes a cameo as the governor of Metropolis. This should probably be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:36C8:D0E3:1E50:CA4B:4240 (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Easter Egg Links

Please don't use Easter Egg links--although those things are fine for fansites, it's not encyclopaedic and will get lost in the print version (see WP:EGG). DonQuixote (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that "the destructive battle" linking to Man of Steel is an easter egg link, as long as it is changed to link directly to the plot section there. That way, if someone clicks on those words, they will go to the section in Wikipedia that details said destructive battle, which is where they would be expecting to go. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It has to directly link to the description of the destructive battle itself, otherwise it's still an easter egg link because the plot section describes everything from the beginning of the movie and the destructive battle isn't mentioned until paragraph six of a seven-paragraph plot summary. Besides, if you're going to do that, you have to link the entire phrase "destructive battle in Metropolis" because "destructive battle" itself can describe any destructive battle (see WP:SPECIFICLINK). DonQuixote (talk) 04:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, as mentioned above, the link will get lost in the print version. This is actually the easiest way to determine an easter egg link. That is if you link [[Man of Steel (film)|destructive battle]], in the print version, it'll just read as "destructive battle" and the reader will have no idea to go to the Man of Steel article. DonQuixote (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2016

I would hardly call a 29% approval rating an indication of "mixed to negative reviews". I would change it to "generally negative reviews", as not to convey a sense of bias as plenty of other articles about films with above 30% on Rotten Tomatoes classify their subjects as having "mostly negative reviews". 86.163.234.183 (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

We aren't not saying "mixed", we are quoting critics that have summarized other critics.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. clpo13_(talk) 19:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The summary of critics scores on RT is worthless anyway. "mixed to negative, negative to mostly positive, etc.". They are generalizations and can always be worded with bias. Why can't films just have the score and be done with it? Why does it have to be summarized when the percentage does it for you? I say just leave out the summary all together. DrkBlueXG (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Batman V Superman has definitely received negative reviews from critics and a positive reaction from fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.66.197.28 (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Why no mention that the Luthor portrayed by Eisenberg is Alexander Luthor Jr.?

I have tried adding this multiple times, but just curious. Multiple reliable sources back this up and he literally says in the film that it was his fathers company who is the Lex in front of Lex Corp. JediEditor343 (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Critics Response Misleadingly structrued different than any other Wiki Film page because..?

On no other film criticism section does it start off with quotes from individual publications as if you are trying to pass off the negative review reports solely on Wall Street Journal and Newsweek (which comes off like 'this single review says') and softly present the atrocious aggregate scores underneath.

Any other page leads with Rotten Tomato scores (which comes off as EVERYONE says) and a score of 28% or less is always described as "universally panned", "mostly negative", but never "28% positive

The Rotten Tomatoes score/consensus and the Metacritic belong at the beginning like any other page, with the individual critic/publication quotes after.

The heading is 'Critics Response' not audience response. Cinemascore should never be cited - it is an aggregate audience response, biased because if opening weekend audiences will most certainly contain more over-excited fans and the response is not going to be accurate. Regardless, they are not 'Critics'. It belongs in the Box Office section - this section is for critics

It also seems the author went out of his way to find very vague quotes on both sides. The negative quotes are vague where there are hundreds online that are plainly easily 100% bashing the film that could have been chosen. And the positive quotes are actually for the most part vaguely negative but the author probably couldn't find much else to quote.

Why are there two equal paragraphs for positive and negative views when the scales are tipped 72% in the negative reviews favor? That sounds like three paragraphs to one to me. Or one long paragraph and one tiny footnote positive paragraph. But you have this presented like it's even down the middle.

I've seen the various edits to this section already and it seems like someone is trying extremely hard to soften and misrespresent the critical response of this movie despite the fact that it has been lambasted by the overwhelming majority of more than 250+ critics. Wikipedia sections should not be used for apologists, excuse makers and revisionist history

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsthemileage (talk • contribs) 15:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Some of what you say I agree with and others I don't. We shouldn't start off with reviews from others, but Rotten Tomatoes. The reviews from others should reflect what RT is saying. That said, we NEVER use "universally panned" or the like. We let the data speak for itself, or have reliable sources discuss it for us. We do not include our own POV interpretation of the data.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Bignole, we do not make POV interpretations nor do we synthesize information from published sources. Also in regards to the number of reviews, we strive make a balanced summary of the films positive and negative qualities. Just because the film received a 30% approval rating from RT, does not mean that negative reviews should outnumber positive reviews by 3:1.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No, TTT, the negative reviews outnumber the positive reviews because of that's the reality. You are engaging in what is called a false equivalence logical fallacy. There are not always two sides to everything, not when it comes to facts, and the way that fallacy plays itself here is that we have to give the people who positively reviewed this film equal weight and equal say at the expense of empiricism. Uh, well...no. The positive side of this already got equal time, it just so happened there is not much of it in the world of critical film journalism. That saying, you can have your own set of facts but not your own set of opinions, eh? It's not a matter of "should they" outnumber but the facts are "they do." When the top reviews are weighted, the majority of reviews are counted, and the media narrative is tracked thoughtfully as this story evolves, it is clear that this film has a reviewed a mostly negative reception from critics. That is not a POV interpretation when the dust settles and that is becoming the case now. It would be dishonest to suggest that the fanboy vs. hater psychology isn't effecting this film when less popular, less contentious films wouldn't have this issue. So we need to be sensitive of this, yes, on both sides. However, THAT SAID, I agree with Bignole that we let the facts tell this story. And there is a way to organize the facts so that if the truth is that the film has received "negative" or "lukewarm" or "average" reviews, that the data will choose which outcome was right and which was wrong. But we don't have to engage in a nerd affirmative action for films that are decidedly panned by critics. And we shouldn't try to find ways to shore up the positive side of the movie, as if we have some duty to do so. That's rubbish. We simply report, like journalists do, and leave the arguing about the film's worth to places like IMDB and reddit. P.S. For the record, I liked this film but I like quality wikipedia articles better and can withhold my bias.Ghriscore (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It is obvious that there is a greater number of negative reviews which is reflected by the RT score. However we do not select the number of reviews based on the RT score. We report the facts and try to surmise the films positive and negative opinions. The number of sampled reviews does not equate to the number of actual reviews. For the record, I did not select the individual critical reviews in this particular article. I am just restating how we write critical reception sections in general. To quote the MOS: "To maintain a neutral point of view, it is recommended to quote a reasonable balance of these reviews."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

We agree more than we disagree, mate. I only objected to that line where you negative reviews "shouldn't" outnumber positive reviews. Well, if an objective finding shows that it does, then should has nothing to do about it if that "would" be the case. I agree with keeping the language as neutral as possible and you will find me fighting for that balance however facts are facts and the balance is about the facts first and foremost. Not imposing balance because the minority voice, the positive reviews for this film, isn't getting its due in public. That's on the public to make more positive reviews for the film. We are just here to report it. Nuff said. Ghriscore (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2016

Under plot, second paragraph: Wayne learns that weapon trafficker Anatoli Knyazev has been contacting LexCorp's mogul Lex Luthor. Meanwhile, Luthor tries to convince Senator June Finch to allow him to import kryptonite retrieved from the Indian Ocean (results of Zod's terraforming attempt), claiming to use it as a "deterrent" against Kryptonians. He also makes side dealings with Finch's subordinate and demands access to Zod's body and the Kryptonian scout ship. In the next meeting with Luthor, Finch denies his request.

Technically, Terraforming is the act of converting a planet or moon to earth-like conditions from previous state. Key word being "earth-like". It makes no sense to terraform earth, as that would be converting earth into an earth-like planet. Silly minor detail, however I thought I would submit it.

It would be need to be Kryptoform or something to that extent, however since Terra is latin for earth and I am not sure what latin for Krypton would be, this could be difficult. Possibly need a new word? 98.158.12.45 (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

We are not creating the word. It's the word used in the film. Not because they don't know what terraforming is, but because there wasn't an equivalent word and they didn't know what "Krypton" was. In this case, there isn't an issue.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The word "terra-forming" literally means "Earth shaping", per the wikipedia page, so I think that using it to mean shaping the Earth probably *does* make sense.